House of Commons
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Caroline Dinenage)
We are committed to ensuring that we have the high-quality, affordable childcare that families need, and are on track to deliver 30 hours of childcare to working parents. We are investing record funding of £1 billion per year by 2020 and have announced a fairer early-years funding system. Eight early implementer areas are already providing nearly 4,000 places one year early.
Andrew Bingham
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Last week I visited Hadfield Nursery School in my constituency. That excellent and very well respected local nursery is a maintained nursery. It is concerned about the level of funding it will receive when the 30 hours provision comes in. Will she give us some reassurance on that, and would she like to visit Hadfield Nursery School, because it does a great job and everyone there would be delighted to see her?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank my hon. Friend for that very kind invitation. I would be more than happy to visit both him and the Hadfield Nursery School in his beautiful High Peak constituency. He is right to highlight the importance of maintained nursery schools. We have committed to providing local authorities with an additional £55 million per year for nursery schools until at least the end of this Parliament.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
On the same subject, is it not really the case that the 30 hour promise is being funded by stealing resources from state-run nurseries that employ fully qualified headteachers and staff? Will the Secretary of State tell us what analysis she has undertaken of the damage that will be done by the cuts she is making to the funding of state-run nursery schools?
Caroline Dinenage
That is a rather churlish comment, if you do not mind my saying so, Mr Speaker. We are investing more money in this policy than any Government have ever spent on it before, some £6 billion. The hon. Gentleman needs to be a little more appreciative.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I assure the Minister that working parents in my constituency very much welcome 30 hours of free childcare for their children. Will she set out for them, and in particular for those with disabled children, how she will make sure there will be sufficient funding to give disabled children the best start in life through that 30 hours scheme?
Caroline Dinenage
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was at Sheringham Nursery School in Newham last week, which is an early implementer and is already seeing the massive difference the scheme is making to working families. There is an inclusion fund that will go to children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I hope the Minister agrees that the early-years pupil premium provides vital support to some of our most disadvantaged children. Like the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), we know that nurseries are facing financial pressure now, and many worry that they will not be able to care for the most vulnerable children when the 30 hours scheme is introduced. Will she therefore guarantee that all of the £50 million early-years pupil premium money will go to our most vulnerable children, and that that vital resource will not be cut this Parliament?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes. The pupil premium, which we introduced, will continue and will continue to go to the most vulnerable children.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
We are committed to making sure that as many children as possible have a good place at school. The latest Ofsted annual report clearly shows that standards have risen compared with 2010, with almost 1.8 million more pupils now taught in good or outstanding schools. Proposals on additional measures to increase the supply of good new school places are set out in the “Schools that work for everyone” consultation.
Wendy Morton
I welcome that very encouraging reply from the Secretary of State. One issue raised with me by constituents and school governors is securing school places for siblings so that brothers and sisters can attend the same school. Will my right hon. Friend look at that as part of her plans to improve the number of places available?
Justine Greening
Any changes to the overall operation of the code would of course be scrutinised by this House. My hon. Friend will probably be aware that admissions authorities are responsible for setting their own admissions arrangements, but the code already allows them to prioritise siblings, and some admissions authorities already choose to do so.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Headteachers in my constituency tell me that their efforts to get their schools to become good or outstanding are sometimes stymied by changing expectations from Government and changes that they feel are not evidence-based. Will the Secretary of State reassure headteachers in Bristol West that expectations will not keep changing without a very good reason?
Justine Greening
I had a chance to visit a Bristol school last week, which was a fantastic opportunity. That school is working with Bristol University. On our continued reforms, we want to make sure that we see improvements in classrooms. The hon. Lady will no doubt welcome our recent launch of the strategic school improvement fund. That fund is about making sure we can get the investment to schools that need to improve quickly and effectively.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Good and outstanding secondary school provision must include the provision of technical and professional education, which is essential for our skills base for the future. Does the Secretary of State agree that university technical colleges play a really important role in that and can and should be good or outstanding?
Justine Greening
I agree. As with all schools, we expect them to deliver high standards. I had the chance recently to go to Didcot UTC, which provides a fantastic education—a very different education perhaps, but one that works for them and their interests. It is getting very good results because of that.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is my understanding that in the past two years, over 60 schools have been rated inadequate where an academy order has been issued but a sponsor has yet to be identified. How does that uncertainty help to improve standards in those schools?
Justine Greening
We are committed to ensuring, when we see schools not achieving the results they need for their children, that we have a strong approach that steadily improves the schools and works with them to improve. Where they cannot improve, we want to ensure that, through academisation, changes take place in terms of leadership and school sponsorship that mean schools have the flexibility and the freedom to be able to get better.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
As a former Acton resident, the Secretary of State will I am sure share the concern of local parents that the Ark primary school—secured with much fanfare in East Acton to match its near neighbour, which has an outstanding reputation—now has a full roll of students and a secured site but no physical building. Will she do everything she can to pressure the education funding authority to find the shortfall that Balfour Beatty wants for its bid price? East Acton is the most deprived ward of Ealing borough. It is in the bottom decile for the whole country and—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady has made her point with great force and eloquence, but it does not need to be made at any greater length.
Justine Greening
As the hon. Lady recognises, I very much enjoyed living in Acton. It is important to raise standards in Acton schools. I will look very carefully at the particular issue she raises and perhaps write to her to find out what we can do to speed things up.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Easingwold school in my constituency—I must declare an interest as two of my children attend this school, but so do 1,000 other children—has been placed in special measures and will now, of course, become an academy, which I support. The choice of academy has been announced and subsequently retracted, pending surveys of the school. Clearly, either the process is flawed or the way this has been handled is flawed. Will the Secretary of State look at this matter urgently to resolve these problems?
Justine Greening
I am aware of this matter, because my hon. Friend has played his role as a fantastic local MP and already raised it with me. The Department is looking to see whether we can make sure the barriers preventing the school from getting a great sponsor that will help to improve it, not just for his own children but for all the children, can be quickly removed.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
Multi-academy trusts enable the sharing of staff and expertise that can help to foster truly excellent special educational needs provision. Special schools can be successful both in multi-academy trusts that specialise wholly in supporting children with special education needs, as well as in multi-academy trusts that offer special provision alongside mainstream provision. Some examples of multi-academy trusts that offer special provision can be found in our new good practice guidance, published on 9 December.
James Duddridge
I was going to ask the Minister to issue further guidance. I do not think the 9 December guidance had been issued when I tabled the question, so I am grateful for that and encourage him to look at special needs schools operating within multi-academy trusts solely as special needs schools. There is an enormous difference in special needs schools between thousands of pupils and hundreds of pupils.
Mr Speaker
I hope the hon. Gentleman is encouraged by the power of his own question tabling.
Edward Timpson
I expect nothing less from my hon. Friend in terms of the pressure he is able to bring to bear on the Government. He raises an important issue. We continue to support and provide guidance for the growing number of MATs in this area. I encourage any newly forming MATs to get in touch with their regional schools commissioner, who will be able to support them and help to direct them towards further sources of support.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I thank the Minister for meeting me a few weeks ago to discuss the contents of my ten-minute rule Bill on special needs and, in particular, on the admission of autistic children to schools. He mentioned at that time that the arrangements were not ideal and needed some adjustment. He mentioned a consultation. Can he please give us any more information on that?
Edward Timpson
I welcome my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill and have a lot of sympathy for the cause it enshrines. I can commit to a consultation early in the new year, and I know that he and others who are interested in this issue will want to contribute.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
Great teachers are critical to improving educational outcomes. Teaching is a profession, and we support the professional development of teachers, including through the new £74.2 million teaching and leadership innovation fund and the new charter college of teaching. We are also investing in improving curriculum expertise and specialism, particularly in maths, which I saw for myself first hand on a recent visit to Shanghai, China.
Lucy Frazer
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. In “Education Excellence Everywhere”, a paper produced in March 2016, there was a good proposal for a free national teacher vacancy website to ensure that the costs of recruitment were kept down for schools. What progress is the Secretary of State making on that proposal?
Justine Greening
My hon. and learned Friend mentions the commitment we made in the March White Paper to a website offering a free route for schools to advertise teacher vacancies and, in doing so, providing teachers with easier access to information about job opportunities. We have worked closely with schools and teachers, and we are testing out different approaches to how to deliver that website most effectively, so we can make sure that it will be of maximum value to all schools.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Whenever I meet young people in my constituency, they tell me that the thing that could most affect their educational outcomes is a curriculum for life and compulsory personal, social and health education in all schools. The curriculum is inadequate, having been last updated before Facebook was even invented, and teachers go unsupported and untrained. If yesterday’s briefings to the newspapers are to be believed, the Government are considering bringing in compulsory PSHE. Is this true and, if so, when will it happen? It is urgent.
Justine Greening
I was very clear in my first Education Committee appearance that I felt this was an area that we needed actively to look at, which is what we are doing. It is not just a question of updating the guidance; it is about the schools where it is taught—and, I would say, the quality of the teaching that happens as well.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Justine Greening
I think it has worked fantastically well so far. Over the last two years, we have seen 131 teachers from England visiting Shanghai and 127 teachers from Shanghai visiting English schools, and through that exchange our teachers have observed Shanghai teaching methods. In the 48 schools participating in the study, the teachers have implemented changes, which have led to increased enthusiasm for mathematics—hopefully as strong as my hon. Friend’s was at school—deeper engagement, increased confidence and, critically, higher attainment.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
One of the best ways to support teachers in improving educational outcomes, particularly for children with special needs, is through the pupil premium. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain why the level of the pupil premium has been frozen at current levels through this Parliament?
Justine Greening
The pupil premium was introduced by the previous coalition Government and it is continuing to be supported throughout this Parliament precisely to make sure that funding gets to those children who need it most. Last week, I announced the national funding formula, which also prioritises resources going towards disadvantaged children.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know how traumatic it is for students and teachers to get children through GCSE maths and English resits, which can often blight their post-GCSE studies. Can we have a curriculum that is vocationally based for numeracy and literacy, which would give people the skills they need for work—without having to go through this traumatic and often wasteful experience?
Justine Greening
It is important that all children leave our education system with something to show for their names, particularly in maths and English—ideally at a level congruent with their potential. We brought in the GCSE resit policy, because we think that students who achieved a D grade and were therefore pretty close to the better standard should have another go at doing so. However, the functional skills qualifications have been well received by employers and we want to look at how they can also play a role in enabling all our young people to show their accomplishments.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Grammar schools represent the Prime Minister’s flagship policy for improving outcomes, but according to today’s edition of The Independent, officials in the Department have said that there is no chance of a new selective school before 2020. Will the Secretary of State tell us how many selective schools will be built during the current Parliament?
Justine Greening
The consultation finished last week, and we will now look at the responses. However, I think we should recognise that we need an education system that provides more good school places, especially for children living in parts of the country that do not have access to them. I hope that, rather than carping without making any suggestions, we can have a good debate following the consultation, and also provide those additional grammar school places.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
The school workforce census reports a fairly constant vacancy rate of 0.2% of teachers in post. New analysis, published in September, of the proportion of schools with at least one vacancy showed some variation between regions since 2010, with London consistently having the highest proportion of vacancies. The Department is trying to identify the schools that are experiencing the greatest teacher shortages and help them to meet those challenges.
Bridget Phillipson
Good teaching depends on retaining good teachers in the profession. Does the Minister not accept that the consistent underfunding of schools in disadvantaged areas such as the north-east makes retaining teachers very difficult? Will he look again at the area cost adjustment of the national funding formula, which could well have the perverse effect of sending money away from disadvantaged areas and into more affluent ones?
Mr Gibb
We have protected the core schools budget in real terms throughout this Parliament and the last. Moreover, we have grasped the nettle and introduced fair funding, which the Labour party failed to do throughout its time in office. One of the elements of that fair funding is ensuring that there are sufficient funds to tackle disadvantage and lower prior attainment.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Schools in Somerset have great teachers, but find it hard to recruit. Does my hon. Friend agree that adjusting the funding formula will help rural areas such as mine to attract and retain excellent teachers?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend is right. Authorities around the country, particularly those in the f40 group, have been underfunded for many years. As I said to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), we were the first Government to grasp the nettle and introduce a much fairer system to replace those historic, anachronistic and unfair national funding formulas.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Following last week’s announcement of the proposed funding formula, may I ask the Minister how it will help us to recruit and retain teachers, given that all but one of the secondary schools in my constituency will lose money as a result of the formula?
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
If an outstanding academy in the New Forest, minutes from the seaside, is finding it difficult to recruit an English teacher, what hope is there for schools anywhere else?
Mr Gibb
My right hon. Friend has raised an important point. The national fair funding formula will help schools to acquire the resources that will enable them to use the discretion that we have given them in respect of how they reward teachers, especially teachers of certain subjects whom it is difficult to recruit.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
May I take this opportunity to wish the House Nollaig Chridheil agus Bliadhna Mhath Ùr?
The Association of School and College Leaders has warned that opening new grammar schools may worsen teacher recruitment. Does the Minister not think that priority should be given to incentivising teacher recruitment and retention, rather than taking the retrograde step of providing new grammars that will do nothing for teachers, pupils or parents?
Mr Gibb
We are prioritising teacher recruitment. We met 94% of our target last year and 93% this year, and we are recruiting more teachers in sciences than before. I think that the hon. Lady should take account of the number of teachers who are entering teacher training. She should also acknowledge that there are 456,000 teachers in our schools today, which is an all-time high, and that there are 15,000 more teachers today than there were in 2010.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Robert Halfon)
May I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he does in the all-party group on education?
Helping all young people to get the careers education and guidance they need to climb the ladder of opportunity is crucial to delivering real social mobility, and that is why we are investing £90 million over the Parliament to ensure that every young person has access to advice and inspiration to fulfil their potential. This includes further funding for the Careers & Enterprise Company to continue the excellent work it has started, including £1 million for the first six opportunity areas.
Danny Kinahan
I thank the Minister for that answer. The all-party group on education is conducting an inquiry into how we prepare young children for the careers of the future, and specifically that seems to require not just the academic skills, but the also the soft skills. Do the Government feel they are doing that ably enough, or are there to be changes? Also, will the Minister attend the launch of our document when it is produced on 7 February?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point: not enough schools are encouraging their children to do not just soft skills, but all skills, and technical education and apprenticeships. We are working hard to change that. We have made sure that schools have to talk about apprenticeships and skills when giving careers advice. As I have said, we are investing many millions of pounds into the Careers & Enterprise Company, which is going to look after 250,000 students in some of the areas of the country that have the least careers provision. We are doing everything we can. In terms of the important event the hon. Gentleman mentions, I will do my best to attend, but will have to check the diary.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
The Minister is right: the introduction of the Careers & Enterprise Company will do a great deal to improve careers advice among secondary school students. However, to encourage more girls into a science, technology, engineering and maths career we have to start earlier, in primary schools. Can he confirm that increasing diversity in STEM careers that lead to greater productivity will form a central part of the STEM-related industrial strategy, and will he work with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to do so?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is right: we need to do everything possible to ensure that young people do STEM subjects and that we encourage them to do so. That is why we are investing a lot in STEM apprenticeships. It is also why the get in, go far campaign focuses heavily on STEM subjects and encourages more women to do apprenticeships and to have the skills we need.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am glad to hear the Minister’s support for young people studying STEM subjects. Does he therefore share my disappointment that GCSEs in environmental science and environmental and land-based science have now been discontinued?
Robert Halfon
There are alternative qualifications, but I would add that we are creating a state-of-the-art technical education system with 15 different pathways, which will have important technical routes and qualifications. They will have prestige and give employers the qualifications they need.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Minister knows that university technical colleges can be a fantastic route into apprenticeships, degrees and jobs. The proposed Gloucestershire university health UTC will be a magnificent example of this, but when will the delayed deadline for UTC applications be announced?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of UTCs, and he has been an incredible champion of apprenticeships and skills in his own constituency since being elected. I will speak to my noble Friend Lord Nash, the UTC Minister, about the specific question he raises.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Robert Halfon)
Following the European Union referendum on 23 June we are considering all aspects of how the vote of the people of the UK to leave the EU might impact on further education institutions. This includes consideration of institutions’ access to EU funding sources. We are committed to ensuring the FE sector remains effective in delivering learning that provides individuals with the skills the economy needs for growth.
Natalie McGarry
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has committed to stability and certainty in the period leading up to our departure from the EU. Further education institutions in Glasgow—including Glasgow Kelvin College in my constituency—and across the UK will need that certainty in any post-Brexit scenario. Those colleges have benefited from European social funding to the tune of £1.5 million this year alone. Brexit was not a matter of Scotland’s choosing or of Glasgow’s choosing. Will the Government commit to abandoning the empty “Brexit means Brexit” rhetoric, publishing detailed plans, providing certainty and standing by our colleges on funding?
Robert Halfon
Leaving the European Union will mean that we will want to take our own decisions on how to deliver the policy objectives previously targeted by EU funding. The Government are consulting closely with stakeholders to review all EU funding schemes in the round, to ensure that any ongoing funding commitments best serve the UK’s national interest while ensuring appropriate certainty.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Given that all EU spending in Britain is simply returning part of our gross contribution to the EU budget, would it not be sensible for the Government simply to commit now to replacing EU funding with UK Exchequer funding, thereby keeping everyone happy?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I have just said, the fact that the British people voted to leave the EU means that the United Kingdom Government will decide how best to spend the money that was previously going to the European Union.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Colleges Scotland has received more than £250 million in EU funding in the past 10 years to help fund capital projects. Given that it was this Government who gambled away Scotland’s EU membership, what is the likelihood of their replacing this type of vital funding in the years ahead?
Robert Halfon
I find it interesting, given that the hon. Lady’s party’s position is to campaign for more powers to go from Westminster to Scotland, that she would rather have funding decisions made by an authority in the European Union than by one in Scotland. Having said that, she will know that the Chancellor has announced that the Treasury will guarantee structural and investment funding bids that are signed before the UK leaves the EU. This includes funding for projects agreed after the autumn statement, provided that they represent good value for money and are in line with the Government’s strategic priorities, even if they continue beyond the UK’s departure from the EU.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Our further education colleges benefit hugely from European structural funds such as the European social fund, as has been mentioned. The Government told me in February that the Skills Funding Agency had received £725 million from the European social fund, and that in 2014-15, £120 million went directly to FE colleges from European funding. That money guarantees thousands of apprenticeships, jobs and new skills. Can the Minister guarantee that the Government will replace that £120 million after Brexit? Will FE colleges that provide higher education courses then get the same Government guarantees on replacement funding as universities?
Robert Halfon
I had hoped that, in the spirit of Christmas, the hon. Gentleman might have welcomed the 900,000 apprenticeship participation figure, the highest on record in our island’s history. As I have said, access to European funding is just one aspect of college business that will be impacted by the decision to leave the European Union. We are considering all the aspects of how FE colleges could be affected. It is also worth noting that, by 2020, the adult FE budget will be the highest in the nation’s history if we include apprenticeships and adult learner loans in the budget as a whole.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Robert Halfon)
All this getting up and down is good practice for Christmas—
Mr Speaker
Order. If the Minister knows that he is going to answer the next question, he is very welcome to remain standing at the Dispatch Box. No one would think that there was anything disorderly or unreasonable about that, and he should feel welcome to do so.
Robert Halfon
Thank you, Mr Speaker, but it is good for the calories in advance of Christmas.
We are committed to ensuring that apprenticeships are as accessible as possible to all people from all backgrounds, and we are making available more than £60 million to support apprenticeship take-up by individuals from disadvantaged areas. Our get in, go far campaign aims to encourage more young people to apply for an apprenticeship and more employers to offer opportunities. We are increasing the number of traineeships to further support young people into apprenticeships and other work.
John Howell
What measures is the Minister putting in place to overcome the barriers to accessing apprenticeships and to ensure that schools’ promotion of apprenticeships is good?
Robert Halfon
I mentioned that we are putting £60 million into deprived areas to encourage trainers to take apprentices from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. We are putting a lot of funding into helping 16 to 18-year-olds into apprenticeships by supporting businesses and providers. We are supporting health and social care apprenticeships if the local authority has a health and social care plan. We are also supporting apprentices with disabilities and giving £12 million to the Union Learning Fund. This Government are committed to ensuring that the most disadvantaged people can do apprenticeships and get on the ladder of opportunity for the jobs and skills of the future.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
From next April, many schools will have to pay the apprenticeship levy—yet another cost. For one Hounslow school, it will mean an additional cost of £15,000. Will the Minister agree to meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and concerned headteachers in Hounslow to discuss the levy’s impact on schools and academies?
Robert Halfon
I am of course happy to meet the hon. Lady, but the whole idea of the apprenticeship levy is to change behaviours and ensure that we become an apprenticeship and skills nation. If the school that she describes has apprentices that meet the needs of the levy, not only will they not pay any levy but they will get 10% on top.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Small businesses often give apprentices the best experience, but they find it difficult to offer the time and resources to support them. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage small businesses in particular to take on more apprentices?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is a champion of small business, both in his constituency and in the House. We are doing huge amounts to support small businesses to take on young apprentices, including a huge financial incentive for both providers and businesses. Very small businesses do not have to pay any training costs if they have 16 to 18-year-olds. We have also cut national insurance contributions for employers when apprentices are aged under 25.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The apprenticeship scheme must be and should be better publicised both in high schools and, I suggest, in primary schools to encourage those who do not feel comfortable in academia to understand that other options are available. Will the Minister specify how the Department plans to implement any such publication system in schools?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, as he so often does. Wherever I go around the country to meet apprentices, I often find that they have not been encouraged by their schools. We are looking hard at how to ensure that careers guidance encourages skills apprenticeships and technical education. As I said, we are investing £90 million in careers, including in the Careers & Enterprise Company, which has some 1,300 advisers in schools around the country getting kids to do work experience and acquire the skills they need.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
We are committed to tackling educational inequality so that all pupils can fulfil their potential. We welcome the important contribution that Sir Nick Weller’s report is making towards delivering that objective, including its recognition of the benefits of an academic curriculum and robust governance structures.
Diana Johnson
Northern schools have been improving, but there is more to do. A northern powerhouse challenge that is as well funded as the London Challenge programme was under the Labour Government would be welcome for schools such as the McMillan Nursery School in my constituency—an outstanding school led by an excellent headteacher, Andrew Shimmin, and his staff. What support will be available to schools such as that, which is already doing its best in a disadvantaged area?
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
The Minister knows that Trafford is the best performing local authority area in the north of England, yet it is also one of the f40 group of worst-funded authorities. I am sure he can imagine the concern that last week’s draft funding formula will lead to all secondary schools and a number of primary schools being worse off. Will he look at the nature of the funding formula as a matter of urgency to ensure real fairness to those authorities that have been underfunded?
Mr Gibb
Overall, f40 authorities will see significant gains through the national funding formula—some £210 million in total. I acknowledge that in Trafford there is a loss of 0.4%, but the current local formula there underfunds primary schools compared with secondary schools. Trafford gives £4,212 for each key stage 3 pupil but the figure for primaries is only £2,642. Under the proposed NFF, Trafford’s secondary schools will lose but its primaries will gain.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
The Education Policy Institute found that academy trusts are no better at raising standards than local authorities, so why does Nick Weller’s report say that expanding multi-academy trusts is
“key to driving up standards in the North”?
Is it because he is very well paid by a multi-academy trust, or is there perchance any evidence for what he suggests?
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
One cause of the underperformance in northern schools that the report identifies is the challenge of teacher supply. Does the Minister agree that one way of improving that would be to recruit more former members of the armed forces into our teaching profession?
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
We have not permanently closed any converter academies within three years of their conversion to a single trust academy. However, we have rebrokered or merged converter academies.
Steve McCabe
If no school has been closed within three years of such a conversion and no academy closed solely as a result of a bad Ofsted report, and if there is no reliable estimate of the costs of closure or of the availability of alternative places, future demand, real travel patterns and journey times to alternative schools, how do the Government justify reneging on their promise to pupils and parents to rescue Baverstock Academy in my constituency, rather than close their school?
Justine Greening
No decision has been taken yet by Ministers on the future of Baverstock Academy, which has twice now been put into special measures by Ofsted. Ministers are going to consider all options, and of course the view of parents and the community, before reaching a final decision. The key factor will be ensuring that children get good access to a good education.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
Increasing educational opportunity for disadvantaged pupils underpins our commitment to make sure that our country works for everyone, and through the pupil premium, worth £2.5 billion this year alone, we are narrowing the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. That can be seen in Eversley Primary School in Enfield, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate it on its excellent work on the pupil premium and on winning the high aspiration award.
Mr Burrowes
I thank the Secretary of State for that response, recognising the great work of Eversley school, among others, in my borough. I wish to draw on the responses from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills and touch on the “Getting ready for work” report. Given that school links with local employers have let down the most vulnerable, in particular, may I commend to the Secretary of State the good example of Transport for London’s Steps into Work programme, which is bucking the national trend; instead of only 6% of those with learning disabilities getting into work, some 57% are doing so.
Justine Greening
I am aware of that programme, and indeed as part of our opportunities area work we are working with both the CBI and the Careers & Enterprise Company to strengthen links between employers and schools. The TfL programme shows how, when we get a closer relationship between employers, local schools and young people, especially those with learning disabilities, it can really make a difference in employment rates.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State must know that there is a serious problem whereby disadvantaged young people are identified to be clever and bright up to the age of 11, in good primary schools, but then we lose them and they fail in secondary. I know she is reluctant ever to answer a question about skills and apprenticeships, but is she also aware of how many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are locked into the further education system, unable to get their GCSEs in maths and English? When is she going to do something about that? We are talking about tens of thousands of young people.
Justine Greening
At key stage 4, the attainment gap between more disadvantaged young people and those who start off from better backgrounds has been getting lower. That is, in part, because we are putting resources into the system, but we are also steadily improving the system itself. The hon. Gentleman talks about further education: one of our key aims across this Parliament is to make sure that technical education delivers the same gold-standard education as academic education delivers for those following academic routes.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
In answer to my earlier question, the Secretary of State failed to commit to building a new selective school during this Parliament. Today the Education Policy Institute has released evidence showing that the 11-plus test cannot be tutor-proofed. Does she agree that selection at 11 will favour families that can afford it and do nothing to improve the educational outcomes of the most disadvantaged pupils?
Justine Greening
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As usual, we have had criticism from the Opposition, but no alternative policies whatever—and, indeed, a continued failure to set out whether they would close existing grammars. It would be fantastic to get clarity at some stage on Labour party policy. We want more good school places for children, particularly disadvantaged children. We know that disadvantaged children on free school meals who get into grammars see their attainment gap close by the time they leave.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
The new national curriculum that came into force in September 2014 expects every pupil to know their multiplication tables to 12 times 12 by the end of year 4.
Mr Gibb
Well done! We have strengthened primary maths assessment to prioritise fluency in written calculation and we have removed the use of calculators from key stage 2 tests.
We have not made an assessment of the proportion of children in Northamptonshire or England who know their multiplication tables by heart, but we have pledged to introduce a multiplication tables check for primary school pupils in England to ensure that every child leaves primary school fluent in their times tables up to and including 12 times 12, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) says, is 144.
Mr Hollobone
Does the Minister agree that learning the times tables is an absolutely essential part of success at maths? What is the Government’s official view on the best way for times tables to be taught and learned?
Mr Gibb
We do not have an official way for times tables to be taught, but we expect every child to know their tables. The provision is inserted into year 4 so that children are fluent in their tables, can recall them with automaticity and can then tackle long multiplication and long division in years 5 and 6.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
We want all pupils to be healthy and active and have the opportunity to engage in sport and physical activity. That is why physical education remains a compulsory subject at all four key stages in the national curriculum. Since 2013, we have given more than £600 million directly to primary schools to improve the breadth and quality of PE and sport provision; that will double to £320 million a year from 2017.
David Rutley
Given the urgent need to tackle child obesity and physical inactivity, will my hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to work with organisations such as ukactive, the Outdoor Industry Association and The Daily Mile foundation, as well as local organisations such as Active Cheshire, to follow the example of Upton Priory School, where my daughter goes, to take forward more Daily Mile initiatives?
Edward Timpson
As a fellow Cheshire MP, I am aware of some of the excellent work that local schools and local groups, such as Active Cheshire, do in partnership. We welcome initiatives such as the Daily Mile, and I will be meeting the foundation in the new year. They all help teachers who have the autonomy to make good decisions on behalf of their pupils to have an array of excellent quality initiatives to use. We continue to promote those through county sport partnerships.
Mr Speaker
The Minister is too modest in declining to take the opportunity to say that he has, over many years, led by example through his repeated and impressive marathon running, with which the whole House should by now be well familiar.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Physical activity is really important to equip the next generation with the skills to contend with both their physical and mental health. Alone, however, it will not contend with our nation’s obesity crisis; we know from the child measurement figures how challenging that issue is for our country. Will the Government be bringing forward compulsory personal, social, health and economic education so that we can equip the next generation with the knowledge and skills to know what they should be eating as well as what physical activity they should be doing?
Edward Timpson
I have already told the House that PE is compulsory at all four key stages. The Secretary of State has set out the need to improve the access to, and the quality of, PSHE, and we are continuing to look at that very carefully. Just to stop the press, I will be taking part in the London marathon again next year to continue my efforts to lead by example.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
May I, too, wish everybody in the House a happy Christmas?
The latest Ofsted figures show that there are now nearly 1.8 million more children being taught in good or outstanding schools than in 2010. Our Schools that Work for Everyone consultation has now ended, and we look forward to responding to that in due course. In the past few weeks, we have announced a £140 million strategic school improvement fund and published the next stage of the consultation on our national fairer funding formula for schools across England, which will finally bring an end to the historical postcode lottery on school funding. I also had the chance to see our excellent teacher exchange programme in Shanghai, China, earlier this month, as well as to visit many great schools in our own country.
Nigel Huddleston
Team GB gave an incredible performance at this year’s Rio Olympic games, bringing home 67 medals. One third of the medal winners went to private schools, compared with 7% of the population. What else are the Government doing to encourage even greater participation in sport in our state schools?
Justine Greening
Since 2013, we have provided over £600 million to primary schools through the primary PE and sport premium, which is steadily starting to make a difference. In fact, in independent research, schools reported an 84% increase in participation in extracurricular activities. But we know there is a lot more to do, which is why we have doubled the premium to £320 million a year from autumn 2017.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I, too, would like to wish the Secretary of State and all Members of the House a merry Christmas, but it ain’t going to be a very merry Christmas for our schools. The recent Government consultation document says there will be a floor on schools’ funding so that no school will lose more than 3% of its funding per pupil as a result of the changes to the funding formula—a hugely necessary protection, as some schools face cuts that are too severe to manage. Not only has the National Audit Office shown that, despite the floor, schools are facing funding cuts of 8% per pupil, but it has criticised the Department for failing to make the scale of the coming cuts clear. The Secretary of State has two choices—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady will resume her seat. I am sorry, but if we are going to have a right for the Opposition Front Bench to come in on topicals—I make this clear now, with immediate effect—it must be done very briefly; otherwise, it completely absorbs the time that is for Back Benchers. A single sentence from the hon. Lady will suffice.
Angela Rayner
Thank you—sorry, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has two choices: will she cut the funding in 2020, or will she issue guidance to schools on what those cuts will be?
Justine Greening
We are consulting on proposals for a new national funding formula. I think everybody accepts the current system is unfair, untransparent and out of date, and it does not support our aspiration for all children to be able to reach their potential and succeed in adult life. There is often little or no justification for the differences that local areas and schools get at the moment. The consultation is now under way, and I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to respond to it.
Angela Rayner
The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), is the most recent senior Conservative to say that the Prime Minister’s plans to include international students in migration figures are not sensible. Will the Secretary of State join the Opposition and commit to doing everything she can to reverse this foolish policy and to ensure that students are removed from the migration statistics?
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
We value the very significant contribution that international students make to our universities. We welcome them, and we have no plans to introduce a cap on intake. As the Secretary of State recently announced, we will shortly be seeking views on the study immigration route, and all interested parties, including the Opposition, should ensure their point of view is heard.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Caroline Dinenage)
Maintained nursery schools are a very small but very important part of the early years sector, providing high-quality childcare and education often in areas of disadvantage. They have a potentially important role in shaping best practice with other providers in their area. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and representatives of Pen Green to discuss this further.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Justine Greening
In fact, under the national funding formula that we announced last week in relation to starting the consultation on high needs, no local areas will lose out. Indeed, we have been able not only to do that but to ensure that the areas that have been underfunded will be able to gain up to 3% over 2018-19 and 2019-20.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
I share my hon. Friend’s justifiable concern. We want all schools to use evidence-based teaching such as systematic synthetic phonics and maths mastery. To help spread effective practice, we have established a national network of teaching schools, as well as school partnerships led by schools that excel in the teaching of maths, phonics, and science.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Joseph Johnson
No decision has yet been taken on the best way to differentiate in order to allow our best institutions to continue to attract international students. The Home Secretary has indicated that she will start a consultation in the new year, and all parties are encouraged to contribute to it.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
Every child and young person should be able to enjoy good mental health and well-being. My hon. Friend is right to raise the serious concerns about self-harm. That is why we are working closely with the Department of Health to tackle it by funding guidance for schools on teaching about it, and information and training for professionals and parents through the MindEd web portal, as well as providing funding to the YoungMinds parents’ helpline and to the NSPCC’s invaluable Childline. However, we know that there is more to do.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman will have seen the amendment that the Government tabled to the Bill ensuring that there will be at least one member of the UKRI board with experience of the excellent research that goes on in at least one of our devolved Administrations.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Lady will be encouraged to see that spending on access agreements will increase to some £800 million in the next financial year, up from about £400 million when the previous coalition Government came into office, almost doubling the amount being spent on this important area.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State will remember the historical and ongoing problems with flooding at Tipton St John Primary School. Will she announce an early Christmas present for the people of Tipton St John and of Ottery St Mary by announcing that her Department is going to contribute to the funding solution to relocate the school to Ottery St Mary?
Mr Gibb
Following my right hon. Friend’s meeting on 12 October with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and county representatives to consider plans to relocate the school, a feasibility study was submitted to the Education Funding Agency. Officials have reviewed the report and have been in dialogue with Devon County Council to address outstanding issues. Once those are resolved, a decision can be taken about whether any central funding contribution can be made, and whether my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) will have a Christmas present.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Given the contribution of EU nationals to the overall numbers of teachers and lecturers, what contingency plans do Ministers have should that source of recruitment diminish?
Joseph Johnson
As I said in an earlier answer, this Government welcome strongly the contribution that EU and international students make to our higher education institutions. There is no plan to introduce a cap on the number of international students. We continue to welcome EU students.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
The superb schools across my constituency of Wealden face the double financial whammy of being both rural and small. Under the new funding formula, only eight schools will get an uplift. May I urge Ministers to look again at the schools in Wealden that do not regularly hit the traditional markers of deprivation?
Justine Greening
We have kicked off a consultation on introducing a national funding formula. As my hon. Friend points out, we have tried to make sure that it reflects factors that affect schools in more remote locations, as well as those with higher cost bases under the additional costs allowance. She has obviously looked at the impacts on her local schools and I am sure that she will want to provide input into the consultation.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Last Tuesday, more than 2,000 people filled Nottingham’s royal concert hall to hear hundreds of schoolchildren singing and playing together in the Nottingham Music Service “Christmas in the City” concert. Does the Secretary of State agree that the opportunity to learn to play music is hugely important in building children’s confidence and their enjoyment of school, and will she visit Nottingham Music Service to hear more about the wonderful work it is doing in our city schools, where more than 8,000 students are learning to play a musical instrument?
Justine Greening
We have announced £300 million for music and the arts. As someone who had the chance to play music during my school years, I know how important it is. I very much hope that those children will get the benefit of the ongoing investment that this Government are putting in.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Shortage of time is good reason to call a master of brevity: Mr John Redwood.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
When will pupils be able to take up places in the new grammars envisaged in the Secretary of State’s policy?
Justine Greening
Once we have got through the response to our consultation and, I hope, had the chance to change the law that prevents grammars from being opened, I hope that we will be able to make some progress.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Finally, whether she is a mistress of brevity or not, I call Fiona Mactaggart.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Headteachers in Slough schools were very grateful to the Minister for School Standards when he met them to discuss teacher shortages. Unfortunately—I am sorry to bring this to the Chamber—I have reminded him twice since then that they have not received the letter that he promised them at that meeting. Can I expect it to be sent before Christmas?
Mr Gibb
I will do my utmost to ensure that they receive a letter. I enjoyed meeting them and they raised some very important points, but we are ensuring that we are filling teacher training places. There are more teachers in our initial teacher training system now than there were last year.
European Council 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council.
Both the UK and the rest of the EU are preparing for the negotiations that will begin when we trigger article 50 before the end of March next year, but the main focus of this Council was, rightly, on how we can work together to address some of the most pressing challenges that we face. These include responding to the migration crisis, strengthening Europe’s security and helping to alleviate the suffering in Syria. As I have said, for as long as the UK is a member of the EU we will continue to play our full part, and that is what this Council showed, with the UK making a significant contribution on each of those issues.
On migration, from the outset the UK has pushed for a comprehensive approach that focuses on the root causes of migration as the best way to reduce the number of people coming to Europe. I have called for more action in source and transit countries to disrupt the smuggling networks, to improve local capacity to control borders, and to support sustainable livelihoods, both for people living there and for refugees. I have also said that we must better distinguish between economic migrants and refugees, swiftly returning those who have no right to remain and thereby sending out a deterrence message to others thinking of embarking on perilous journeys.
The Council agreed to action in all these areas, and the UK remains fully committed to playing our part. We have already provided training to the Libyan coastguard. The Royal Navy is providing practical support in the Mediterranean and Aegean. We will also deploy 40 additional specialist staff to the Greek islands to accelerate the processing of claims, particularly from Iraqi, Afghan and Eritrean nationals, and to help to return those who have no right to stay. Ultimately, we need a long-term, sustainable approach, for that is the best way to retain the consent of our people to provide support and sanctuary to those most in need.
I turn to security and defence. Whether it is deterring Russian aggression, countering terrorism or fighting organised crime, the UK remains firmly committed to the security of our European neighbours. That is true now, and it will remain true once we have left the EU. At this Council we welcomed the commitment from all member states to take greater responsibility for their security, to invest more resources and to develop more capabilities. That is the right approach, and, as the Council made clear, it should be done in a way that complements rather than duplicates NATO.
A stronger EU and a stronger NATO can be mutually reinforcing, and that should be our aim. We must never lose sight of the fact that NATO will always be the bedrock of our collective defence in Europe, and we must never allow anything to undermine it. We also agreed at the Council to renew tier 3 economic sanctions on Russia for another six months, maintaining the pressure on Russia to implement the Minsk agreements in full.
I turn to the appalling situation in Syria. We have all seen the devastating pictures on our TV screens and heard heartbreaking stories of families struggling to get to safety. At this Council we heard directly from the mayor of eastern Aleppo, a brave and courageous man who has already witnessed his city brought to rubble, his neighbours murdered and children’s lives destroyed. He had one simple plea for us: to get those who have survived through years of conflict, torture and fear to safety. Together with our European partners, we must do all we can to help.
The Council was unequivocal in its condemnation of President Assad and his backers, Russia and Iran, who must bear the responsibility for the tragedy in Aleppo. They must now allow the UN to safely evacuate the innocent people of Aleppo—Syrians whom President Assad claims to represent. We have seen some progress in recent days, but a few busloads is not enough when there are thousands more who must be rescued, and we cannot have those buses being attacked as they have been.
On Thursday afternoon my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary summoned the Russian and Iranian Ambassadors to make it clear that we expect them to help. Over the weekend, the UK has been working with our international partners to secure agreement on a UN Security Council resolution that would send in UN officials to monitor the evacuation of civilians and provide unfettered humanitarian access. That has been agreed unanimously this afternoon, and we now need it to be implemented in full. President Assad may be congratulating his regime forces on their actions in Aleppo, but we are in no doubt. This is no victory; it is a tragedy, and one we will not forget. Last week’s Council reiterated that those responsible must be held to account.
Alongside our diplomatic efforts, the UK is going to provide a further £20 million of practical support for those who are most vulnerable. That includes £10 million for trusted humanitarian partners working on the front line in some of the hardest-to-reach places in Syria to help them to deliver food parcels and medical supplies to those most in need, and an additional £10 million to UNICEF to help it to provide life-saving aid supplies for Syrian refugees now massing at the Jordanian border. As the mayor of Aleppo has said, it is, sadly, too late to save all those who have been lost, but it is not too late to save those who remain. That is what we must now do.
I turn to Brexit. I updated the Council on the UK’s plans for leaving the European Union. I explained that two weeks ago this House voted by a considerable majority—almost six to one—to support the Government by delivering the referendum result and invoking article 50 before the end of March. The UK’s Supreme Court is expected to rule next month on whether the Government require parliamentary legislation in order to do this. I am clear that the Government will respect the verdict of our independent judiciary, but I am equally clear that whichever way the judgment goes, we will meet the timetable I have set out.
At the Council, I also reaffirmed my commitment to a smooth and orderly exit. In this spirit, I made it clear to the other EU leaders that it remains my objective that we give reassurance early on in the negotiations to EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in EU countries that their right to stay where they have made their homes will be protected by our withdrawal. This is an issue that I would like to agree quickly, but that clearly requires the agreement of the rest of the EU.
Finally, I welcomed the subsequent short discussion between the 27 other leaders on their own plans for the UK’s withdrawal. It is right that the other leaders prepare for the negotiations, just as we are making our own preparations. That is in everyone’s best interests.
My aim is to cement the UK as a close partner of the EU once we have left. As I have said before, I want the deal we negotiate to reflect the kind of mature, co-operative relationship that close friends and allies enjoy: a deal that will give our companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the European market and allow European businesses to do the same here, and a deal that will deliver the deepest possible co-operation to ensure our national security and the security of our allies, but a deal that will mean that when it comes to decisions about our national interest, such as how we control immigration, we can make these decisions for ourselves, and a deal that will mean our laws are once again made in Britain, not in Brussels. With a calm and measured approach, this Government will honour the will of the British people and secure the right deal that will make a success of Brexit for the UK, for the EU and for the world. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of her statement. As we approach the end of this year, I think we can all agree this has been a year of enormous change in this country and the rest of the world, but with that change comes a great deal of division. As we move swiftly towards the triggering of article 50, I want to appeal to the Prime Minister not only to work harder to heal those divisions in Britain, but to make sure that her new year’s resolutions include a commitment to build better relations with our European partners so that we get the best deal for the people of this country, not just a Brexit that benefits big business and bankers.
At the moment, it is clear that the Prime Minister and Britain are becoming increasingly isolated on the international stage. If we are to build a successful Britain after Brexit, it is more vital than ever that our relationship with our European partners remains strong, cordial and respectful. It is also clear from my own discussions with European leaders that they are becoming increasingly frustrated by her shambolic Government and the contradictory approach to Brexit negotiations. The mixed messages from her Front Bench only add to the confusion. This Government fail to speak for the whole country; instead, we hear a babble of voices speaking for themselves and their vested interests.
For instance, last week we were told by Britain’s permanent representative to the EU that a Brexit deal may take 10 years, contradicting what the Secretary of State for Brexit told a Select Committee that day, when he said a deal could be struck in 18 months. There is a bit of a difference there. We also heard from the Chancellor, who told us that Britain was looking for a transitional deal with the European Union, only for the Secretary of State for International Trade to warn against a transitional deal, saying any arrangements close to the status quo would go against the wishes of those who voted to leave. The people of Britain deserve better than this confusion at the heart of Government.
Confidence is being lost. The Office for Budget Responsibility made its own judgment on the Government’s Brexit plans in November, when it published new forecasts for 2017: growth was revised down, wages revised down and business investment revised down; the only thing the OBR raised was its forecast for inflation. The Government are risking even weaker growth than they have delivered so far and an exodus of financial services, and hitting manufacturing industry very hard.
I welcome the fact that the Government have now accepted Labour’s demands for a published Brexit plan, but it is still unclear how the plan will be presented and when we will receive it in Parliament. Can the Prime Minister today do what the Secretary of State for Brexit, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for International Trade and the permanent representative to the EU all failed to do last week and give this country some real answers? Can she tell us when the House will receive the Government’s plan for article 50 and how long we will be given to scrutinise that plan? Can she also tell us how long the Government envisage the whole process taking? Can she tell us whether the Government will be looking for an interim transitional deal with the European Union? These are basic questions that have still not been answered, nearly six months after Britain voted to leave the European Union.
There were also reports last week that the UK will be asked to pay a €50 billion bill to honour commitments to the EU budget until 2020. Can the Prime Minister tell this House if that is the case? Can she update us all on the Government’s contingency plans for those projects and programmes in the UK that are currently reliant on EU funding after 2020? There is much concern in many parts of the country about those programmes.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s desire to bring forward and give greater clarity on the issue of rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom. However, if she is serious about this, why wait? Why will the Government not end the worry and uncertainty, as this House demanded in July, and give an unequivocal commitment to guarantee people’s rights before article 50 is triggered, as both the TUC and the British Chambers of Commerce called for this weekend? Not only is it the right thing to do; it would also send a clear signal to our colleagues and our European friends that Britain is committed to doing the right thing and committed to a friendly future relationship.
With that in mind, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Austrian President, Alexander Van der Bellen, on his election. I am sure we all agree that his victory in the presidential elections represents a victory for respect and kindness over hate and division, and is a signal against the dangerous rise of the far right across Europe.
I am also glad that the European Union Council leaders discussed the other pressing global issues last week, notably the terrible situation in Syria. I therefore want to use this opportunity to renew the calls I made in a letter to the Prime Minister last week for an urgent and concerted effort from the Government to press for an end to the violence and for a United Nations-led ceasefire, along with the creation of UN-brokered humanitarian corridors and the issuance of effective advance warnings of attack to the civilian population, as well as urgent talks through the UN to achieve a negotiated political settlement. It is clear that the rules of war are being broken on all sides. Labour has long condemned attacks on civilian targets on all sides, including those by Russian and pro-Syrian Government forces in Aleppo, for which there can be no excuse.
I also know that Cyprus and reunification were raised at the Council meeting. Will the Prime Minister give us an update on what was said on this issue? Britain is after all a guarantor of Cypriot independence under the 1960 treaty.
There is a lot to do in 2017, with a lot of important decisions to be made. I make a plea to the Prime Minister to represent all sides, whether they voted to leave or remain, and to make the right decisions that benefit not just her party but everyone in this country.
The Prime Minister
On the issue of Cyprus, President Anastasiades updated us on the talks that had taken place. These are important talks. I think we all accept that we have perhaps the best opportunity for a settlement in Cyprus that we have seen for many, many years. The talks have been taking place under UN auspices between the two leaders. They have been encouraged and generated by the two leaders on the island, and it is important that we recognise the leadership they have shown on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman is right. There are three guarantors: Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. We stand ready to play our part, as required and when it is appropriate for us to do so. There is a meeting coming up in January, and there is a possibility that it will be attended by others such as the United Kingdom. In the EU Council’s conclusions, it said that it stood ready to participate if that were part of helping the deal to come through.
On Syria, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me asking for us to take action through the United Nations. We have consistently taken action through the UN. We have been working over the weekend to ensure that there was a UN Security Council resolution today that was accepted. As all Members will know, Russia has vetoed a number of previous Security Council resolutions, and the most recent one before today was vetoed by both Russia and China. It is very clear that we now have a resolution that has been accepted by Russia and China, and accepted unanimously by the Security Council. It provides for humanitarian access and for UN monitoring of people leaving Aleppo, which is important.
The right hon. Gentleman spent most of his comments on Brexit. He started off by talking about our wanting a deal that benefits the United Kingdom. Yes, I have been saying that ever since I first came into this role. We want to ensure that we get the best possible deal, but I have to say to him that we do not get the possible deal in negotiations by laying out everything we want in advance. That is the whole point of negotiations.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about isolation. The point is that the UK is going to leave the European Union. We are leaving the group that is the European Union. In due course, they will meet only as 27 members, because we will no longer be a member. It is clear from what happened at the EU Council that, as long as we are a member, we will continue to play our full part with the European Union.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about EU funds, and funds that are currently intended to continue beyond the date at which we would leave the European Union. The Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the position very clearly some weeks ago. Those funds will continue to be met provided they give value for money and meet the UK Government’s objectives.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the length of the process. As he knows, once we trigger article 50, the treaty allows for a process that can take up to two years. Of course, how long it takes within that period depends on the progress of the negotiations that take place. He then spoke about uncertainty and the need for investment in the UK. He gave the impression of a bleak economic picture, but I remind him that ours is the fastest-growing economy this year in the G7. Let us look at the companies that have announced new additional investment since the Brexit referendum: Honda, Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, Aldi, Associated British Ports, CAF, Facebook, Google, GlaxoSmithKline, Sitel and Statoil. The list will continue because this is still a good place to invest and a good place to grow businesses.
The right hon. Gentleman then talked about confusion on the Front Bench. Well, he has obviously been looking at his own Front Bench. Let us take one very simple issue: immigration. The shadow Home Secretary suggests that freedom of movement should be maintained; the shadow Chancellor said that we should have a fair deal on freedom of movement; and the shadow Brexit Secretary says we should have immigration controls. They cannot even agree on one aspect of leaving the European Union. With the Leader of the Opposition’s negotiation technique, if he were in office, we would as sure as goodness be getting the worst possible deal we could get for the United Kingdom.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
When my right hon. Friend was at the Council and reminded the Council leaders of her generous offer to allow EU citizens here in the UK to remain, and for UK citizens to receive the same privilege, did she manage to take Donald Tusk to one side and ask him simply why, when his own Government was keen to agree to that, he turned round and vetoed it?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right that I made it clear once again that I hope the issue of EU citizens living here and UK citizens living in EU member states can be dealt with at an early stage of the negotiations. The other member states and the Council have been clear that they are not prepared to enter into negotiations before article 50 is triggered, but I will continue to remind them of our hope, for a very good reason: we want to give certainty and reassurance to people that this issue can be dealt with at a very early stage and then the people concerned can get on with their lives.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
May I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement and, as it is the last opportunity to do so, wish colleagues a very merry Christmas, happy Hogmanay and a fantastic 2017?
It is now more than six months since the Brexit referendum, when more than 62% of voters in Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. Tomorrow the Scottish Government will become the first Administration in the UK to publish their plans in detail. The Prime Minister has said that she will seriously engage with the Scottish Government, which is to be welcomed, and that she has a respect agenda. Will she therefore commit to meeting the First Minister to incorporate priorities of the Scottish Government in the UK negotiating position?
On security, the Prime Minister’s statement welcomed commitments on capability, including on cyber threats. Without going into details, for obvious reasons, is she confident that enough safeguards are in place regarding democratic institutions in the UK, including political parties?
The violence in the middle east was discussed in the Council, and across the House we welcome any initiatives that make a difference in Syria, but there was no mention in the Prime Minister’s statement of Yemen. Is it true that senior Ministers have known for some time that UK cluster munitions have been used in the current conflict in Yemen? When was she told about that, and when will the UK join our European partners in starting to have a more ethical foreign policy on both Saudi Arabia and Yemen?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the Defence Secretary will make a statement on Yemen later this afternoon. The issue was not discussed at the European Council. We focused on the issues I mentioned in my statement.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about cyber-security and political parties. Maintaining their cyber-security is a matter for individual political parties. It is up to them to look at how they undertake that.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the document that the Scottish Government will publish tomorrow. I took a call from the First Minister this morning, in which I assured her that we will look very seriously at the proposals that the Scottish Government are bringing forward. I welcome the fact that they have been looking at their priorities. We have been encouraging all the devolved Administrations to do so, so that those priorities can be taken into account in the UK negotiations on leaving the European Union.
There is already a structure in place that enables us to discuss those priorities with the devolved Administrations. The Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations will meet in early January. It has been meeting regularly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. There will be a further session of the JMC plenary in January. That normally meets only once a year, if that, but we are increasing the number of its meetings precisely so that we can engage with the devolved Administrations on these issues.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that people in the Opposition and in business who say that we should make compromises by offering money or some control over our laws or borders to get a deal are bidding against our country, making it more difficult to achieve a good deal and misunderstanding what the majority voted for?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the public want us to get on and get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom. They want us to leave the European Union and deliver success in doing that. It is absolutely right that we do not give out every detail of our negotiating strategy because, as I say, that would be the way to get the worst possible deal.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
On Friday, along with other hon. Members from Wolverhampton, I met UTC Aerospace, which employs 1,600 people in high-value manufacturing jobs in Wolverhampton. That company raised with us membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency. When the Prime Minister says that Brexit means Brexit, does she mean that we will no longer participate in the European Aviation Safety Agency and many other such agencies, including for example the European Medical Agency?
The Prime Minister
It is precisely because we need to look with great care and consideration at the wide range of our relationships with Europe that we have taken time before we trigger article 50. This is exactly the sort of work the Department for Exiting the European Union is doing: looking at the range of organisations, some of which are linked to membership of the European Union and some of which will not be so linked to membership of the European Union, and making a decision; and, crucially, talking to each sector about what is important for them, so we understand what really matters to business.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
While welcoming my right hon. Friend’s calm, considered and thorough preparations before triggering article 50, does she agree that a speedy conclusion of the subsequent negotiations will be in this country’s interests, both to put an end to damaging uncertainty and because, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, every week’s additional delay in leaving the EU costs this country £250 million net per week?
The Prime Minister
As I said in an earlier response to the Leader of the Opposition, the treaty sets out a potential two-year process of negotiations. For how long, over those two years, it is necessary for the negotiations to take is a matter for the progress of those discussions and talks. My right hon. Friend makes a very valid point that the sooner certainty can come the better that will be for business, but we need to make sure we are getting the right deal for the United Kingdom.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Perhaps the Prime Minister could then tell us with some certainty when her plan for exiting the European Union, which she has agreed to present to this House, will be ready. Presumably, it will be some time before she triggers article 50.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In their joint statement of 15 December, the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, and the Heads of State of all 27 member states, unanimously insisted that
“access to the Single Market requires acceptance of all four freedoms”
including freedom of movement and the European Court of Justice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an ultimatum is unacceptable and that it will not be accepted by the British people?
The Prime Minister
I have said all along that I believe that underlying part of the vote to leave the European Union was the desire of the British people to have control over immigration, and for decisions on immigration to be made by the Government here in the United Kingdom. We should deliver on that. I look at these issues in terms of the deal we want to negotiate and the outcome we want, which is the best possible deal for trading with, and operating within, the single European market, but that should be commensurate with the other requirements we have: British laws made here in Britain and control on immigration.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and for advance sight of it. Following the European Council, it appears that the Prime Minister is leading our country not just out of the European Union but out of the single market and the customs union, neither of which were on the ballot paper last June. If instead remain had won by a whisker last June, would the Government have had a mandate, I wonder, for a hard remain? Would Mr Cameron have been stood there bouncing us into the euro and Schengen? Does the Prime Minister agree that, ludicrous as that sounds, it is no more ludicrous than the extreme rewriting of the referendum result that she now seeks to impose on the British people?
The Prime Minister
The majority vote in the referendum was for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. That is what we will be delivering. Once again, the hon. Gentleman raises questions about means rather than ends. What we want is the best possible outcome in the trading relationship between the UK and the European Union, and for operating within the European Union. That is where our focus should be—not on particular processes to get there.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Council conclusions stressed the Union’s continued resolve to deepen and strengthen its relationship with Ukraine in the face of current challenges. How strongly does the Prime Minister expect her Government to support Ukraine after we have left the European Union?
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely right that the European Council was concerned and wanted to ensure that we have that continuing relationship with Ukraine. The UK is already supporting Ukraine in a number of ways. When we leave the European Union, we will look at our continuing bilateral relationships with countries across the European continent. We are already providing money to establish the national anti-corruption bureau in Ukraine and we are supporting energy reform to reduce the country’s dependence on Russian gas. We are offering defensive training to Ukrainian armed forces and supporting internal reform with the Ukrainian ministry of defence. We already have a number of areas in which we are supporting Ukraine. I expect that we would continue to want a good bilateral relationship with Ukraine once we have left the European Union.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister update us on any discussions about how successful the European Union views its arrangements with Turkey in respect of control of the border and flows of immigration?
The Prime Minister
We support the continuing EU-Turkey deal. It has had an impact on the migratory movements across the Aegean, but there are of course elements to the EU-Turkey deal, particularly visa liberalisation, with which the UK is not involved because we are not one of the Schengen member states. That matter of visa liberalisation is still being discussed by members of the Schengen border zone. As I say, the UK is not part of that, but we should recognise that the arrangements in place so far have had an impact on movements into Greece from Turkey. Crucially, we need to ensure that the process of returning people who have no right to be in Greece is operating as smoothly as possible. That is one reason why we are offering extra staff to Greece, so that the process of dealing with those claims can be carried out more smoothly.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The whole House will welcome the focus on Syria and Aleppo that my right hon. Friend has reported from the meeting. Most welcome is the additional British humanitarian support, including for UNICEF, that the Prime Minister has announced, and the part played by British diplomats and the Government over the weekend in securing the successful UN resolution along the lines of the debate here last week. Will she ensure that over the Christmas and new year holiday, the full span of Government attention will continue on securing unfettered access for humanitarian workers, medical supplies and food, bearing in mind that there are still more than 50,000 people out in the open in Aleppo who are very frightened and living in temperatures well below freezing?
The Prime Minister
With his experience, my right hon. Friend recognises that it is about not just agreeing a resolution, but ensuring that it is then implemented, so that making humanitarian aid available to people and enabling them to leave safely can be put into practice. I assure my right hon. Friend that we recognise the importance of getting momentum going on this. It will be important to do that over the coming days and weeks. Our focus on it will continue.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
May I ask the Prime Minister about the risks of the cliff-edge in April 2019, which is already prompting some of our key financial institutions, such as Lloyd’s of London, to think about moving some of their business out of Britain? Does she agree with the Chancellor, who said that it would be helpful if we started to discuss a transitional arrangement going beyond that particular deadline, and started discussing it now?
The Prime Minister
The Chancellor reflected the comments I made when I spoke to the CBI, recognising the desire for business to have some certainty beyond that point of leaving the European Union. That is one of the reasons why we have already announced that we are going to bring EU law into domestic law in the UK at that point, so that people can have some certainty about the point of movement from membership of the European Union to being outside it.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
At the end of November, Ilse Aigner, the Christian Social Union economy Minister of Bavaria, gave a clear warning to her coalition partners in Berlin that uncertainty could damage the Bavarian economy, as the UK is one of its most important trading partners. Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there will be significant forces in Europe supporting her timetable to trigger article 50 at the end of March in order to bring to a conclusion the arrangements for free trade that exist between us and Bavaria?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises an important point, specifically about Bavaria, but the overall point is a very simple one. This is not just about what is in the interests of the United Kingdom; it is also about what is in the interests of the remaining 27 members of the European Union. As we negotiate that deal, I expect us to negotiate one that will be right for the UK but that will retain a strong European Union, with which we will be trading and working together on matters of mutual interest.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I welcome the extension of sanctions against Russia for a further six months, but there has been very little visible progress on the Minsk accord in recent months. What does the Prime Minister think the extension will achieve, and how can we move the process forward?
The Prime Minister
The Council was updated by Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande, who have obviously been leading in relation to discussions on the Minsk agreement. Everyone is concerned about the fact that the agreement still has not been put in place. I believe that we needed to roll over the sanctions in order to show our continuing rigour, and our continuing expectation that Russia will abide by the requirements.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
We see EU countries dangerously duplicating NATO’s structures, but without American participation. Would it not do much more for the defence of Europe if France and Germany, and other EU states that are members of NATO, spent a minimum of 2% of their GDP on defence?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my right hon. Friend. We want to see other countries step up to the plate. This country is spending 2% of its budget on defence; we think that others should be doing the same, and I have been encouraging them to do so.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
It is clear that there are many differences among Conservative Members over freedom of movement, but is it not also clear that if the free movement of labour continued, it would make a mockery of a majority decision made by the British people in a referendum?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, I think one of the things that underlay the vote was people’s desire to see the British Government control immigration from the European Union. If the hon. Gentleman does not think freedom of movement should continue, I suggest that he talk to his own Front Benchers about it.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, more than 10,000 Ukrainian servicemen have been killed since the beginning of the Russian-backed conflict, and progress on Minsk appears to have stalled. Does she agree that, as signatories to the Budapest memorandum, we have a special responsibility? Will she look into what further pressure we can put on Russia, and also what additional assistance we can give the people of Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
We do consider what more we can do. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary announced recently that we would undertake an extension of the training of Ukrainian forces, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is looking into whether there are other ways in which we can ensure that the Minsk agreement is implemented in full. However, I think it important for us also to work through the European Union, and to put the pressure of the EU behind the process.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Did the Prime Minister discuss with fellow leaders interference by Russia in the political processes of western democracies, including our own, through the use of propaganda and cyber? What action is she taking to investigate what may already have happened in this country, and what is she doing to prevent it from happening in future?
The Prime Minister
I think that everyone is aware of the way in which Russia is currently operating, and of the more aggressive stance that it is taking in a number of respects. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go into detail about how we look at these matters, particularly cyber-related matters—which were mentioned earlier by the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson)—but I assure him that we take the issue of state-sponsored intervention and cyber attacks very seriously indeed.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s steadfast commitment to reassuring 2.8 million EU citizens about their position in the United Kingdom is highly welcome, but will she look at the cross-party “British Future” report, on which I worked along with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)? It includes suggestions on how to regularise the immigration status of the 1.8 million EU citizens who are on track to gain permanent residence, but who we suggest should be granted a bespoke indefinite leave to remain.
The Prime Minister
I am aware of the report my hon. Friend refers to and can assure her that we do of course look very seriously at any proposals that come forward on this and other matters relating to Brexit.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I press the Prime Minister on the reply she gave to the parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), on Yemen? I appreciate she was the only leader of a foreign country to address the Gulf Cooperation Council recently and the Foreign Secretary has spoken courageously about the situation in Yemen. While we celebrate Christmas on Sunday, the people of Hudaydah will be eating grass and drinking sea water in order to survive. What does it say about politics in 2016 that the richest club in the world is unable to find time to discuss one of the poorest countries?
The Prime Minister
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we take the situation in Yemen very seriously indeed. There are a number of ways in which we are acting in relation to that, not least in the provision of humanitarian aid. The Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), was in Riyadh yesterday, and one of the issues he was discussing was the possibility of the opening of the port so that supplies can be got through to Yemen.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
My reading of the Council conclusions both on migration and on defence and security co-operation demonstrate the strength of British influence, rather than the weakness, which was the Leader of the Opposition’s conclusion. Given that we do spend 2% of our GDP on defence and that we spend 0.7% on aid, addressing both sides of that argument, are we in a good position to make this case, and does it not show that when we have left the EU our European partners will still want that close relationship with us, which is why we will get a good deal?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should be proud of the fact that in this country we spend 2% on defence and 0.7% on international aid. That is recognised not just across the EU, but internationally, and it often enables us as the United Kingdom to take the lead on a number of these issues. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: from everything we saw—from the position and role the UK has played in European Council discussions—it is clear people will want to continue to have a good relationship with the UK, and that puts us in a good place for getting the right deal.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the French and British diplomats in New York who got the Security Council resolution today, but is the Prime Minister aware that the Assad regime’s representative immediately denounced it? It is quite clear that the Syrian Government are not going to be happy about this. Will she take practical steps to ensure the resolution is actually implemented, and particularly to protect those people who are witnesses to crime and those who, like the White Helmets, have been so brave in east Aleppo but now could be at risk from Hezbollah, Iranian militias or the Assad regime?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to congratulate UK and French diplomats, who worked very hard to make sure this resolution would be accepted by the Security Council. We now have to ensure it is put into practice. He refers to the evidence of crime, and we have been taking action to make sure people are equipped and trained to gather evidence of crimes that have taken place, so that they can be properly investigated.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Earlier the Prime Minister said she wants that
“when it comes to decisions about our national interest, such as how we control immigration, we can make these decisions for ourselves”.
I commend that statement. When she finally presents her plan to Parliament, will she keep it brief, focus on outcomes not means, and simply say we are leaving the EU, we are leaving the internal market, and we are going to reclaim control of our borders and our laws, but that nothing in that militates against concluding a free trade deal which is overwhelmingly in the interests of our European friends and allies?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that we get the best possible deal, and he is also right to focus on the outcome of the deal that we want rather than the particular means to achieve that outcome. It is absolutely clear that it is possible for us to get a deal that will be a very good trade deal for the UK, but which will also be in the interests of the EU.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that remaining in the European arrest warrant regime, in Eurojust and in Europol will be in the best interests of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have stood at this Dispatch Box on previous occasions and argued that we should indeed remain within those aspects. The whole question of security and co-operation on crime will of course be part of the negotiations, but this is not just a question of what is in the UK’s interests. When we work with partners in the European Union, it is in their interests too.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
What are the chances that the proposed European defence fund will add new money to collective European defence and security, and what is the Prime Minister’s attitude to the linked matter of the revision of the Athena mechanism that is due next year?
The Prime Minister
The European defence fund is referred to in the Council’s conclusions. The matter of how it will operate in the future has yet to be fully fleshed out. One issue that was discussed by European Council members was a concern to ensure better procurement of defence equipment across the European Union, and it is in that context that these issues are being considered.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I push the Prime Minister on the matter of security? Viewed from Moscow, Europe must look so much more disunited and weak since June. The fact is that we have 100,000 men and women in our armed forces—you could fit them all inside Wembley stadium. What would happen if tanks did roll across borders in this unstable period of European history? What would we do?
The Prime Minister
The Secretary of State for Defence has told me that the figure is 200,000 rather than 100,000, but let us look seriously at the hon. Gentleman’s question. I spoke in my statement of the importance of NATO as the bedrock of our security and that of our allies. That organisation is important in ensuring our defence. What are this Government doing in relation to defence? We are spending 2% of our GDP on defence and committing more than £170 billion over a number of years to investment in defence equipment, ensuring that we have the defence that we need—the forces and the equipment—to keep us safe.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend tell us how our support for the Syrian people through our aid budget is helping to alleviate some of the horrendous suffering over there?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. As we focus on the specific question of Aleppo, it is easy to forget the significant contribution that the UK is making, through its aid budget, to the humanitarian effort to help the refugees from Syria. Of course, much of that is going to refugees in the countries around Syria—Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. We are the second biggest bilateral donor of humanitarian aid for Syrian refugees and we have now committed £2.3 billion. That means that medical supplies, food and water are getting through to people who would not otherwise have them. It also means that children are being educated as a result of the money that is being spent by the United Kingdom, and it is absolutely right that we should do that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Prime Minister for her solid and strong stance on Brexit. However, 27 EU members met without her being in attendance. Is this the beginning of a cloak and dagger approach by the EU? What steps are being taken to ensure that we are not kept in the dark, that everything is open and transparent and that the British viewpoint as expressed at the ballot box is sacrosanct and remains a priority?
The Prime Minister
The 27 members of the European Union met for, I think, 25 minutes to discuss aspects of the process of the UK leaving the EU. It is absolutely right that they should meet together as the 27 because, when we trigger article 50, we want to ensure that the process is as smooth and orderly as possible. That is in our interests and in the interests of our economy. It is also in their interests and the interests of their economies. So I welcome the fact that they are meeting as the 27 to discuss the process and to make preparations, just as we are doing, for what will happen when we trigger article 50.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
It is certainly absolutely right that we maintain good relationships with the 27 member states of the European Union, but what steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that we talk to European countries that are not in the EU to gain insight into their experiences of being in that position and the plan for the future?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point that is about our relationship not just with the EU as a whole, but with individual countries that are members of the EU and those that are not members. We do hold such discussions. I have had bilateral talks, and I reassure those to whom I speak that a United Kingdom that is outside the EU will not be leaving Europe. We want to continue to have good relations with our friends and allies across Europe. We want good bilateral relationships that enable us also to trade well with those nations.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
One of the key aspects of security co-operation across Europe is the ability to impose sanctions through the EU sanctions regime. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with her EU counterparts about the UK’s involvement in that regime after we leave the EU?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Gentleman that our focus is on ensuring that the UK’s voice is heard when we put forward our opinion on matters such as the sanctions against Russia and the importance of maintaining those sanctions until the Minsk agreement is implemented.
Mr Speaker
In the pursuit of a soothing, emollient and understated voice, I call Philip Davies.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Something on which both sides of the EU referendum campaign can agree is that one of the big issues during the campaign was the amount of money that we give to the EU each year. Will the Prime Minister therefore pledge that when we leave the EU we will not be paying any money towards the EU budget? Even contemplating that would surely be to contemplate betraying what people voted for in the referendum.
The Prime Minister
Obviously, while we remain members of the EU, we will continue to have obligations as members of EU. What is important is that when we leave the EU, people want us to ensure that it is the British Government that decide how taxpayers’ money is spent.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The European Council stressed that those responsible for breaches of international law in Syria must be held accountable and that the EU is considering all available options. No one would disagree with that sentiment, but will the Prime Minister set out what it means in practice?
The Prime Minister
Where people have breached international humanitarian law, the UK Government’s position is that that should be investigated and properly dealt with and that people should be brought to justice as a result. As for the available options, some further sanctions have been considered. This is an issue that the UK has raised in the past and one that we continue to look at.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that her first duty is to defend the rights of British subjects? It would therefore be a foolish negotiating strategy to guarantee the rights of EU nationals here unilaterally—much as we would like to—until we have achieved reciprocity for UK nationals residing in other states.
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is fairly obvious that the UK Prime Minister should have concern for UK citizens. We do not want UK citizens who live in other EU member states to be left high and dry, which is why our position has always been that we will guarantee the status of EU citizens living here provided that UK citizens living in EU member states have their rights guaranteed as well.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Will Brexit deliver what the Prime Minister’s three Brexiteer Ministers promised in the referendum and what the majority of voters supported—namely a £350 million a week payment to the national health service? Or will we get a bill of £50 billion for which nobody voted?
The Prime Minister
When we leave the EU, we will be delivering on what my colleagues who campaigned to leave the European Union campaigned for and what the people voted for: the UK no longer being a member of the EU and therefore being able to take control of how taxpayers’ money is spent, how our laws are made and our immigration.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
In the Prime Minister’s conversations with our EU partners, will she make it clear that, whatever deal we strike with the European Union, we will be offering free trade? Will she ask them why anybody is considering a reversion to protectionism and tariffs, particularly in view of the fact that paragraph 5 of article 3 of the treaty on European Union enjoins the EU to contribute to “free and fair trade”?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a very important point: this is about getting a good trade relationship with the European Union, which is in their interests as well as in ours. Lots of reference is made to the process in relation to trade, but actually what we want to focus on is the outcome: the best possible deal in terms of trading with and operating within the European Union.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Under this Prime Minister’s leadership, Britain has opposed strengthening trade defence measures and has watered down action on the lesser duty rule, which has crippled the UK steel industry. Will people not be right to think that when this Prime Minister takes control of future British trade deals, both British workers and British industry will be more exposed than ever before?
The Prime Minister
Actually, the trade defence arrangements that have been in place have had a significant impact on the dumping of steel. Of course everybody recognises the importance and impact of the overcapacity of steel in China, and the Government have taken a number of steps to reduce the costs in relation to climate change and energy for the steel industry—more than £100 million has now been made available to the steel industry as a result of that. We have ensured that other factors can be taken into account when people are looking at procurement of steel—social and economic factors can be taken into account. On the trade defence arrangements that take place in Europe, we think, yes, we should ensure that we are looking at the impact on producers, but we also need to look at the impact on consumers. What we call for is a balance in dealing with these issues.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
As the Prime Minister reaches her first Christmas in her role, may I commend her for the sureness of touch she has demonstrated as Prime Minister, commend her for setting up a fresh new Department so that we can leave the European Union, and remind her that in Kettering 61% of people voted to leave and want her to get on with it as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I assure him that I am focused, as is the Department for Exiting the European Union and everybody across government, on delivering what overall the British people wanted, which is leaving the European Union.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
May I press the Prime Minister: how will our Government hold President Assad to account for the decimation of Aleppo?
The Prime Minister
This is a matter that we and others in the international community will be looking at. Of course, at the moment President Assad is still there in Syria. We have said from the beginning that we want to see a political transition away from President Assad, but we are very clear that we need to look carefully at all the actions that have been taken in relation to the conflict in Syria and ensure that people are held to account for those actions, including, obviously, the ones that break international humanitarian law.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on, and thank her for, the robust stance she took in representing the United Kingdom at the recent EU Council meeting. Will she say whether any of the leaders of the 27 expressed a wish not to want to trade with the UK in goods and services?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to tell my hon. Friend that when I have been meeting leaders bilaterally, they have been very keen to express their desire to continue to trade and have a good trading relationship with the United Kingdom.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
What has happened in Aleppo has not just been a tragedy—it has also been a series of acts of deliberate brutality by Putin and his regime. The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that those responsible must be held to account, but there is something she could do immediately: she could sign up to the amendment to the Criminal Finances Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), which would take the assets of those who have been involved in human rights abuses and in these war crimes off them.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, but we already have legislative capacity in relation to such matters. That is why the amendment has been considered not to be necessary and not to take us forward.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Assuming that a humanitarian corridor to Aleppo, supported by a clear United Nations mandate, is a possibility, would Her Majesty’s Government be prepared to consider using our military forces, perhaps in small teams, to monitor such an arrangement—something in which we have considerable expertise and to date have had considerable success?
Mr Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister could always introduce an addendum to her last answer, which would doubtless bring great happiness into the life of the hon. Member for Rhondda.
The Prime Minister
I must apologise to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant); I was thinking of the Magnitsky law, which he frequently raises in connection with Russia. I apologise for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), of course, has personal experience of providing support in circumstances where we need to provide humanitarian aid and support to people. The matter will be taken up by the United Nations, of course; the role that the United Kingdom can play will be a matter for consideration and discussion under the UN’s auspices.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Towards the end of the Prime Minister’s remarks, she talked in quite broad terms about the kind of mature, co-operative relationship that she wants for Britain outside the European Union. Which of the deals for European countries that are not in the European Union does the deal that she wants for Britain most closely resemble?
The Prime Minister
I have said consistently that we are not looking to try to duplicate or replicate a model that is there for some other country within Europe. What we will be doing is negotiating the deal that is right for the UK, and we will be ambitious in doing so.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
While strongly commending the pivotal role that Britain is playing in Lebanon, Jordan and other neighbouring states in coping with the miserable outflow from Syria, may I urge my right hon. Friend that a high priority in our dealings with the incoming Administration in Washington must be tackling the growing military hegemony of Russia and its ally Iran in that region?
The Prime Minister
It is important that we look very seriously at the actions of Russia. As I indicated earlier in response to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), it is important that we look at the actions of Russia across a whole range of activities that it is now involved in. One of the significant elements of the conclusions of the European Council was that it now also identified Iran as backing the Assad regime. That is a very important step forward and we should continue to make the point that it is not just Russia; it is Iran as well.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It is very welcome that the UN Security Council has unanimously voted to approve UN personnel in eastern Aleppo to monitor the evacuations and access to humanitarian aid. However, I am concerned that a requirement to co-ordinate with involved parties, such as the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran, could see the monitors denied access. What diplomatic role does the Prime Minister think Europe could play in ensuring that access is not restricted in that manner?
The Prime Minister
It is for all of us in the international arena to ensure that we provide the maximum support to the United Nations in being able to do what has been set out in the Security Council resolution. It is significant that the resolution has been accepted unanimously by the Security Council—it has not been vetoed by Russia, unlike previous resolutions that have been in place. The European Union, through its high representative Federica Mogherini, has already been involved in the international arena, as has, of course, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in urging all parties to ensure that this humanitarian aid can get through and that people who wish to leave can be evacuated safely.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is clearly right to report back from the Council that Iran is the other major actor in Syria. What steps will the Council be taking to have discussions with Iran so that the atrocities committed in Aleppo are not merely committed again in other towns and cities in Syria?
The Prime Minister
My understanding is that the European Union High Representative has already been having discussions with Iran, particularly about the humanitarian aid, which it is necessary to get through. But as I have just indicated in response to a previous question, it is absolutely right, as my hon. Friend says, that we have identified Iran as a backer of the Assad regime. We should continue to do so and we should continue to press Iran and Russia on the fact that we now have a Security Council resolution in relation to the evacuation and humanitarian aid for Aleppo. However, there is a lot more to be done if we are going to get a stable and peaceful Syria for its people in the future.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I am very glad to hear about the additional aid being granted to Syrian refugees massing at the Jordanian border, but what pressure or assistance are European leaders agreeing to use to help Jordan to process the hundreds of thousands of refugees trapped in the no man’s land—the Berm—between Syria and Jordan?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, part of the work that we are doing as the United Kingdom, and that other individual member states are doing, is putting aid into countries like Jordan to help them in dealing with those refugees—particularly those refugees who are already in Jordan. As I indicated, some of the money that we will be making available will be specifically for those who are now massing on the Jordanian border.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her thoughtful statement. Does she agree that “Brexit means Brexit” means that we leave the EU and all the EU regulations? Does she agree that that is the certainty that this country is looking for?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for repeating that Brexit means Brexit—it does indeed. On the EU regulations, it is important that, at the point at which we leave the EU, EU regulations are brought into UK domestic law. It will then, of course, be open to this Parliament to decide which of those regulations it wishes to continue with and which it wishes to change.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
On the citizens who have come to live in the UK, does the Prime Minister agree that the principle of protecting those who make a positive contribution to our communities should be a core responsibility of her Government?
The Prime Minister
I recognise the positive contribution that is made by EU citizens living here in the United Kingdom. I have said on many occasions that I expect to be able to, and wish to be able to, guarantee their status here in the UK, but we do need reciprocity—we need to have care and concern for UK citizens who are living in the European Union.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Did the Prime Minister have any discussions with her counterparts on how quickly the EU can make progress on tackling multinational tax avoidance and particularly on when the EU will go ahead with country-by-country reporting, which we took the powers for in this year’s Finance Bill?
The Prime Minister
I have to disappoint my hon. Friend; this matter was not discussed at the European Council. However, as my hon. Friend indicated, the whole question of tax avoidance is one that the UK has led on with the measures we have taken, and it is an issue that I raised at the G20 earlier this year.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Did the discussions the Prime Minister had with her European counterparts touch on the exchange rate for sterling, and how many euros did she get for her pounds on her trip?
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
It is characteristically modest of the Prime Minister to mention only an extra £20 million of practical support. As it is the festive season, perhaps she could talk a little more about all the other things that we are funding in that region.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to do so. I will not list everything that we are funding. As I have said, we are making a contribution that has now committed £2.3 billion to help Syrian refugees. That is about medical supplies, it is about water, and it is about the opportunity for young people to be educated. Some £10 million of the £20 million that I indicated earlier will be for those who are now massing on the Jordanian border—so very specifically for those who are vulnerable as a result of the most recent actions that have been taken. It is right that we are putting this support in, and the House should be proud of the efforts that this country has undertaken to support Syrian refugees.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
A major poll last week in Wales noted that the overwhelming Brexit priority of the people of my country was to put continued single market membership over controls on immigration. If the Prime Minister intends to abandon the single market, will she support sub-state membership status for Wales to ensure that the Welsh economy is not shackled to a sinking UK ship?
The Prime Minister
It is the United Kingdom that will be leaving the EU, and it is the United Kingdom that will be negotiating the deal that we have for leaving the European Union, but we will be working with the devolved Administrations and taking into account the particular priorities that they have. But I repeat what I said earlier: the hon. Gentleman makes a reference to what is essentially a means or a process in relation to trading; what we want to focus on is the outcome we want, which is the best possible deal for trading with, and operating within, the single European market.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on her determination to raise the issue of reciprocal rights despite the fact that it was not formally on the agenda? She is right: this is an issue of serious concern for EU citizens living here and our citizens living in Europe. May I also congratulate her on raising this with individual member states as well? May I urge her to continue with these talks and ensure that we put people first, before process?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to do that and continue to press for these matters to be looked at at an early stage in the negotiations to give people the reassurance that they want.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The negotiations of immediate concern to many of my constituents relate to the unification of Cyprus. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the European Union will be present at the multi-party talks on 12 January? When she, or the Foreign Secretary, attends those talks, will she ensure that the UK finally fulfils its historical legal duty to guarantee the independence of Cyprus?
The Prime Minister
We recognise the importance of the talks that are taking place. The UK’s position is very simple. As a guarantor, we stand ready to do what is necessary to play our part, but it is important that that is primarily led by the two leaders, who have pushed these discussions in Cyprus under the auspices of the United Nations. We do therefore stand ready to attend the talks on 12 January. The European Union, which currently has observer status in these matters, has also indicated its readiness to be present. We are all saying that we will be present if that is going to aid coming to a settlement. We must focus not on whether we want to be there but on the result that we are going to get. The aim must be to see a settlement and reunification.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
It is accepted that business wishes to see the maximum possible certainty in which to make its investment decisions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that certainty is not achieved by equivocation or obfuscation about our intention to trigger article 50, but is better served by triggering it promptly and then being flexible and business-focused in the terms of our negotiation and the implementation of the final deal?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is precisely why I indicated in October that we would trigger article 50 by the end of March to give people some certainty about the timetable. He is also absolutely right that we need the maximum flexibility thereafter in order to ensure that we can meet business needs and the needs of the UK generally.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s approach is absolutely right, especially for constituents whose jobs depend on trade and investment, and students or residents from the European Union, who want us to focus on the key ingredients of success. Does she agree that her pragmatic focus on outcomes is much more likely to unify the country than some political parties’ determination to define Brexit as a boiled egg, whether soft or hard?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the British people want us to get on with it—to do the deal and get a good deal for the United Kingdom, and that is exactly what we want to do.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I would not expect the Prime Minister to comment on today’s events, but was there a discussion at the European Council on how the European Union will work to maintain the stability of Turkey, not just as a key NATO ally but as an applicant country?
The Prime Minister
There was some discussion, notably in the context of the migration deal with Turkey, about the relationship with Turkey. As I indicated in response to an earlier question, that relationship is important. The EU-Turkey deal on migration has led to a significant reduction in the number of people crossing from Turkey into Greece. However, we need to ensure that the deal is being properly undertaken. That is why we are giving some extra support to Greece. Other aspects of the deal, such as visa liberalisation, are for the Schengen member states to consider, not for the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we are all very clear about the significance of Turkey and its relationship with the EU.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Paragraph 26 of the communiqué talks about “condemning” the actions of the Assad regime, Russia, and Iran. Apart from condemning, was there a strategy to look at countering the Iranian aggression in Syria and destabilising activity in the wider region?
The Prime Minister
First, it was very important that the conclusions that came out of the Council identified Iran, as well as Russia, as being one of the backers of the Syrian regime. It was in the context of condemning what had taken place in Aleppo that that was specifically raised.
As regards Iran more generally and, indeed, what is happening in Syria more generally, of course we continue as a European Union and as a United Kingdom to look for ways to put pressure on those who are backing President Assad, to ensure that we can do what I think everybody in the EU wants, which is to move to a peaceful and stable Syria with a political transition and a proper political process for doing that. That means continued pressure on Russia and Iran.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
May I also congratulate the Prime Minister on her calm and measured approach to EU-UK relations since taking office? Given that the UK Government dedicated resources to understanding the UK-US position with regard to both the Trump and the Clinton campaigns, will she confirm that we will dedicate resources to understanding not just governing parties, but potential governing parties in the EU, in order to help our renegotiation process?
The Prime Minister
Of course, we are in discussions with a number of people to ensure that we understand the approach that is being taken in other member states by various parties. This is not just about political parties, though; it is also about understanding business and other interests in the member states with which we are negotiating. That will make us better able to come to a deal that is good not only for the United Kingdom, which, as I have said, is the deal that we want, but is good for the EU, because I think that a deal that is good for the UK will be good for the EU as well.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s priorities in Syria must extend beyond vital humanitarian aid, to preparing a post-conflict political settlement and a reconstruction plan that will benefit the citizens of Syria and help bring stability to the middle east?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, bringing peace and stability to Syria and, therefore, helping that part of the process of bringing stability to the middle east is important. I apologise to my hon. Friend, because I was just looking at what I believe is breaking news that the Russian ambassador to Turkey has been shot. That has yet to be confirmed, but it is a matter of concern.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Inevitably, in the months ahead there will be a great deal of speculation about the precise nature of the deal that will be made when we leave the European Union, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that when we leave, the European Court of Justice will no longer have any jurisdiction over this country?
The Prime Minister
This is an issue on which my hon. Friend has campaigned for a considerable time. Part of the vote that people took was about this Parliament determining laws here in the United Kingdom, and that means not being under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
A diplomat friend of mine from Sweden told me last week that it is not just the budget that they will miss after Brexit. They will also miss the English nationals—the British nationals—who work for the European Union, who he says are organised, systematic and imaginative, and provide quite a contrast to many of the others who work for the secretariat. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing them well for the future and, I guess, a happy Christmas?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to do so. There are many excellent British officials working inside the European Union, including, of course, our commissioner, Sir Julian King, who has a very important portfolio on security matters. I certainly wish them all well for the future, and I wish them and the whole House a very happy Christmas.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Would we be prepared to spend more than 2% of GDP on defence—on carrier battle group support, for example—to underpin security in Europe and elsewhere as part of the constructive ongoing relationship between the EU and the UK?
The Prime Minister
Of course, we have the commitment to spending 2% of GDP on defence, and that is an important commitment that we have given. I understand that the support will be there for the carriers. I think it is right that we encourage others within the European Union and within NATO to increase their spending to the same sort of level.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Shortly before the Council met, the 15th round of the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks ended, predictably enough, once again in stalemate. At the same time, the prospects for a bilateral UK-US deal appear to be on the rise—a deal that would not compromise sovereignty between our two nations and that would not require a new supranational body to organise disputes, because we respect each other’s legal systems. Will my right hon. Friend make such a deal the heart of our relationship with the incoming Administration?
The Prime Minister
First, for as long as we continue to be a member of the European Union, we will continue to press the advantages of the TTIP deal and encourage discussions on TTIP. But, yes, I am looking forward to discussions with the United States of America about the possibilities of a trade deal that we will be able to have with them in due course.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
In Libya there seems to be instability in Tripoli, but there seems to be stability in Benghazi. Were there any discussions at the European Council towards helping to stabilise the situation, so that there is no migration of people from Libya?
The Prime Minister
There was some discussion of Libya, because of the recognition that it plays an important role in relation to the migration of people from the rest of Africa across the Mediterranean into Italy. Of course, Royal Naval vessels have been in the Mediterranean saving people’s lives, and they continue to be there. They are also, as I indicated in my statement, training the Libyan coastguard, which is an important part of the process of preventing that migration from taking place. It is important that we have the Government of National Accord in Libya and that we are able to interact with that Government. We would encourage, and we wish to see, stability across Libya so that we can further ensure that we are dealing with this issue of migration.
HMP Birmingham
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the serious disturbance at HMP Birmingham on Friday. I begin by paying tribute to the bravery and dedication of the prison officers who resolved this difficult situation. I also want to give thanks to West Midlands police, who supported the Prison Service throughout the day, and to the ambulance crews and the fire service, which also provided assistance. This was a serious disturbance. I have ordered a full investigation, and I have appointed Sarah Payne, adviser to the independent chief inspector of probation and former director of the Welsh Prison Service, to lead this work. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the investigation.
As we currently understand it, at 9.15 am on Friday at HMP Birmingham, six prisoners in N wing climbed on to netting. When staff intervened, one of them had their keys snatched. At that point, staff withdrew for their own safety. Prisoners gained control of the wing and subsequently of P wing. G4S immediately deployed two tornado teams. At 11.20 am, gold command was opened, and a further seven tornado teams were dispatched to the prison.
At 1.30 pm, prisoners gained access to two more wings. Gold command made the decision that further reinforcements were needed and dispatched an additional four tornado teams to the prison. At 2.35 pm, the police and Prison Service secured the perimeter of all four wings, which remained secure throughout the day. Shortly after 3 pm, there were reports of an injured prisoner. Paramedics and staff tried to intervene but were prevented from doing so by prisoners.
During the afternoon, a robust plan was prepared to take back control of the wings, minimising the risk to staff and prisoners. It is important in this type of situation to make sure that the right resources are in place before acting. At 8.35 pm, 10 tornado teams of highly trained officers swept through the wings. Shortly after 10 pm, the teams had secured all four wings. The prisoner who had been reported injured was treated by paramedics and taken to hospital, along with two other prisoners. Throughout the day, the prisons Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah)—and I chaired regular cross-Government calls to make the necessary preparations and ensure that the Prison Service had all the support it needed. I want to thank the tornado teams, prison officers and emergency services for their exemplary work.
As I have said previously, levels of violence are too high in our prisons. We also have very worrying levels of self-harm and deaths in custody. That is why we are reforming our prisons to be safe and purposeful places, and taking swift action to deal with drugs, drones and phones. It is important to remember that these problems have developed over a number of years, and it will take time and concerted effort to turn this situation around.
While the reforms take hold, we are continually working to reduce risk and ensure stability across the prison estate. The Prison Service is leading gold command to collect intelligence, to deploy resources and, in particular, to manage the movement of prisoners. That includes managing two incidents at Hull yesterday morning, which were quickly dealt with by staff. To date, we have moved 380 prisoners out of Birmingham, and we continue to assess the level of damage on the wings. The prisons Minister chairs daily meetings with the chief executive and senior members of the Prison Service to monitor prisons for risk factors that might indicate the potential for violence and unrest. Where necessary, we are providing governors with immediate and targeted support, ranging from extra staff and resources through to the transfer of difficult prisoners and speeding up repairs to or replacements of facilities.
As we manage the difficult current situation, we are implementing our reform programme, which will reduce violence and cut the £15 billion cost of reoffending, as laid out in the White Paper. In September, we rolled out tests for dangerous psychoactive drugs in prison; we are the first country to do so. We are rolling out new technology, starting with three prisons, to prevent mobile phone use. We are recruiting for a new £3 million national intelligence unit to crack down on gang crime. We are increasing staffing levels by 2,500 officers, and we are taking steps to train and retain our valued staff, including a new apprenticeship programme, a graduate entry scheme, fast-track promotions and retention payments. We are putting an extra £100 million into that. We are modernising our estate, with a £1.3 billion investment programme, and we are empowering governors to manage their regimes locally to get people off drugs, get them the skills they need and get them into work. Importantly, for the first time ever, we will make it clear in the prison and courts Bill next year that the purpose of prisons is not just to house prisoners, but to reform them. Together, these reforms are the right way to address issues in prisons so that they become purposeful places, where offenders get off drugs and get the education and skills they need to find work and turn their backs on crime for good.
The issues in our prisons are long-standing ones, and they are not going to be completely solved in weeks or even months. We are working to ensure that our prisons are stable while we deliver our reforms. Of course, this is a major task, but I am committed to it and so is the Prison Service, as I know are governors and prison officers as well. The next few months will be difficult, but I am confident that we can turn this situation around. We can turn our prisons into places of safety and reform, and this is my absolute priority as Secretary of State. I commend this statement to the House.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement. I want to pay tribute to the tornado teams, the prison officers and the emergency services, but the Secretary of State has a prisons crisis on her hands, and it would be helpful if she finally admitted this to the House and to the country. The riot at the privately run Birmingham prison on Friday has been described as
“probably the most serious riot in a B Category prison since Strangeways”,
which was back in 1990. However, this riot is not the crisis; it is a symptom of the crisis. In recent months there have been disturbances at Lincoln, Lewes and Bedford, and incidents at Hull and elsewhere. Assaults on prison staff are at an all-time high, and prison officers are leaving the service in such great numbers that 8,000 will need to be recruited to meet the Secretary of State’s 2,500 target.
The Secretary of State has questions to answer, and so do the Government as a whole. When the independent monitoring board said back in October that an urgent solution was needed to the prevalence of synthetic drugs in Birmingham prison, what action did the Secretary of State take? How much has Friday’s disorder cost, and who is footing the bill for the damage? Will G4S be reimbursing the public purse for the use of public sector staff to sort out the disorder? Does the Secretary of State think it is acceptable that private sector prisons do not have to reveal staffing levels in the way that prisons in the public sector do? If, like me, she does not believe it is acceptable, is she going to do anything about it? Does she regret her vitriolic attack on prison officers in the Chamber on 15 November? It even shocked many of her colleagues. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State starting listening to prison officers on the front line?
Of all prisons in 2015, Birmingham had the highest number of assaults on staff. There were 164 assaults on staff in 2015 alone. The Prison Officers Association, the Public and Commercial Services Union and the Prison Governors Association have warned of this crisis since 2010. It is about time that fundamental questions were asked about the way our prison system is working—or not working. The Secretary of State needs to consider whether or not it is right that private companies such as G4S at Birmingham or Sodexo at Northumberland, where there are also big problems, should be making profit from prisons and from society’s ills.
The Secretary of State needs to turn her mind to the fact that where rehabilitation fails and prison education is cut, reoffending rises. This is a failure to protect society. Privatisation of the probation service, savage cuts to prison staffing, overcrowding in our prisons and cuts to through-the-gate services all stop prison working and put the public at avoidable and increased risk. The Secretary of State should admit that in her overcrowded, understaffed prisons, shorter-sentence prisoners are leaving prison with drug addictions that they did not have when they went in and are leaving more likely to commit more serious crimes than those they were put away for in the first place. This is not protecting society; it is endangering society.
Such is the crisis in our prisons that the Secretary of State needs to develop an open mind on the future of our prisons. Is there anything we can learn from how prisons work in other countries? Perhaps we can learn from some of the experiences in Norway and elsewhere. But one thing is for sure: the USA model of huge, privately run super-prisons is not the way to go.
To conclude, 380 prisoners have been transferred from HMP Birmingham. Where have they been transferred to? Is G4S back running things in Birmingham now? Will the Government review the role of G4S and private companies in running our prisons? Does the Secretary of State finally realise that it was wrong and dangerous to cut 6,000 front-line prison staff in the first place? The crisis in our prisons is a symptom of a failing Government who have lost control.
Elizabeth Truss
Since I was appointed Secretary of State for Justice in July, I have been absolutely clear that we need to improve safety in our prisons and that the levels of violence we currently have are unacceptable. We are investing a further £500 million over the next three years, which was announced in the autumn statement, as part of our prison safety and reform plan to do just that.
The hon. Gentleman talked about psychoactive drugs and asked what we had done about them. We have put in place tests to detect those drugs and also trained up officers to detect them. We have rolled that out across the prison estate. We are also rolling out new measures to deal with mobile phones and investing in a £3 million intelligence unit.
The most important thing is our staff. I have huge respect for prison officers and their work. That is why we are strengthening the front line by 2,500 officers. That will ensure that we have one officer for every six prisoners, which will enable us not only to make prisons safer, but to turn lives around. We are getting a new apprenticeship scheme and creating a fast track so that we train existing officers and get them promotion within the service. That is a long-term programme—we are taking immediate action but hon. Members need to recognise that it will take time to bring those people online and get them trained up. In the meantime, we are ensuring that there is a full investigation at HMP Birmingham. There is a full police investigation and the perpetrators of the incident will feel the full force of the law. The reality is that their actions put both staff and prisoners at risk.
The hon. Gentleman asked about G4S. It will cover the cost of what happened at HMP Birmingham, including the resources employed by the public sector, but we need to be honest that this is a problem across our prison estate—we have seen issues at our private sector prisons and our public sector prisons. That is why our staff investments will be across the board, and why our reform measures and increased transparency, which the hon. Gentleman asked about, will apply to both public sector and private sector prisons.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the prison population. The reality is that it rose by 23,000 under the Labour Government between 1997 and 2010. It has been stable under this Government since 2010. He talked about short-sentence prisoners. The number of short-sentence prisoners has actually gone down by 1,500 since 2010; the increases have been in the number of, for example, sex offenders rightly being put away for those heinous crimes.
We are reforming our prisons but it will take time. We have the right measures in place to turn the tide, and we need to turn our prisons into places of safety and reform. We have taken immediate action to reduce risk across the estate, but everyone in the House must recognise that it will take time to ensure that our prisons become the places we want them to be.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and her frankness about the seriousness of the situation, which does her credit. I join her in paying tribute to the professionalism of prison staff, especially the tornado teams and others who operated very efficiently. She is right to say that the problem has built up over many years, and it is one for which all parties must accept a measure of responsibility. Will she ensure that the report not only looks at the immediate issues that arise from what has happened in Birmingham prison, but learns the broader lessons about how best to deal with dispersing disruptive prisoners; how to deal with pressures on the estate under those circumstances; how to deal with contractual difficulties with repairs to the estate, which sometimes create tensions; and how to deal sensibly with the problem of retaining experienced officers? I have just received an email from a prison officer indicating that one reason he is leaving after years of service is the failure of senior management to listen consistently to the concerns of officers on the line. Can we learn those lessons so that we can turn the tide around, which will take time?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is the illustrious Chair of the Select Committee covering these matters, and that he does not wish any concept which at any time might be in any way material to be excluded from his interrogation, but I advise other Members that, although they may seek to emulate his erudition, they should not seek to rival his length.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right—those issues will be looked at in the investigation that is taking place. On staff retention, we are working on retention bonuses and on giving governors additional powers, but I can assure him that I have asked for further investigation into precisely how we improve retention. The prisons Minister and I have been meeting prison officers around the country and listening to their concerns on career progression and training, and we will take action on them.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
To those of us who have been following the crisis in our prisons, nothing that happened in Winson Green in my constituency on Friday came as a shock. The independent monitoring board report on HMP Birmingham found that staff resource constraints gave “cause for concern” and that there was a lack of capacity to run the full prison regime. What action did the Secretary of State take when the report was published? Will that action, or lack of it, be part of the investigation she has now promised? Will she tell us whether there are other things that she knows about but as yet has failed to act upon?
Elizabeth Truss
I am very happy to have a discussion with the hon. Lady about HMP Birmingham specifically. Staff retention and issues with psychoactive substances are issues across the prisons estate. The prisons Minister has a daily meeting to look at stability and make sure that we are providing every governor, regardless of whether they are in the public or private sector, with the support they need.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Mobile telephones are used in prisons for the furtherance of crime and violence, and indeed for recording violence when it takes place. The Secretary of State hinted that there might have been some progress in stopping their use in prisons. Will she enlarge on that, please?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that alongside the rise in the use of psychoactive substances we have seen a rise in the use of mobile phones in prisons. We have been working with the mobile phone companies on a technical solution, which is rolling out; we are starting to test it fully in three prisons. That will give us the means of preventing those crimes.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
May I press the Secretary of State further? When she received the report from the independent monitoring board, did she read it and take action, or do we have a situation in which we had the riots and then the warnings from the independent monitoring board, but nothing happened in between?
Elizabeth Truss
We read the reports of the independent monitoring board and take action. We read that report. The prisons Minister and I are in constant touch with governors on these specific issues.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Some reports suggest that up to 75% of the inmate population have one or more mental health problem. Does the Secretary of State agree that we are unlikely to be able to reform our prisons fundamentally until we get to grips with mental health in the criminal justice system?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been discussing with the Health Secretary how we can improve mental health provision in prisons and in the criminal justice system overall. We are giving governors power over mental health commissioning jointly with the NHS to make sure that we have the right services in our prisons.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), did the Secretary of State read the report and take absolutely no action at all?
Elizabeth Truss
We are talking to governors across the estate, including the governor at HMP Birmingham. Many of our prisons face these issues. That is why we have already taken action on psychoactive substances, are taking action on mobile phones and are recruiting staff, including at HMP Birmingham.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The matter of whether prisons are state-run or privatised is for another day, but for the record I believe they should be state-run. In my recent Adjournment debate I asked whether my right hon. Friend would introduce any new laws to act as a deterrent to prisoners—so that, for example, if they assaulted a prison officer, there would be an automatic extension to their sentence. I believe she was going to look at that. Will she inform the House of any moves being made on that?
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for the time she afforded me earlier to discuss the incident at HMP Hull at the weekend. She will know that Rob Nicholson, the Prison Officers Association rep in Hull, described the situation at the weekend as a
“powder keg...waiting to go off.”
The prison was put on lock down and was said to be on the brink of riot. Prison officers tell me that they are afraid to go to work. What can she do to assure the public and those prison officers that they are safe to go to work?
Elizabeth Truss
I have discussed with the head of the Prison Service the two specific incidents at Hull, which were dealt with. The issue is being dealt with across the board.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to closing old Victorian prisons that are now no longer fit for purpose and to investing unprecedented amounts of money to build new prisons. When will the Secretary of State be in a position to update us on which prisons will close and which new prisons will open?
Elizabeth Truss
We have a £1.3 billion building programme. The first prison, which will open in February next year, is HMP Berwyn. It will bring an additional 2,100 places, which will help to reduce overcrowding across the estate.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I understand, listening to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) about what happened in Hull, that the prisoners involved had been dispersed from Birmingham. Can the Secretary of State say something about her view on that dispersal policy and how well it is working?
Elizabeth Truss
Given the condition of the wings in HMP Birmingham, the Prison Service needed to disperse those individuals across the prison estate. The Prison Service, which is experienced in dealing with these issues, is managing that process very carefully. There were incidents at HMP Hull and they were dealt with. We are dealing with some very difficult individuals, but it is being looked at very, very closely.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the discussion she was having with mobile phone providers. Is she doing the same with drone manufacturers?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is correct. We are working closely with drone manufacturers to create no-fly zones over prisons and deal with the scourge of contraband entering our prisons.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I can remember a time when a Minister coming before this House after such a serious incident might have had to show a degree of contrition. Since the Justice Secretary mentions staffing levels, can she confirm that G4S has made a profit at HMP Birmingham because it has reduced the number of experienced but more expensive staff and replaced them with cheaper but less experienced officers?
Elizabeth Truss
I have been very clear that we need experienced staff. In fact, 80% of staff working for the Prison Service have been with us for five or more years. I am very keen to ensure we retain them—we offer them promotion opportunities. Staffing levels are not set by G4S. They are set by our overall prison policy, which I am changing to ensure they are sufficient. We are investing an extra £100 million a year in staffing to ensure we have the right staffing levels in both private and public sector prisons.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
We have already heard about the dramatic rise in psychoactive drug use, mobile phone use and the use of drones. I am told by my local prison officers that that is because prison officer levels have become dangerously low. Until we can recruit and train enough staff, what interim plans will there be?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not have sufficient staff in our prisons, which is why the Government are putting in additional investment. We started with 10 of our most challenging prisons, where we needed to recruit an extra 400 staff. We have already been able to put out 280 job offers, which shows that we can recruit. In 75% of our prisons we do not have a problem recruiting. In the areas where we do have a problem, we are offering extra retention payments to achieve our recruitment plans.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Our prisons have had 7,000 fewer prison officers since 2010: a cut of 28%. Two thirds of our prisons are overcrowded. We have seen disturbances at many prisons—not just at Birmingham, which we are discussing today—and the level of suicide in our prisons is at its highest for 25 years. That is a truly shameful record and we have seen very little remorse from the Secretary of State today. Will she now apologise?
Elizabeth Truss
I have been very clear about the issues in our prison system. Since I secured this role in July, I have been focused on dealing with them, making sure that we make our prisons safer, invest in prison staff and invest in mental health facilities in our prisons in order to deal with this situation.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
In her statement, the Justice Secretary said that the prisons Minister chairs daily meetings with the chief executive of the Prison Service to monitor prisons for risk factors that might indicate potential violence and unrest. Why was the risk of serious violence at HMP Birmingham not raised in the relevant daily meeting, and if the biggest rise in violence in our prisons for 26 years was not raised, what is the point of having daily meetings?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am sure he will recognise that with an operational service such as the Prison Service, we can reduce and minimise risk, but we cannot eliminate it completely. That is what the efforts of the daily meeting are about—reducing the level of violence and giving governors what they need to keep our prisons as safe as possible. When the incidents occurred, they were dealt with extremely effectively by the tornado teams. I want to see a more stable prison estate, which means building extra capacity so that we do not have overcrowding, and investing in staff so that our prisons can be staffed at a proper level. I have to tell Members that this will take time. While we are seeking to minimise risk, we cannot of course prevent every incident from happening.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Given that the level of assaults on staff and prisoners and that the level of disorder in prisons generally is higher in the private sector per 100 prisoners than it is in the public sector, will the Secretary of State tell us how many of these extra staff are going to be employed by the private sector, over whose recruitment she has no direct control?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. If he looks at the way we review prisons, he will find that the performance of the private and public sectors is relatively equivalent. There is not a significant difference between performance in the private and public sector. We set the levels of staff that the private sector has to employ. We are moving towards a 1:6 ratio in both the public and private sectors. All our evidence suggests that that will be enough to make sure that we keep prisons safe and, importantly, to reform prisoners to reduce the cost of reoffending.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said in her statement that these matters had been developing over a number of years, but is it not the case that between 1997 and 2010 there were no cat A escapes and no riots like the ones we have seen? Since that time, there have been two category A and many other escapes, record numbers of suicides and record numbers of homicides in our prisons. Why should we trust the right hon. Lady’s party to run the Prison Service?
Elizabeth Truss
I have said absolutely that we have seen significant rises in violence over recent years. That is why we launched the prison safety and reform plan. The first thing I did when I became Secretary of State was to make sure that we dealt with those issues. We have faced new challenges such as psychoactive drugs and mobile phones, which were not an issue before. I say to the right hon. Lady that since the inception of prisons we have not seriously impacted the reoffending rate, which is a challenge we face as a country. It is costing us £15 billion a year. It is important that we make our prisons safe, but also make them places of reform where we can reduce reoffending. Prisons need to follow both purposes.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
It is very clear that the Prison Service is in a state of acute crisis, and it is a pity that the Secretary of State is not willing to admit that. Why was G4S involved in staffing the prison in the first place? We should look at its past. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), an illustrious Government Whip, is very excited in the approach to his wedding. I advise him that the descent on him of a Zen-like calm will aid his preparations.
Mr Winnick
G4S was the organisation that had to pay back £109 million to the Secretary of State’s own Department for overcharging. There were problems in the Medway secure training centre, the Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre and many other cases where this organisation has been involved. It is time that G4S was told very clearly that it is no longer needed in our Prison Service.
Elizabeth Truss
I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the decision to put HMP Birmingham out to private tender was a Labour decision, in 2009. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) is an illustrious former prisons Minister, eager to make his point with great force and alacrity—[Interruption.] Order. Mr Gyimah, I know that you are trying to aid matters, but you are disadvantaging me in seeking to facilitate good order. Your assistance might be required at some unspecified point in the future, but it is not required at the moment. We must hear the answers from the Secretary of State.
Elizabeth Truss
Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman that the underlying causes are the increase in psychoactive drugs, which the prisons and probation ombudsman has described as “a game-changer”; insufficient staff numbers, which I have addressed in the White Paper “Prison safety and reform”; increased use of mobile phones; and gangs, drugs and bullying. Those issues are common to both the public and private sectors, and they are the issues that the Government are addressing.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State now acknowledge that the root cause of these difficulties is the cutting of £700 million from the Prison Service since 2010? Will she now apologise to the House, and say that that was a false economy?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have said, since I started this job in July I have made clear that we need additional staff in our Prison Service to face new challenges such as psychoactive drugs, mobile phones and gangs. We are putting the money in—that was announced in the autumn statement—and we have a comprehensive programme for reform, but many of the problems in our prisons have existed for a decade. That is why, for the first time ever, we are making clear in legislation that reform is a key purpose of prison.
Mr Speaker
Before he beetles off to some other no doubt important commitment, let us hear the fellow from Wrexham.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. You are most accommodating.
The Secretary of State has already mentioned HM Prison Berwyn in Wrexham, which will open in February next year and will be the largest prison in western Europe. In due course, 2,000 men will reside there. Will she meet me so that I can discuss with her the arrangements for the opening, to allay some of the concerns of my constituents, which, as she can imagine on a day like today, have risen somewhat?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State is looking for some light reading over Christmas, she would do well to acquire a copy of a book by the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), “Doing Time: Prisons in the 21st Century”, which contains a number of ideas. If I heard you correctly, Mr Speaker, you mentioned the hon. Gentleman’s intended marriage. Perhaps, if the Secretary of State were able to buy a copy, that would help with the cost of the wedding.
There are currently 9,971 foreign nationals in our prisons. In order to reduce the prison population, what further steps are being taken to return them to their countries of origin?
Elizabeth Truss
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the book already has pride of place on my bookshelf. I have read it thoroughly, and I recommend it to every Member in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) is very committed to prison reform, so much so that he agreed to become a Whip in my Department to keep an eye on us and make sure that we are on the right track.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about foreign national offenders, and we are very much dealing with the issue.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
First the prison was taken over by G4S, and then it was taken over by the prisoners. The report on the prison by the Independent Monitoring Boards states explicitly that staff shortages are a major issue, observing that
“on too many occasions, in many areas, the service was reduced by there being insufficient staff”.
That was the very theme of the report. Brutally, whose fault is this, the private operator’s or the Government’s?
Elizabeth Truss
Clearly, there are issues across our prison estate. There is not sufficient time out of cell, and that is one of the things we are going to be measuring in our new reform measures. We also do not have sufficient staff to be able to keep our prisons safe and reform offenders, which is what we need to do.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
It took three written parliamentary questions from me to get the Government to confess that only one prison in Britain was free of illegal drug use. It took a fourth question to get the information that that prison had no prisoners because it had closed down. This is symptomatic of the Government being in denial of the corruption and chaos in our prison service. Have not the Government’s policies for the past six years been, like the Minister’s statement today, evidence-free and ignorance-rich?
Elizabeth Truss
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his assiduousness in asking parliamentary questions, which have elicited an answer. If he reads the “Prison safety and reform” White Paper, he will see there is a whole section on how we deal with the issue of drugs: testing offenders on entry and exit, and making sure that governors are held accountable for getting people off drugs. That is the way we are going to crack this problem.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), the shadow Secretary of State, has pointed out, this is the worst prison disturbance since the Strangeways riot of 1990. The Woolf report on that riot recommended that
“no establishment should hold more prisoners than is provided for in its certified normal level of accommodation”,
but it is reported that HMP Birmingham was overcrowded by almost a third last year. Have this Government learnt no lessons at all from the riots of 26 years ago?
Elizabeth Truss
I have discussed the issue the hon. Lady mentions with Lord Woolf. She is right that the disturbance at HMP Birmingham was very serious; that is why we are investing £1.3 billion in our prison build programme to create extra capacity and eliminate overcrowding in the prison estate.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Howard League published a report in the summer indicating all Welsh prisons had seen a fall in the number of officers compared with last year, so what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure the Welsh prison estate is equipped with sufficient staff, especially as it is the policy of the UK Government to build in Wrexham a Titan prison, one of the largest in Europe, primarily, as she has said in this debate, to house prisoners from overcrowded prisons in England?
Elizabeth Truss
We have great recruitment plans and programmes in place. We have already recruited a significant number for the first 10 prisons, including one in Wales, and we will follow that through with new apprenticeship programmes and graduate entry programmes and by making sure staff in our prison service are able to gain promotion and get the training they need to progress.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
John Thornhill, president of the National Council of Independent Monitoring Boards, says the boards are “frustrated” by the lack of response to the issues raised in their annual reports, so can the Secretary of State tell me three specific and substantive actions taken as a result of the relevant monitoring board’s latest annual report into Birmingham?
Elizabeth Truss
The White Paper is very clear about reforming and making sure IMB recommendations are taken seriously, and about working closely with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, because at the moment there is no duty for the Secretary of State to respond. We are putting that in place, to make sure it triggers action.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
How many staff were on duty when the riot started, and what is the Secretary of State’s estimate of the cost of the disturbance?
Elizabeth Truss
I have recounted the events of the day as far as we are aware of them, but there will be a full investigation that will make all those facts clear.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a noted thespian and I know he will therefore greatly enjoy the warm acclamation he receives when he now rises again from his seat.
Stephen Pound
No one could seriously attempt to deny that there is something rotten in the prison estate in this country at the present time. However, I would like to give the Government credit for finally considering the issue of post-release employment. Many inmates believe that, when you ain’t got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose. The Secretary of State has on her Benches probably the greatest expert in Parliament on that particular subject. Would she consider seconding the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Edward Timpson), to her Department—he might not thank me for my suggestion —to produce a report to the House in, say, six months’ time on what the Government are doing on post-release employment? The issue really is that crucial.
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is vital to ensure that people have a job to go to when they leave custody. I am already working closely with that Minister’s “family” on this, and the prisons Minister will publish a report on the issue next year. We are examining plans to ensure that governors are held accountable for their effectiveness in getting offenders from their prisons into work.
Mr Speaker
I hope this is not a continuation of the debate, but the right hon. Gentleman has an honest face and I will give him a chance.
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his own point in his own way. We must hear the response of the Secretary of State, if she wishes to offer one.
Elizabeth Truss
The point I made was that the decision to put HMP Birmingham out to tender was made by Labour. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is quite a lot of eccentric gesticulation going on, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) is shaking his head feverishly. I simply say to Members: consult the record. It will be very useful to read and digest the Official Report tomorrow morning over breakfast. The hon. Gentleman will probably find that therapeutic. I am grateful to the Secretary of State.
Yemen
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on an announcement that was made in Riyadh earlier today on the conflict in Yemen. In 2014, Houthi forces and those loyal to former President Saleh took over the capital, Sana’a, and forced out the Hadi Government. Houthi forces have subsequently attacked Saudi territory, shelling border villages daily and killing Saudi civilians. A 10-country Saudi-led coalition intervened to restore the Hadi Government, to deter further Houthi aggression and to defend the Saudi border. United Nations Security Council resolution 2216 condemned the Houthis’ actions. The United Kingdom fully supports both the coalition and the right of Saudi Arabia to defend itself. Instability in Yemen, where there is a long-standing al-Qaeda presence and a growing threat from Daesh—seen tragically in Aden this weekend—threatens not just the Gulf but our security in western Europe.
Concerns have been raised in this House and by non-governmental organisations about our export of military equipment to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Gulf. There have been allegations about breaches of international humanitarian law. As we operate one of the strictest arms export control regimes in the world, we take any such allegations very seriously and do our best to ensure that they are properly investigated by the coalition.
Following the air strike on the Great Hall in Sana’a on 26 October this year, for example, I spoke to the Saudi Defence Minister, the Foreign Secretary spoke to his counterpart, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), travelled to Riyadh to underline our concerns in person. The coalition’s joint incidents assessment team—the JIAT—subsequently announced interim findings within a week. The coalition committed to review its rules of engagement and its command and control systems, and to take action against those held responsible. We acknowledge the progress they have made and look forward to the completed investigation of that incident.
The coalition continues to investigate other allegations. The findings of eight investigations were announced on 4 August and a further five on 6 December. We are pressing the coalition to complete all the remaining investigations as quickly as possible.
One specific allegation that UK-supplied cluster munitions were used in January this year was raised in this House on 24 May. The UK signed the convention on cluster munitions in 2008 and has not supplied any such weapons to Saudi Arabia since 1989—over a quarter of a century ago. Our initial view, as set out by the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), and based on the information we held at the time, was that a UK weapon had not been used, but we committed to analyse the allegation and to seek a full investigation by the coalition.
That investigation has now concluded. The coalition confirmed earlier today that a limited number of BL755 cluster munitions that were exported from the UK in the 1980s were dropped in Yemen, including by a coalition aircraft in the incident alleged by Amnesty International not far from the Saudi border. The coalition, whose members are not parties to the convention, has said that the munitions were used against a legitimate military target and did not therefore contravene international humanitarian law. However, Saudi Arabia has now confirmed that it will not further use BL755 cluster munitions. I welcome that.
This particular instance shows that, in complete contrast to Russian and Syrian air strikes, where allegations are made, and with our support, the Saudi-led coalition is prepared to investigate thoroughly, to publish the findings and to take action where appropriate. I assure the House that we will continue to keep current sales of military equipment to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies under review, in accordance with our arms export criteria. I commend this statement to the House.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. We are all deeply concerned about the ongoing conflict in Yemen and the dire humanitarian situation it has caused. As the House is aware, there have been widespread allegations that both sides in the conflict have violated international law. The latest revelation that UK-made cluster munitions have been used by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen is deeply worrying. Not only are such weapons immediately dangerous, but they come with a toxic legacy, lying on battlefields and threatening civilians, especially children, long after a conflict has ended.
In 2008, the previous Labour Government signed the convention on cluster munitions. The strikes that the Secretary of State has described today amount to the first confirmed use of UK-made cluster bombs since that date. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when he was first made aware of the possible use of such weapons by the coalition in Yemen? Why has it taken so long to confirm that those weapons were used?
A few days ago, the Obama Administration blocked the sale of guided-munitions kits over concerns about civilian casualties. That followed the United States blocking a sale of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia. The Foreign Secretary said that the test for continued British arms sales
“is whether those weapons might be used in a commission of a serious breach of international humanitarian law.”
I note that the Defence Secretary confirmed that a limited number of cluster munitions supplied by this country were dropped in Yemen by a coalition aircraft. Although the cluster munitions were exported in the 1980s, will the Government commit to examining whether their current policy needs to be changed? There have been wholly unacceptable actions, and this country cannot sit on its hands.
The Government have consistently rejected calls for an independent, United Nations-led investigation into possible breaches of humanitarian and international law in Yemen. In the light of what we have learnt today, I implore the Government to heed calls from Opposition Members, as well as from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the International Development Committee, to have an inquiry. We need such an inquiry so that we can have independent verification of the actions of both sides in this conflict.
Finally, on the humanitarian situation, will the Secretary of State set out what action is being taken to help the 14 million people in need of urgent food and the 13 million Yemenis who lack access to clean water? In particular, we would like to know what is being done to help those children who are suffering so desperately in this conflict.
Sir Michael Fallon
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. We all want to see this conflict brought to an end, and I hope we would be even-handed about that; more than 90 Saudi civilians have lost their lives in this conflict, through shelling over the border into Saudi Arabia, and more than 500, including women and children, have been injured. It is important that those things are set alongside other allegations of civilian casualties in Yemen itself.
The hon. Gentleman asked when we first became aware of this allegation. We were made aware of it in the spring. It was brought to the Floor of this House in May, and our analysis began. I wrote back to Amnesty at the end of June telling it that we had commenced work on our own analysis, but that could take us only so far, as the investigation itself was a matter for the Saudi authorities. That investigation continued throughout the autumn and has concluded only in the past few days. We, too, have been frustrated by the length of time it has taken, but the investigation has been carried out by the Saudis and it has now got us to the transparent admission that has been made this morning.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the United States stopping the supply of munitions, and we should be careful here; the US has stopped only one munitions licence, and it continues to supply combat aircraft, attack helicopters and other munitions to Saudi Arabia. Only one licence has been paused. As he has described, we have a different process—an arms control process that we keep under continuous review. He asked what our current policy on cluster munitions weapons is. It is exactly the same as it was left under the Labour Government: we oppose the use of cluster munitions. Let me make it very clear to the House that we are signatories of and parties to that convention, and we oppose the use of cluster munitions. We have made that very clear to the Saudi authorities and we therefore welcome their announcement today that they will no longer use cluster munitions. That is a result from this investigation and the pressure we have been putting on them.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about an independent inquiry. We have been clear throughout that an allegation such as this is, first, a matter for the Saudi authorities and the coalition authorities to investigate. They have shown through this process that they are able to do that. They have investigated, and they have today announced the findings and taken action as a result.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Have the Saudis explained why they used these British-supplied weapons, presumably in the knowledge that it would cause considerable embarrassment to the British Government? What plans do the Saudis have to dispose of their remaining stocks?
Sir Michael Fallon
The Saudis have made it clear that they used these munitions in a border area—just a few kilometres from the Saudi border—inside Yemen and they used them against a legitimate military target that may have been responsible for some of the attacks and deaths they had been suffering on their side of the border. They therefore state that, as they are not party to the convention, the use of these cluster munitions does not contravene international law. As for stocks, they have made it clear that they are not going to use UK-supplied cluster munitions in future, and we should all welcome that.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scottish National party Members have been clear for many, many months that there have been undeniable violations of international humanitarian law by Saudi Arabia in its conflict in Yemen. There is overwhelming evidence that the Saudis have been failing to conduct military operations lawfully, a situation that caused the US to join the Netherlands and Germany in suspending arms sales to Saudi Arabia very recently. Once again, the Saudi regime stands accused of routinely using cluster bombs against the Yemeni people; that is a weapon even this Government describe as “unjustifiable” because it is designed to kill and injure civilians. Today’s revelations are not particularly new, but unless the Government act immediately to end arms sales to Saudi Arabia the court of public opinion will find them guilty of collusion in violations of international humanitarian law.
I have a couple of questions: will the Secretary of State tell the House when he first saw the analysis confirming the UK cluster bomb? Is The Guardian article today correct in saying that he first saw it a month ago? If so, why is this House finding out only now, after it appeared in the press? His statement says that the cluster bombs were used against legitimate military targets and therefore did not contravene international humanitarian law, but how can we continue to do business with a regime that routinely uses cluster bombs against civilian populations? This country is a signatory to the treaty, which obliges us to stop other people using such munitions. Finally, what does a regime have to do—how many breaches of international humanitarian law must it commit?—before this Government deem it an unacceptable partner to deal in arms with?
Sir Michael Fallon
First, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening, as the United States has not suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia—he is incorrect about that. The US has suspended one sale of munitions, but it continues to sell munitions generally to Saudi Arabia, and to supply aircraft and attack helicopters. Secondly, there is no evidence that cluster munitions have been routinely used in Yemen—on the contrary, this allegation stood out for what it is. It has been thoroughly investigated and, as a result of that investigation and of our pressure, we now have an undertaking that Saudi Arabia will not use cluster munitions of this kind in the future and indeed that it is now considering becoming a party to the convention.
The hon. Gentleman asked when I first became aware of the analysis that we were doing. My hon. Friend the then Minister for Defence Procurement told the House in May that we would look hard at this allegation, and we began our analysis, but of course we were not investigating this allegation; only the coalition could investigate it, because only the coalition had access to all the information that would be needed to see whether this particular allegation was justified. I concede that the investigation has taken a long time, but we now have the result, and we have the admission from the Saudi authorities that cluster munitions were used, together with the undertaking that they will not be used in future.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Are the Saudis correct in seeing the existence of an Iranian-backed Houthi regime on their southern border as an existential threat to the Kingdom?
Sir Michael Fallon
In a word, yes. The Saudis are seeing villages being shelled on a daily basis from across their border. I have yet to hear any Opposition Member condemn that shelling or take any note of the innocent lives that have been lost on the Saudi side of the border, along with, of course, the innocent lives that have been lost in the conflict in Yemen. Absolutely, Saudi Arabia has the right to defend itself.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am glad that Yemen is being discussed again in the House today, but I am sad and disappointed that we are doing so for these reasons. Of course I accept the assurances given by the Minister, and I know he will ensure that the Saudi Arabian Government will also keep to their promise, but what the people of Yemen need over the next few days is a ceasefire. We are seeing bombs, famine and cholera, and a country starving to death. It desperately needs that ceasefire. The Prime Minister said that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has done so much work on this issue, was in Riyadh yesterday. Can we therefore be given any further information as to how we can get this ceasefire, so that the aid can start getting through to save the people of Yemen before it is too late?
Sir Michael Fallon
The right hon. Gentleman’s approach is very constructive. I know of his interest: he chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen. We are trying, as a Government, to do two things. First, to bring about the ceasefire that he seeks and we have all sought in Yemen, by getting the parties together. In the end, there has to be some kind of political settlement in Yemen, and we have been working towards that end.
Secondly, there is the issue that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), was working on in Riyadh just yesterday. We urgently need to get the ports, including Hudaydah, properly open so that we can get humanitarian aid in—particularly for the civilian population, who so desperately need it now.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend talk a little about our relationship with Saudi Arabia and how it keeps our streets safer here?
Sir Michael Fallon
Yes. Saudi Arabia is a key partner in our fight against terrorism. We depend on each other’s intelligence. There are terrorist plots to this country of which we have been forewarned by Saudi Arabia. It is essential for our own security that we keep our relationship with Saudi Arabia in good repair.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I am sorry to say this, but for those of us with long memories, this is a reminder of the sort of discussions we used to have on arms to Iraq. Eventually, through the Scott inquiry, we found that Ministers had misled us; I will not put it any stronger than that. Those who were here at that time should reflect on the kind of answers that were given to us. We knew what was going on in Iraq. We know what is going on in Yemen. How can we possibly support continuing to send arms to Saudi Arabia that are being used in that country?
Sir Michael Fallon
As somebody who was here part of the time during that process, I certainly recall the very close attention that the House eventually paid to the sale of arms to Iraq. We have, partly as a result of exactly what happened in the 1980s, a very tough arms export control regime. We keep our arms sales under continuous review. We weigh up each successive licence when it is brought before Ministers. But we also need to be very clear that Saudi Arabia has the right to defend itself and that it is quite legitimately answering the call of the legitimate Government of Yemen in coming to their aid.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Earlier, I was a little surprised to hear that it is almost three decades since we last sold cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia. It was also heartening to hear that it has agreed to use them no longer. Will my right hon. Friend say whether, since we signed the convention in 2008, any UK personnel have been involved in supporting continued maintenance or given other support to enable the Saudis to use their cluster munitions?
Sir Michael Fallon
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that very specific assurance: no United Kingdom personnel have been involved in the storage, transport, maintenance or deployment of any cluster munitions in Saudi Arabia.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I am sure that everyone in the House would condemn the murder of Saudi civilians as they do Yemeni civilians, but what we are talking about is the sale of UK weapons to Saudi. How many times have cluster munitions been dropped? Have they been dropped on any occasions by UK-supplied aircraft? Is the UK satisfied that all those targets were legitimate military targets, and what was the UK involvement in the targeting?
Sir Michael Fallon
We are only aware of this single allegation that has now been fully investigated by the Saudi authorities: a single allegation that cluster munitions were used in this particular incident around the turn of the year. As the Saudis have made clear today, they had been dropped by a coalition aircraft. I am sorry; what was the right hon. Gentleman’s second question?
Sir Michael Fallon
The Saudi authorities have said today that these munitions were used against a legitimate military target in the border area on the Yemeni side of the Saudi border. On UK involvement, we are not involved in approving or selecting targets for the coalition in Yemen.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Iran, North Korea, Cuba: we see what happens when countries are shunned by the international community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is positive engagement through our diplomatic service with our ally, Saudi Arabia, that will influence this process—not shunning it, as some on the Labour Benches suggest?
Sir Michael Fallon
Exactly. There is nothing to be gained from shunning or boycotting Saudi Arabia. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia is on the cusp of enormous social and economic reforms. As well as being a key security, trading and investment partner in our own country, Saudi Arabia is now on the cusp of a major reform programme of its economy and society. We ought to be playing our part in that rather than constantly cavilling from the sidelines.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State be very clear? On what specific date did the Saudis inform him or his other ministerial colleagues that they had in fact used UK cluster munitions in Yemen? Given the wide range of other allegations that still do not have any answers—in fact, Médecins sans Frontières is already questioning some of the Joint Incidents Assessment Team investigations —why should we trust that Saudi Arabia has in fact conducted operations lawfully and appropriately?
Sir Michael Fallon
The official confirmation about this particular allegation has come today—this afternoon—from Riyadh. I thought it right that Parliament should be informed as soon as that announcement was made in Riyadh. Other allegations are outstanding and we continue to press the Saudi authorities to get those investigations wrapped up, publish the findings and then take action if there are weaknesses in their command and control procedures, to get them remedied. It is only through that that they will continue to demonstrate that the assurances they give us and their other allies are properly valid.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
What analysis has the Defence Secretary made of the humanitarian consequences of the illicit redistribution of cluster munitions, including BL755, from chaotic, failed and post-conflict states, on civilian populations throughout the middle east and north Africa, and much further afield?
Sir Michael Fallon
Clearly, we oppose the use of cluster munitions. We do not keep records of how the stocks that may have been accumulated by countries in the middle east have later been distributed or sold on, but clearly we oppose their use in any conflict now.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but it is simply not the case that these British-made cluster munitions were used against a legitimate military target. They were dropped on farmland in northern Yemen, creating de facto minefields that have killed and injured civilians. It has taken more than six months for the Saudi-led coalition to admit using them. Why does the Secretary of State now give it the benefit of the doubt over their use when such breaches of international humanitarian law are being alleged?
Sir Michael Fallon
I have seen no evidence that the dropping of this particular munition has resulted in any civilian casualties. On the contrary, this was a munition that, from all accounts, had not in fact exploded—probably because of its obsolescence; it was a very old weapon. However, if the hon. Lady has evidence that any civilians have been killed or injured, we would very much like to see it.
As I have made clear, the investigation has taken a while. We have continued to press the Saudis on the fact that when something such as this is alleged, they need to be as transparent as possible, get on with the investigation and reassure their allies by simply publishing the findings, and, if something went wrong, then admitting it went wrong and putting it right. That is not what happens when we consider the Russian bombing of completely innocent civilians in Aleppo.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement to the House today. Will he say a few words on the regional situation that has led to this conflict? Clearly, the Iranian invasion in Yemen is causing many of the issues. While he is talking about the regional situation, will he join me in offering condolences to the family of Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, Ambassador Karlov, who was tragically murdered today? Does he agree that, just because we condemn Russian violence in Aleppo, that does not mean we support other violence against Russia in other parts of the world?
Sir Michael Fallon
I am sure the House will join my hon. Friend and me in condemning the murder of the Russian ambassador to Turkey—a shocking act involving a diplomat, who should otherwise, of course, enjoy proper protection, and whose murder does not bring any conflict in the middle east closer to resolution. There are, however, too many states in the middle east that are acting beyond their borders—such as Iran, clearly involved behind the scenes in Yemen in prolonging a conflict that only perpetuates the suffering of the Yemeni people.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I commend the Defence Secretary for making a statement rather than being dragged here to answer an urgent question. That is an important part of the way we do our business, and I commend him for it.
I support what the Defence Secretary says about Saudi Arabia having the right to defend itself, but surely not at any cost and not in any way—that is all we are trying to get at. When the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who is an honourable man, and who I do not think for an instant wanted to mislead the House, said in May that, based
“on all the information available to us, including sensitive coalition operational reporting, we assess that no UK-supplied cluster weapons have been used”—[Official Report, 24 May 2016; Vol. 611, c. 401.]
had he been lied to by our coalition allies, and, if so, can we really trust anything the Saudis say today?
Sir Michael Fallon
No, as I made clear, that was his view at the time, based on the only information that we had available. That was long before the investigation that has concluded today had properly started. That was the best information he had at the time.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, yes, the purpose of international humanitarian law is to recognise that states do have the right to defend themselves, but they have to do so in a way that is necessary and proportionate, that avoids hitting the sick or the wounded and that properly distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants. That is the basis of international humanitarian law. Now, the Saudis believe—he may not accept this—that, in this particular instance, they did respect international humanitarian law.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How many BL755 cluster munitions were exported from this country to Saudi Arabia before 1989, what is their shelf life and how many were used in this particular incident?
Sir Michael Fallon
I do not have to hand—and I am not sure, indeed, that we still have—the records from right back to the 1980s as to exactly how many cluster munitions were exported. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that I am not so much of an expert as to know the precise obsolescence of this particular weapon. I am told it would have been getting pretty obsolete now, but if he will allow me, I will write to him on both those technical points.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement? When I was on the Defence Committee, we, along with the Chairman, who is sitting here as well, attended a joint meeting of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, which some of the Ministers here were at as well. We were assured that if evidence was proven to be true, action would be taken. The proof has been provided by the Minister today in his statement. What action—what sanctions—will be taken against Saudi Arabia? Is it too much to ask that the blanket, indiscriminate bombing of Yemeni civilians—the murder of innocents—should stop immediately?
Sir Michael Fallon
As I have made clear throughout this evening, there are innocents being killed on both sides in this terrible conflict, and there are Saudi innocent civilians who are being killed by Houthis through the shelling and constant attacks across the Saudi-Yemeni border. The hon. Gentleman asks what action we are taking. We are the ones who have pressed for this allegation to be properly investigated, and although it may not satisfy him, we have the result today—we have a decision by the Saudi Government that they will no longer use cluster munition weapons. That is a result for us.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
What implications would it have for Britain if we did not have a close relationship with Saudi Arabia?
Sir Michael Fallon
We would certainly be weakened in our fight against terrorism. Our security services would lose the co-operation we have with the Saudi authorities. But more than that, Saudi is an investor in our country, it is a key trade partner of ours in the Gulf, and it is an important ally in securing the stability we all want to see in the middle east.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State continues to use the word “allegation”, but this is no longer an allegation—it is a proven fact that a British cluster bomb has been used in the conflict in Yemen. Given that it has taken seven months for the Saudi Arabian authorities to, in his words, be “transparent”, is he honestly saying that the Government’s sanction on Saudi Arabia is merely to accept its reassurance?
Sir Michael Fallon
The hon. Gentleman is right that from today we should probably describe this as a fact rather than an allegation. I was calling it an allegation because that is what it was when it was first brought before this House back in May, but now we have the confirmation from Saudi Arabia that coalition aircraft did drop one of these cluster munitions around the turn of the year. As far as sanctions are concerned, it is this country, as I have said, that has pressed for all these allegations—some of them are still allegations—to be properly investigated, for the findings to be published and, where necessary, for evidence to be provided by the Saudi coalition authorities that changes have been made in their command-and-control, rules-of-engagement or targeting procedures. Those are the results that we want to see.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the news that Saudi is no longer using cluster munitions, but will the Government also encourage the Saudis to destroy any remaining cluster munitions they have?
Sir Michael Fallon
I can tell my hon. Friend that we have put that request to the Saudi Government, and I hope they will accept that suggestion of hers and ours.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Yemen is said to be one step away from famine, so can our Government help to open the ports and the airports so that humanitarian aid can be shipped to its people?
Sir Michael Fallon
Yes. The key now is get aid into the country, and that means reopening the ports that have been damaged in the fighting—particularly Hudaydah —and making arrangements that will allow the charities and the non-governmental organisations to get on with their vital work. The hon. Gentleman is right that the country is on the brink of famine, and it is probably beyond that now. There is not enough food, oil or other essentials getting through to the people.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
With the limiting of US arms, even by one sale, as well as this new evidence on cluster munitions coming to light this week, will the Secretary of State outline the circumstances in which the Government would suspend UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia and call for an independent UN-led investigation into potential breaches of international humanitarian law?
Sir Michael Fallon
If we had evidence that international humanitarian law had been breached, that, of course, would be a serious factor in considering whether to agree to future licences or to suspend existing licences. If we felt that the Saudi authorities were not properly able to investigate allegations of this kind, we would also, of course, support the call there has already been for an independent inquiry, but the events of the last few weeks and months have shown that, thanks to our pressure, the Saudis have been able to investigate these allegations, and they have today, as a result, made the announcement that they have.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Given our very strong diplomatic relationship with Saudi Arabia, and given its saying that it will no longer use cluster bombs, could it be stressed very strongly to the Saudis that, as a gesture of good faith, the independently verified destruction of the cluster bombs they have would go a long way towards restoring the faith of the international community in what they say?
Sir Michael Fallon
I will make sure that that suggestion is conveyed to the Saudi authorities. As I have said, we have already offered to help them to destroy the BL755 cluster munitions, which are the only ones that we supplied to Saudi Arabia.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for prior sight of it. He was careful to say that the Saudis confirmed that they will not further use BL755 cluster munitions—that is, the British-supplied ones. Do they hold stocks of similar munitions supplied by others, and have they stopped their use as well?
Sir Michael Fallon
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me another opportunity to clarify that the Saudis’ statement does relate to BL755 cluster munitions—the only ones that we sold them, which have been at the centre of these allegations. I am not able to comment on whether they hold stocks of other cluster munitions. Perhaps he would allow me to write to him on that.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend think that if the UK had ended arms exports to Saudi Arabia, as some have argued for, thereby weakening, or possibly irretrievably damaging, our relationship with an old friend, the investigation that he is announcing the results of would have been more, or less, likely, and that the UK would have more, or less, influence over events on the ground in Yemen?
Sir Michael Fallon
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Had we refused to sell particular arms or munitions to Saudi Arabia, our place would undoubtedly have been taken by some less scrupulous arms supplier who would not have pressed for this kind of investigation. We have had the investigation, we have had the confirmation from the Saudi authorities, and we have now had the result that the coalition will no longer use BL755s.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Finally, the prize for patience goes to Dr Tania Mathias.
Dr Mathias
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I declare my interest as an Amnesty International member. I welcome the fact that the UK Government will help with the destruction of the stockpile. How many BL755s are in Saudi? Will the Government also help with the clearing of the bomblets—one bomb produces 147 bomblets—from the villages in Yemen?
Sir Michael Fallon
We do not have records going back right through the 1980s of exactly how many cluster munitions were sold to Saudi Arabia. We have offered to help to dispose of any remaining stocks that the Saudis hold. I am not able to offer UK help in a conflict zone to deal with any unexploded ordnance. My best information is that this particular munition did not explode, and that therefore the bomblets, as they are described, are still in the area, but if I am wrong about that, I will write to my hon. Friend.
Points of Order
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The deliberations on the statement we have just had show why it is absolutely vital that we have robust parliamentary scrutiny of UK arms exports. In that light, have you or Mr Speaker received any notification of any Committee attempting to withdraw from the Committees on Arms Export Controls structure, which exists to scrutinise UK arms exports and has done so for many years, formerly as the Quadripartite Committee?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but I think he knows, as does the House, that it is not a matter that I can address from the Chair. However, he wished to make a point, he has made it, and I am sure that those on whose ears he wished it to fall have heard what he said.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. As I understand it, that Committee, whose Chairman is sitting on the Government Benches, has withdrawn from the Committees on Arms Export Controls. When we were deciding on our report on Yemen, there was considerable pressure, with visits from Saudi Arabian Ministers. It is right that the House should know that there are pressures going on here. In the past, the Committees on Arms Export Controls were quite strong, revoking 50 licences in the previous Parliament. In this Parliament, their regrouping was delayed by six months. I think that speaks for itself.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Lady knows that that is not a point of order. She wished to raise a point of political interest in the Chamber, but it is not a point of order, and I can say nothing further on it.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that this is a point of order; it is on a different matter entirely. Today I tried to submit an urgent question on the recall of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was debating a motion of no confidence in the First Minister. Could the Speaker explain, perhaps at a later time, why the question was not selected, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has responsibility for political stability in Northern Ireland, especially at such times of crisis and failure of the Executive?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, and this is a matter about which he and other Members may well be concerned, but I absolutely cannot address it from the Chair here in the Chamber. Nor will Mr Speaker give, now or at any time, an explanation as to why he has or has not granted an urgent question. That is not a matter that should be brought up in the Chamber, and not information that can be disclosed from the Chair.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Further to the previous points of order—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Further to the previous almost points of order, I give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt that this might be a point of order.
Dr Lewis
I think that this one might actually be a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although the Defence Committee has not withdrawn from the Committees on Arms Export Controls, I am aware of the serious concern that was caused by the leak of a draft report that those Committees had drawn up. Do you agree that it is of absolute importance that if Select Committees, or quadripartite composite Committees like this, are to function, there must be no question of draft reports being leaked for political purposes, as happened in this case?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That may or may not be a point of order in relation to order in the Chamber, but it is a point about which Mr Speaker will be extremely concerned, and we should all be extremely concerned, because the leaking of reports undermines the work of the Committees who are working hard on them. It is not honourable behaviour becoming of hon. Members of this House to leak reports.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify whether any Committee of this House should be disbanded if there is a leak?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order. It is not for the Chair to opine on whether a Committee should or should not, in any particular circumstance, be disbanded. However, it is a matter that I am sure hon. Members will address in another forum in another way, and the hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I wonder whether anything could be done through your or Mr Speaker’s good offices to get together the Chairs of the Committees that make up the Committees on Arms Export Controls to try to get this impasse resolved for the benefit of our constituents, who want robust arms export controls in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. However, although not many things are outwith the competence of Mr Speaker, it is outwith his competence to require any action by the Chairmen of Committees. However, once again, the hon. Gentleman has made his point. I am quite sure that the Chairmen of the relevant Committees will have heard the concerns expressed in the House and will act accordingly.
Exiting the EU: Science and Research
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered exiting the EU and science and research.
I am pleased to introduce today’s debate about science and research, which is one of a number of debates about our exit from the European Union. It is important that we continue to give Members of this House the opportunity to discuss and debate Brexit and the impact it will have on our country.
I would like to say up front that the UK’s science base is not only one of this country’s most impressive national achievements, but one of the strongest in the world. Within the G7, we have the most productive science base in terms of papers and citations per unit of GDP. With our world-class universities, four of which are in the world’s top 10, and 18 in the world’s top 100, we have a long-established system that supports and attracts the brightest minds throughout their career and enables them to generate high-quality research. With less than 1% of the global population and just over 3% of global research and development spend, the UK produces almost one fifth of the most highly cited research articles.
The benefits for our economy are very real. The World Economic Forum ranks the UK among the top four nations in the world for university-industry collaboration in R and D, and we ranked third in the global innovation index in 2016.
If hon. Members want a specific example, they might look at the space sector—a high-growth, high-productivity industry that showcases UK research strengths in a global market. Earlier this month at the European Space Agency Council of Ministers, the Government showed their confidence by investing an extra £1.4 billion in ESA, so that we support the world-class science and innovation underpinning this high-growth sector of the economy. Our investment of €170 million in the exploration programme will bring tangible benefits, ensuring, for example, that the ExoMars rover, which is being built in Stevenage is completed and launched.
Thanks to our investments we now lead the research and innovation programmes in ESA for telecoms, Earth observation and navigation, thereby positioning the UK to seize opportunities in those growing markets. I also signed a new memorandum of understanding with ESA to ensure that its European centre for space applications and telecommunications at Harwell, which is a fast-growing space cluster in Oxfordshire, is the focus for the agency’s commercial exploitation of space data.
Those and earlier investments are delivering results. The space sector in this country is growing strongly. It is now worth £13.7 billion a year to the UK economy, employing just under 40,000 people, and we are ambitious for it. We want to increase our share in the global sector to 10% by 2030, creating 100,000 new jobs.
Space is one of a number of success stories that are in part due to Government investments in collaborative structures with international partners in Europe and around the world—a story that we plan to continue writing long after we have left the European Union.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Minister has mentioned collaboration with EU partners and others around the world. I represent a university that has given us Dolly the sheep and, indeed, Higgs boson, so we know that collaboration works, but the only reason that Dolly the sheep and Higgs boson are associated with the University of Edinburgh is that it was able to lead those collaborative projects. We are hearing already that the prospect of leading such collaborative projects is being jeopardised, because of the decision to leave the European Union. Will the Minister do all that he possibly can to ensure that universities such as Edinburgh in my constituency are protected in our exiting the European Union?
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is why the Government have, in various announcements, given assurances to UK institutions and institutions across the European Union that we remain full members of the European Union and that we are eligible to lead European bids and to compete successfully in bids for funding streams. We continue to do so and we want institutions such as that which the hon. Gentleman represents in Edinburgh to continue to be as successful as they have been in the past.
This Government recognise that our world-leading science and research must be at the very heart of our industrial strategy, and we are matching rhetoric with resources. At the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced an additional £2 billion a year for R and D by 2021. That is the single biggest uplift in research and innovation spending in decades and it is an opportunity for us to make Britain, in the Prime Minister’s words, the
“global go-to place for scientists, innovators and tech investors”.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does he agree that that investment and commitment also builds business confidence? This week, AstraZeneca opened a £120 million investment site, which demonstrates its commitment to the UK economy because of the support that he rightly highlights.
Joseph Johnson
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It certainly boosts not only the confidence of our research communities, but that of the business community, which sees that we are putting innovation at the very heart of our industrial strategy. For every pound of public investment in research, we get back more than £7 of net economic benefit, both at local and national level. When we invest in research, we invest in our wider prosperity.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Although the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government will continue to fund EU projects such as Horizon 2020 was welcome, it is still important to make sure that our universities continue to collaborate. What further measures will the Minister take to ensure that that happens?
Joseph Johnson
Our universities are successful in winning European funding bids. In fact, we have the top four slots of all European institutions, in Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and University College London—[Interruption.]—in terms of the share of participations. That underscores the strengths of our university system and we want them to continue to be able to bid successfully for as long as we are members of the European Union.
We want that level of economic benefit to continue long after we leave the EU, which is why we are setting up the industrial strategy challenge fund. It will back priority technologies such as robotics and biotechnology where, just as in the space sector, the UK has the potential to turn research strengths into a global, industrial and commercial lead. Although our research and innovation system is world leading, we are working to ensure that it stays that way by being even more effective. That is why we are implementing Sir Paul Nurse’s recommendation that we should establish a single strategic research and innovation funding body—UK Research and Innovation —which will be a strong and unified voice, championing UK research and innovation nationally and internationally.
The EU is, of course, important for the UK’s research base, but it is not the only game in town. The UK was a place of learning before many of the EU’s member states even existed. Some of our universities have been centres of research excellence for nearly a millennium. The UK will, of course, continue to play a leading role in major, non-EU research collaborations that take place here—from CERN in Switzerland, to the European Space Agency. We are a major partner in the new Square Kilometre Array, the world’s largest radio telescope, whose global headquarters will be based at Jodrell Bank. In the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, it was UK researchers, working with their counterparts, who made the dramatic gravitational waves discovery possible.
All that said, it will, of course, not be lost on many hon. Members that there are many valuable interactions between UK and EU scientific institutions. We work closely with our European neighbours on issues that affect our planet as well as everyone on it.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Chancellor has promised to guarantee projects that win funds from Horizon 2020 before we leave the EU. He has set two further tests for those guarantees, namely that projects should be good value for money and in line with domestic strategic priorities. However, when researchers apply for Horizon 2020 funds, it is not clear how they will know whether their projects are “good value for money” and in line with the Government’s strategic priorities. Will the Minister please explain, for the benefit not just of the House but of academics, what they are supposed to do to meet the Chancellor’s criteria?
Joseph Johnson
The Chancellor’s statement of 13 August was an extremely important one, and it did a great deal to help to put aside the uncertainty of the science and research community about its ability to participate in competitively won funding streams. The Treasury has made it clear that it will be good for guaranteeing payments that fall due to UK institutions after the moment of Brexit. That has significantly helped to reassure our scientists and researchers that they can confidently bid for funding streams in the months ahead.
It is not in our interests to turn away from our long-standing partnerships. That message was reinforced by the Prime Minister when she stated that the Government are committed to a positive outcome for UK science as we exit the European Union. Our priorities in that respect can be broken down into two core issues: continuity in international research collaboration and maintenance of the factors that make the UK the location of choice for some of the best minds on the planet. With regard to a smooth departure from the EU, the two core inputs into those issues are funding and people.
On funding, as I have just said, the Chancellor announced in August that the Treasury will guarantee all successful, competitively bid-for EU research funding that is applied for before the UK leaves the EU. That means that UK participants and their international partners can be confident that they will have the funding necessary throughout the life of their Horizon 2020-funded project. The UK, as hon. Members know, has benefited strongly from Horizon 2020, with more than 5,200 participations and more than €2.6 billion of funding support since 2014. We are top of the table for participations and second only to Germany in funding won.
In addition to underwriting the competitively bid-for research funding, the Chancellor has confirmed that funding will be guaranteed for structural and investment fund projects signed before the UK departs from the EU. We have worked closely with the European Commission to provide swift reassurances. Commissioner Moedas stated immediately after the referendum that
“as long as the UK is a member of the European Union, EU law continues to apply and the UK retains all rights and obligations of a Member State.”
That helps us to reinforce the message that we still have the same terms of access to European research funding, including Horizon 2020, for as long as we are a member of the EU.
When it comes to people, we recognise the significant contribution to our research base made by non-UK EU nationals. The Prime Minister made it clear again earlier today that during negotiations she wants to protect the status of EU nationals who are already living here. As a global hub for research excellence, we will always welcome the best and the brightest. Others are concerned about EU national students and the rules regarding their student loans from the Student Loans Company, and I reassure the House that those rules are unchanged and remain in force.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The Minister is giving an eloquent description of our current situation, but I am thinking post Brexit. The key question is this: do the Government intend to seek associate country status for Horizon 2020? That would give us some continuity.
Joseph Johnson
These are important questions, which, my hon. Friend will understand, will form a significant part of the overall discussions around our future relations with the EU. We recognise the benefits of collaboration with European partners, and we will seek to ensure that we can continue to derive strong collaboration arrangements all around the world.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
My hon. Friend has been a strong advocate for our university sector since he took up his post. One of the key concerns of my university, and of others across the country—he probably knows what I am about to say—is in relation to international student numbers. Given the opportunities available to us in a post-Brexit world, we have to be better at communicating what immigration looks like in our country. For me, and probably for most universities across the country, it is important that we split up our international student numbers from our overall immigration figures. That has the support of 70% of the public. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree on that point.
Joseph Johnson
Whenever I get the chance, I reiterate that we welcome international students and value the contribution that they make to our universities and our economy. I am pleased to be able to repeat that there is no cap on the number of international students who can come and study here, and there is no plan to introduce one.
It is important that we make it clear that EU students continue to be able to access our loan book and come here to study on home fee status, just as domestic UK students do. The Government have been very quick to make that clear to students applying in 2016-17 and to those who will be applying in 2017-18. We will decide the policy for the 2018-19 academic year in plenty of time for the start of that application process.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
May I come back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), the Chair of the Select Committee on Education? Non-EU nationals may be more reluctant than they were to come to this country for as long as our international relationships with the rest of the EU remain unclear.
Joseph Johnson
As I have said, we want to encourage international students to come to the UK. They bring enormous benefits to our universities and to our economy, and we have no plans to introduce a cap. We have a great higher education system, and the fact that we attract the second-largest group of international students of any country testifies to the quality of our institutions. That will continue after Brexit.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend tell us how much it costs to fund the loans to which EU students are entitled—unlike non-EU students, who pay the full fee and help to subsidise the rest of us—given that only 16% are repaying their loans at present? Should that cost not be taken into account when we talk about the costs and benefits of university education in this country?
Joseph Johnson
Of course, we weigh up the costs of enabling EU students to access our loan book—a right that they have for as long as we are a member state of the European Union—and additional costs after the moment of Brexit will be taken into account as we put in place arrangements for EU students for the longer term. For the time being, while we are still members of the European Union, they have a right to come here and access higher education, as home fee students do, and to access our student loan book.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am pleased to hear what the Minister has to say about students in the UK. Has he had any indication from his interlocutors in the rest of Europe about the status of the increasing number of British school leavers who wish to study in European countries, and the relatively favourable fees that they are expected to pay?
Joseph Johnson
We wish that more UK students took the opportunities that are available to them to study overseas. International mobility is a great life enhancer. It improves employability, and it is something that we want to encourage. We are doing so through programmes promoted by the British Council, such as Generation UK-India and Generation UK-China. Those are valuable programmes that we want to promote.
In the first meeting of my stakeholder working group on EU exit for universities, research and innovation, I was impressed by the positive, outward-looking approach of key decision makers in the UK research and innovation community. As we prepare for the negotiations ahead, no stone can be left unturned in learning about the opportunities ahead for the UK. If we are to win in the global marketplace, we must win the global battle for talent. Britain has always been one of the most welcoming places in the world for brilliant minds, and it will remain so.
Throughout our exit of the European Union, we will continue to build on our ambitious global partnerships, including with our friends in the EU. We will put the UK at the forefront of international research on emerging global challenges, and we will continue to make sure that UK researchers have access to, and leadership of, world-class research facilities. We will continue to do everything we can to make sure that our proud history in science and research has a bright future.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The American physicist Dr Michio Kaku calls science “the engine of prosperity”, and that is certainly true for us in the United Kingdom. In 2015, the Campaign for Science and Engineering found that for every £1 invested by the Government on research and development, we got back 20p to 30p each and every year in perpetuity.
I am a strong believer in science for science’s sake—it is part of our innate humanity to seek to push forward the bounds of knowledge—but we must also recognise that as far as the UK economy is concerned science investment is the gift that keeps on giving. Our world-renowned science sector plays a huge role in economic growth and the creation of jobs: 20% of the UK workforce are employed in science roles, and employees earn 40% more than the average wage in these high-skilled, well-paid jobs.
The UK punches above its weight on science. As the Minister said, we represent just 0.9% of the global population, but we produce a staggering 16% of the world’s most significant research citations. We are the home of Stephen Hawking, Ernest Rutherford and the discoverer of the Higgs boson. Peter Higgs may have been at Edinburgh University, but I am proud to say that he was born in Elswick in Newcastle.
Despite such a proud history, we lag behind on investment. Since 2012, UK public sector spending on science has fallen to below 0.5% of our GDP, the lowest level in any G8 country. The UK has long been known for its research and development, but we are at risk of losing that reputation and the rewards we reap for our economy and jobs if the Government refuse to support science through Brexit.
The UK’s world-leading position in technology, research and development is thanks in part to our integration with and the contribution of our soon-to-be ex-partners in the European Union. The Minister mentioned Horizon 2020, and £1 in every £6 spent on science by the European Union is spent in the United Kingdom. I know from my own constituency that scientists benefit not only from EU funding, but from the highly skilled researchers and scientists it brings with it.
Newcastle University employs nearly 600 staff from various European Union countries. European Union funding allows it to retain and attract talented researchers through prestigious European Research Council grants. For example, there are the Marie Sklodowska-Curie individual fellows, 50 of whom are hosted by Newcastle University, which equates to €11 million in research funding. Some of Newcastle’s leading research centres would not be possible without European Union staff. For example, in the John Walton muscular dystrophy research centre team, which is pioneering treatments for children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, more than 30% of staff are European and three of its four lead academics are from the European Union. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have similar examples in their constituencies.
Leaving the European Union presents our science and research sectors with numerous challenges in relation to process, timing, funds, skills, creativity and resources, and the Government have a duty to address those challenges. However, as highlighted in the Science and Technology Committee’s most recent report, the Government’s communication of its Brexit and science strategy—the Minister’s speech notwithstanding—has been woefully insufficient. Why is science not at the heart of the Government’s Brexit strategy when it is at the heart of our economy?
The Government say they will match the funding until the Horizon 2020 programme expires, but that suggests they are planning to withdraw from the scheme thereafter. The Royal Society has estimated that the programme accounts for 22.2% of global research programmes, which is higher than either China’s or the US’s contributions to global research. Why would we seek to withdraw from such a scheme? We receive significantly more from the EU than we pay in: we received €8.8 billion between 2007 and 2013, as against the €5.4 billion we paid in. We do not have to lose access to the framework programmes, because 13 non-member states currently enjoy associate country status, which gives them full access to Horizon 2020 funding and the same status as member states.
The benefits of involvement in European Union programmes are not confined to funding. Contrary to the picture painted by many in the leave campaign, EU science and technology institutions actually reduce bureaucracy and streamline administration processes. For example, they prevent the same work from being done in different labs, they spread good practice within the European scientific community and they harmonise clinical trial regulations. The last is absolutely critical for the diffusion and adoption of innovative new treatments on which many lives depend.
In addition, cross-border and cross-discipline collaboration has benefits for innovation and creativity that cannot be expressed in pounds, shillings and pence—or in euros. If the Government pursue their commitment to ending existing European Union freedom of movement arrangements, these benefits will be jeopardised. In 2014, Switzerland held a referendum blocking free movement for Croatian nationals, and that led directly to their suspension from Horizon 2020.
The Conservatives cannot call themselves the party of business while actively working to undermine our science and technology sectors. The Prime Minister’s astounding refusal to reassure European Union nationals living in this country that they will continue to be able to do so and the Home Secretary’s reported plans to halve student visa numbers highlight their failure to recognise the potency of British scientific research in the wider British economy. We are entering a fourth industrial revolution and technological advancement is central to the way in which we work, but the Government are seeking to curtail our access to the brightest and best in science, as well as curtailing opportunities for our own citizens to work and study abroad.
The Conservatives’ current policy is more about short-term political point scoring than their now forgotten long-term economic plan. We do not hear so much about that now, do we? Indeed, as the vice-chancellor of one our leading universities recently said about student visas, “politics is trumping economics”. Of course, the Tories have form in this area. Under the last Tory Government, science spending was squeezed. Indeed, the Save British Science campaign was launched in 1986 in response to the then Thatcher Government’s woeful record on science and research. However, between 1997 and 2007, Labour more than doubled the science budget, from £1.3 billion to £3.4 billion, reaching almost £4 billion by 2010. The Save British Science campaign had to be renamed the Campaign for Science and Engineering, because British science had been saved by Labour.
The boost to the R and D budget in the autumn statement has been widely welcomed, but we must set it against the backdrop of six years of subsistence spending. Not only are we now the lowest funder of science of any G8 country, but our spending as a proportion of GDP has fallen to its lowest point in 20 years. The increases in forecast expenditure also assume that all other spending commitments for science and research will remain in place, safe from sweeping Conservative cuts. Given the party’s previous actions, I believe we should remember the motto of the world’s oldest scientific institute, the Royal Society: “Take nobody’s word for it”.
I began by saying how important science and research are to our economy, and that is why today’s debate is so critical. Science provides the inventions and the infrastructure that propel our industry forward. It uncovers the challenges that we face today and provides our industries with a vision for the future. We in the Labour party recognise that in order to have an industrial strategy that works for each and every member of our society, a thriving science community is key. I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy last week whether he would give the UK economy the Christmas present it deserves: an industrial strategy. Sadly, it seems that Santa’s elves are nowhere near ready on this one.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has said, we believe that an industrial strategy should be mission orientated. When it is mission orientated, one of the roles of public spending is to lay down the foundations for new opportunities, which then galvanise businesses—the private sector—to invest. Mariana Mazzucato, the world’s leading economist on mission orientated innovation, has shown how business investment should not be assumed, but created via ambitious public investment policies. However, no matter how excited businesses may get, they will invest only when there is a potential market.
Government can help to create new markets and enlarge existing ones through procurement and, critically, trade agreements. The European Union is possibly the most successful trade agreement in history. It has benefited British companies for decades. Forty-four per cent of UK goods and services went to the European Union in 2015.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
The hon. Lady said that the European Union was the most successful trade agreement in history. That was certainly true for a generation or so, but does it not worry her that it is now the slowest growing economic bloc in the world and that that 44% has fallen more than 10 points over the last few years and continues to fall?
Chi Onwurah
I am glad the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the European Union was the most successful trade agreement in history. He makes a point about the economic growth of the European Union, but it is still one of the largest and most successful economies in the world. It is still a huge market for our goods and services and has some of the richest people in the world. Although economic growth may have been slow over the last few years, I hope he agrees that, as one of the biggest trading blocs in the world, it still represents a huge opportunity. We should obviously be looking outside the European Union for trade opportunities, but we need to be trading with the European Union. There are a lot of people who buy a lot of our goods who need to continue to buy them.
It is clear that a hard Brexit would significantly reduce the size of that market for British companies. On top of that, Brexit will reduce European Union-financed research and development investments. That means that an existing problem in this country—low private sector investment in research—may get worse because the market for goods will be smaller. Given the Government’s claim to be focused on reducing public debt—although, as we know, it has gone up hugely under this Government —it is ironic that, by reducing private investment, public investment in research and development will need to take more of the strain. We in the Labour party believe in public investment, but it should not make up for a lack of private sector investment. We have committed to raise the total investment in research and development in science to 3% of GDP, but we expect the private sector to do its bit.
I urge the Minister to try to get this right for British science. If not, once again the next Labour Government will have to make up for the economic, scientific and social mess that a Tory Government have left behind. The history of these isles speaks of a people who have a verve for technological and scientific endeavour. All we ask is that the Government provide the conditions for continued investigation and inquiry. We cannot have an economy that relies on cheap and insecure labour. A high-tech, knowledge-intensive economy must be Britain’s future. This Government and the people of Britain cannot afford to suffocate our sciences in the smoke of Brexit.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Thank you for calling me so early in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I also thank the Government for putting aside Government time to discuss this important issue and for agreeing to tag the recent report by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, “Leaving the EU: implications and opportunities for science and research”? I am very appreciative.
Before I turn to the report and its obvious relevance to this debate, as this is the first opportunity I have had to address the House since my election as Chair of the Science and Technology Committee may I place on record my gratitude to the House for electing me to this important role? I hope I can live up to the example set by my predecessors. I pay particular tribute to my immediate predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), for her stewardship of the Committee over the last 15 or so months. She moved quickly to launch the inquiry back in June, and I am sure the report’s findings will inform today’s debate. I also pay tribute to the interim Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias), who stepped into the breach prior to my election. I am very grateful to her as well. I also thank the Clerks and the staff of the Committee for all their support and guidance in these first few months. Finally in the thank yous, I would like to thank the more than 270 individuals and organisations who took time to provide written evidence in response to the Committee’s call for evidence in the preparation of the report.
I had hoped to talk a little about Brexit itself, but because time is short and there is a great deal of interest in this debate, I will leave that for another time, except to say that Brexit was not about science, which was one of the casualties, along with many other sectors that got caught up in a much bigger argument.
As we have heard, our report identifies five key themes in the concerns of the science and research community, all of which I expect will feature in hon. Members’ contributions this evening—indeed, they already have. They are: funding; people; collaboration, leadership and influence; regulation; and facilities. I will talk properly about funding and people, but as for collaboration, leadership and influence, it is of paramount importance that UK researchers continue to be part of multinational projects and continue to influence the EU’s research agenda. On regulations, it is important that those which facilitate research collaboration and EU market access are retained while others that hinder innovation are revised. As for facilities, we will have to work hard to ensure ongoing access to the multinational research facilities hosted in other countries and to protect those based in the UK.
Our report outlines some of the opportunities arising from Brexit that should be maximised, such as the opportunity to embed science and technology at the heart of the Government’s industrial opportunity; the opportunity to look at genetic modification regulation, and to improve on the EU’s overly cautious approach; and the opportunity to revise VAT rules to stimulate university and business collaboration. However, above all the Government need to set out a truly ambitious vision for science in the context of Brexit, to send the message around the world that Britain’s position as a science superpower will continue to grow. They are starting to do that, but merely being open for business is not enough if we do not have any customers. The Government must think beyond the “open for business” model.
As time is short, I will concentrate on the two main issues: people and funding. My Committee agreed to highlight people as a significant theme. We called on the Government to make an immediate commitment to exempt EU citizen scientists and researchers already working in the UK from wider potential immigration controls. Telling EU scientists and researchers who are already working in the UK that they are allowed to stay is one way in which the Government can reduce uncertainty. I have heard many warm words from the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, from the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), and from the Prime Minister. Taking that extra step to provide reassurance for the 40,000 people to whom that applies is not a particularly big ask. Along with the risk of brain drain, the risk is that the UK will become a less attractive place for EU scientists to live, work and study.
On funding, when our report was published, I said that the autumn statement would be a chance for the Government to demonstrate their commitment to science and research in the context of Brexit, so hon. Members can imagine how delighted I was when the Chancellor responded by increasing Government investment in research and development to the tune of £2 billion a year by 2020. That is a huge step in the right direction, and a step towards meeting that 3% of GDP commitment to which all hon. Members want to sign up.
Our report noted that the Government had provided welcome and helpful short-term reassurances for the science community following the referendum, including underwriting EU funding for research and maintaining access to student loans. It is clear that the Government have done the right thing in the short term but my Committee is worried that there is no comprehensive communication strategy for those messages of reassurance. The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation has said all the right things, but I worry that not everyone has heard him. That was brought home to me this week when I met the interim chief executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, who said that she attended a meeting at which someone said they had not heard about those reassurances. There is more to be done. The message is good, but do the Government know whether it is being received? The Government clearly cannot do all the communication, but they can have a strategy for providing reassurance, a clear idea of who their message needs to reach, and an idea of who is best placed to reach those people. The recommendation from my Committee is simple. The Government have taken some very helpful first steps, but they need a clear strategy for getting that message out to everyone who needs to hear it.
As we have heard, another key concern is that science and research is not at the heart of DExEU thinking. That was highlighted to the Committee during the inquiry by the fact that a chief scientific adviser is yet to be appointed to DExEU. I hope the Minister addresses that in his closing remarks.
The Government will respond to our report in due course, but I hope its themes give hon. Members an overview of the big issues for science and research. Science and research is the jewel in the UK crown, and needs to be front and centre of the Government’s thinking. If we get this right, we can go from strength to strength and support major life science industries here in the UK, but if the needs of science are forgotten, our position as a science leader will diminish. Science is not a zero-sum game. We can create a Brexit that is both a win for UK science and a win for EU science, but that comes with a warning. Getting it wrong will not only damage the UK, but hold back the cause of science, along with our understanding of the world and our ability to exercise appropriate stewardship of it, and our capacity to make it a better place to live.
I apologise in advance for my conclusion. It is the season of good will and Christmas is coming. The Chancellor has given us some gold. We now need some frankness, some sense, and a sustainable, sensible and suitable im-myrrh-gration policy.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I will not attempt to follow that. My goose would be roasted.
I declare an interest as both a scientist and an EU national—I hold an Irish passport. As such, I feel strongly about what is happening during the debate. Brexit makes no sense for many of us, but it goes against all normal rules for the scientific community and threatens a key activity that is central to their work. Scientists do not see a person’s nationality, class or ethnicity. They see only a mind and a personality. If that mind is brilliant, and if that person has a contribution to make and a part to play, they are part of the community.
We have heard arguments describing the importance of science and its impact on our economy. We have heard about the importance of continued or enhanced funding for science, and we know how important international collaborations are for science excellence. The Minister spoke of the importance of the space sector, but the UK’s continued participation in projects such as the Galileo programme is under serious threat. Galileo is the EU’s answer to the US-based global positioning system—Galileo is needed because the US can block GPS access in times of conflict, and Europe needs an independent system it can rely on. The UK could now be frozen out of both systems, which is a dangerous possibility.
The single most important element in ensuring that we continue to maintain the UK’s position as a science superpower is protecting and valuing the people who make UK science so impressive. I was delighted to welcome to Parliament a fortnight ago Professor Anton Muscatelli, the principal of Glasgow University. He provided us with some interesting statistics. He told us that 20% of the teaching staff and 50% of the research staff at Glasgow were EU nationals. There are two different types of staff. We have the typically young 20-something postgraduate or post-doctoral researcher, who is less likely to have family ties that would make it difficult for some to leave and go elsewhere. They are a highly mobile group of people who have chosen the institution because of its speciality. However, by the nature of science, many other institutions in Europe will have expertise in similar areas.
The next group of staff is more established—they would hold senior research or lecturer positions, and would be in charge of large projects or teams. They may well have family ties that make it difficult for them to leave. Both groups have doubts over their futures. The UK Government might well say that nothing will change for them in the short term, but I keep hearing about the requirement for other EU states to offer reciprocal arrangements for UK citizens.
These scientists are some of the very best minds in the world. They are the very people enabling the UK to maintain its position at the forefront of world science. They contribute to the UK economy—in Scotland we know our world-class academic sector of 19 universities creates an annual economic impact of £7.2 billion. Those people are being compared to non-economically active pensioners living in Spain. How insulting is that to those top scientists—to be used as bargaining chips in negotiations on rights to remain? Which of us would hang about where we are not wanted? My own husband, an engineer, is an EU national. His 17 years of service in the UK armed forces have been reduced to details of his place of birth.
Thankfully, in Scotland the First Minister has made robust statements on the importance of our EU nationals, and has thanked them for choosing to make Scotland their home. But we need similarly strong leadership on this from the UK Government. We need the assurances called for in the recent report on leaving the EU by the Science and Technology Committee. That report’s recommendations, which have already been highlighted, include an immediate commitment to exempt EU researchers already working here from any wider potential immigration controls. But we need to go further. We should be looking to exempt any researcher with the required skills, whether or not they are already resident in the UK. If we do not offer such assurances, plenty of countries are ready to snap those scientists up.
I move on now to the subject of EU students. There is the potential for a serious impact on the higher education sector if we are not clear about their immigration and fees status post Brexit. Again, that represents a potential lost funding stream. In its submission to the Science and Technology Committee the University of Liverpool stated that if it had no new EU students coming to study, by 2018-19 its loss of fee income would be £6.2 million. In Scotland, EU students contribute massively to the local economy and increase the diversity and improve the student experience for all involved in higher education. Indeed, the financial loss is only one aspect, and we need to consider how we will protect the talent streams that come from the EU. In the UK we cannot currently fill our science, technology, engineering and maths courses with UK students. The EU students who come to study in our institutions provide future talent in areas of key shortages.
I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. What student recruitment strategies are being considered in key STEM areas, at home and abroad? What fee structures will be in place post Brexit—an attractive UK university will quickly become less attractive if EU students are asked to pay international student fees? Visa restrictions already pose major hurdles for non-EU scientists hoping to come to the UK for short study visits. What will happen post Brexit when an EU researcher hopes to collaborate with a UK group? We keep hearing that Brexit means Brexit, but does Brexit really mean that the UK’s international reputation for science should be threatened?
Leaving the EU presents major challenges for the future of UK science, but there is no science representative in the Brexit negotiations. Science must have a voice in any negotiations. The clock is ticking. We need action now to prevent fundamental and lasting damage. It is said that Albert Einstein said, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe”. The Government need not be infinitely stupid as they gamble with this most important area of the UK economy.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), with whom I agree on some aspects, in particular the importance of giving assurances to EU nationals in this country, whether scientists or not, that they can stay.
What the Minister and the shadow Minister have said about our universities is, if anything, an understatement. Our universities are every bit as good as has been said, and more. I would argue that they are too modest. They underestimate how attractive they are and will be as collaborators to universities not merely in the EU but throughout the world. They underestimate their ability to persuade their own Government of the importance of funding research, given that they have been successful in persuading EU institutions to fund that research. Given their success in attracting students from outside the EU, our universities also underestimate how successful they will be at continuing to attract students from within the EU once we are no longer a member. The universities have been too modest and too afraid of change. They should look forward positively to the opportunities that will open up when we are no longer in the EU.
Three issues have been raised. The first is money. The claim is that 10% of publicly funded UK research and development comes from the EU. That is a grossly misleading figure. During the referendum campaign there was much debate about the use of gross figures for our contribution to the EU rather than net ones. For instance, the gross figure of £350 million a week on the side of the leave bus was criticised. I always used the net figure, and we now know from the Office for Budget Responsibility that the net amount we will get back when we are no longer members of the EU will be £250 million a week. But anyone who criticised the £350 million figure should be equally critical of those who quote the gross receipts from the EU without netting off our contributions to it—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) mentioned those contributions. With the Horizon programme, we should not be talking about the gross figure of £8.8 billion but the net figure of £3.4 billion over the period 2007 to 2013, which was of the order of half a billion a year. I will come back to that quite significant figure.
Overall, we are net contributors to the EU to the tune of more than £13 billion a year—again, that is from the OBR figures. It should therefore not be too difficult for our universities to argue for the continuation of the money they currently receive from the EU directly from the Treasury, instead of indirectly via the EU, because the Treasury will be £13 billion better off after meeting all the commitments currently funded from EU funds.
I come now to collaboration. It is obviously important that we continue to provide opportunities for UK researchers to collaborate with high-calibre researchers not just in the EU but across the world. Our universities and researchers are of such high calibre that they will be in demand as partners and should be given opportunities to work with partners from across the world.
If there are barriers to collaboration with researchers in north America, Asia, Australasia and Latin America, I would like to know about them. I constantly hear of and meet researchers from those countries in the UK. If we look out the figures, it turns out that alongside the 32,000 EU citizens working as academics in the UK we have 21,000 from non-EU countries. There does not seem to be too much difficulty in getting researchers and academics from outside the EU. If there are such problems, why have I never been lobbied by the universities to overcome the problems of bringing in citizens from non-EU countries? Do they not like Americans, Latin Americans and Asians? Do they prefer Europeans? Should we not be seeking opportunities worldwide, and not narrowly in the EU?
Mr Lilley
I am afraid it has been hinted that I should make progress rather than take interventions.
If there are such difficulties, let us overcome them and make sure they do not apply to EU academics in future.
On student numbers, Universities UK talks about increased barriers to recruiting EU students. I understand there are some 115,000 EU students in the UK. They are entitled to loans from the British taxpayer, and to the right to stay and work after they cease studying. By contrast, our universities are spectacularly more successful in recruiting students from outside the EU, even though those students pay the full cost of their education and effectively help to subsidise all the other students, British and European, at university. Their rights to remain and work in the UK are more restricted. When we introduced full fees for foreign university students, the universities claimed that that would make it impossible for them to recruit from abroad. Happily, they were wrong—spectacularly wrong. I have no doubt that they will be equally wrong about their ability to continue to recruit EU students once we are no longer a member of the EU. The EU countries are closer and richer than many of the countries from which we recruit students who pay full fees.
When assessing the costs and benefits, we ought to take into account the cost to this country at present of giving loans to EU students, which are, inevitably, much more difficult to get back when they have left. Indeed, the official figures show that only 16% of EU students are currently repaying the loans they have received from the British taxpayer. [Interruption.] I do not know what the figures are, but I will venture some so that people can knock them down and come back with better ones. Supposing that 60% of the students—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) like to intervene if he has a funny point to make? [Interruption.] No, we do not have any facts or figures; I am trying to elicit them. There are 115,000 students. I do not know how many of them have loans. Let us say that 60% take out loans. If only 16% repay them, that means it would cost the British taxpayer over £500 million a year to subsidise EU students. I hope that the Minister or Opposition Members can tell us the sum is less than that, but perhaps they are not interested. Perhaps they like dishing out British taxpayers’ money without calculating how much is at stake and for whom.
Universities are also rightly worried about whether immigration controls will impinge on our ability to recruit students from the EU. They have reiterated their demand that student numbers be excluded from the immigration figures. That is a somewhat disingenuous request—it is not what they really want. If students return to their home country after they have studied here, their net contribution to the net immigration figure is zero. What universities mean, therefore, is not that they want the figures excluded, but that the limitations on students’ right to remain be lifted. They want to, as it were, sell university places by offering the added benefit of being able to get around our immigration controls. They want that in the present for those coming from outside the EU, and they want to maintain it in future for those coming from the EU when we are no longer a member.
That is not the right way to approach the issue. We should, of course, have immigration rules that allow us to recruit students from abroad but ensure that they return later, and that allow us to recruit academics from abroad, as we do at present, without creating added difficulties. If we have sensible and affordable policies to continue our funding and to recruit from abroad, which we ought to be able to do, and we do not impose any new restrictions on recruiting academics, the opportunities for British universities will be far greater than they imagine. I urge them to put their excessive modesty behind them, set aside their fear of change and embrace the opportunities that Brexit will give them.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me and giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. It is a privilege and an honour to be standing here as the elected representative of Richmond Park, which brings with it a great responsibility that I shall use my best endeavours to fulfil.
I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Zac Goldsmith, and thank him for his excellent constituency work on behalf of my fellow residents of Richmond Park over the past six years. In particular, we owe him our unending thanks for his efforts to block plans to build a third runway at Heathrow. The fact that he felt he could no longer be a part of a Conservative party that approved expansion demonstrates beyond all question his passion and commitment to the cause. It is a cause that I take up willingly on behalf of constituents who know that the claimed economic benefits of expansion will not compensate for the impacts of the increased noise and air pollution that millions will suffer if expansion goes ahead. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of his predecessor, my fellow Liberal Democrat Susan Kramer, who fought the third runway for so many years. I look forward to working with parliamentary colleagues from all parties as we continue to make the case against expansion.
It is a particular honour to be elected to represent Richmond Park, not just because it is my home and the place where I have been bringing up my family, but because of its great history and wonderful environment. Richmond takes its name from the Earl of Richmond, later Henry VII, who built his great palace in what was then called Sheen in 1500. Henry VII was the king who, having won a great victory against an unpopular king at the battle of Bosworth, came to power at a time when the country was catastrophically divided by the Wars of the Roses and urgently needed leadership to bring it back to harmony and prosperity.
Britain today is a divided country, split asunder by the decision taken in June this year to leave the European Union, and it is hard at this moment to see how these divisions can be healed. It is my belief that Parliament can be a positive force in bringing together the two sides of the Brexit debate. If the arguments can be aired openly, questions answered thoughtfully and votes taken on all the significant points of difference, then each British citizen will see that their point of view is being represented, whichever way they voted in June. There can be no question of people being silenced or sneered at for their opinion on Britain’s future within the European Union.
I make no secret of the fact that my own opinion is that we should remain. I believe that the will of the people is the same today as it has always been: to live in a prosperous and stable society. Our responsibilities as parliamentarians are the same as they have always been: to act in the best interests of our country. We have a duty to future generations to bequeath them a society in which they can thrive. Evidence and instinct both suggest that collaboration with our nearest neighbours benefit our trade, our education, our environment, our security and our individual wellbeing. Such benefits should not be carelessly thrown aside without a careful, sober and detailed examination of what the consequences will be.
The impact of Brexit will be wide ranging and not just financial. In my constituency, our hospital relies on the hard work and dedication of migrants from Europe. Many of my constituents work in financial services, which rely on our privileged position inside Europe. Many of our businesses import from and export to the European Union, and rely on the tariff-free access and the harmonised standards of the single market for their success. Many families—hard-working, community spirited, warm, friendly people—have come to our little corner of London from across Europe and made it their home.
In the area of science and research, there is no doubt that the UK has benefited hugely from its membership of the European Union. I had the enormous privilege, before being elected as MP, to work for a world-renowned science and research organisation, so I have had some experience of the discussions and concerns that the prospect of Brexit has raised among the science community. The obvious impact will be the lack of access to research funding provided by the EU. There is no question but that the UK is currently a net beneficiary of this: between 2007 and 2013, we paid in €5 billion to the Horizon 2020 fund and received €8 billion back in grant funding.
But the impacts go deeper. One of the biggest concerns is that by being shut out of access to EU funding, UK scientists will also be excluded from cross-EU collaborative projects and lose access to specialist laboratory facilities across Europe. This will result in a loss of opportunities for UK scientists to participate at the very forefront of research. UK laboratories and research facilities currently benefit from the ability of scientists from across the EU to come and work here. If Brexit inhibits the ability of EU nationals to move to the UK, UK-based science and research will suffer. The success of the UK’s science and technology industries will be critical to our future economy, and we should be doing all we can to nurture and promote them.
I did not aspire to be a politician. I did not ever expect to be standing here addressing hon. and right hon. Members as I am today, but I felt compelled by the events of the last few months—not just the referendum result, but the Government response in the aftermath and the divided society that has resulted—to put myself forward.
I wish to close by thanking my fellow MPs from all sides of the House for the warm welcome they have extended to me since my election. Unexpected though my election was, I am enormously excited by the opportunity I have been given and look forward to playing a full part in the business of this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. We will now apply a limit of seven minutes for Back-Bench speeches.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Let me be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on her maiden speech, particularly on the generous tribute she paid to her predecessor and on the very real knowledge she brings to this debate from her professional background. She clearly feels passionately about this issue and the wider implications, and I look forward to hearing further contributions from her. She referred to the Brexit vote as “deeply divisive”, leaving us as a country divided. I would gently suggest that for some of us it seemed before the vote that we were becoming a divided country. Now that those people who found themselves so many times on the wrong side of the divide have spoken out, the hope is that we might find a way forward that eventually suits everybody.
I am proud to be the representative of the largest student body of any constituency in the country, with the University of Kent, Christ Church University and one of the campuses of the University for the Creative Arts in my constituency, amounting to more than 20,000 students.
In answer to some of the earlier points raised about visas, it seems to me that there is a clear middle way to follow. It is essential that top-quality academics have access to visas to come here, and indeed that those who are already here from the EU should feel completely secure in their jobs. I am with those who have already spoken out on that point, but I see nothing inconsistent in also believing that a sensible immigration policy, which is what the country wants, must include clamping down on abuses of the student route. The fact that we have closed 800 phony colleges is an important part of that.
I especially welcome what the Minister said about accepting Sir Paul Nurse’s recommendations. I am a strong supporter of the need for an industrial strategy. For too many generations, this country provided the cutting edge of research only to see it exploited by successful organisations outside this country. We need an industrial strategy and a focused research policy in order to ensure that we get the best response to our very successful university research programmes.
The University of Kent has facilities in Brussels, Paris, Athens and Rome, and calls itself the European university. I am delighted to say that a withdrawal from the structures of the EU should certainly not mean a withdrawal from Europe. There is not time to list the university’s successes in the space world, but just in the past month on the medical side another grant from Horizon 2020 for a research network addressing biometric solutions to the use of mobile devices led to a successful bid for a £2 million grant for the Relate programme designed to step-change how nature underpins human wellbeing.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), I see nothing to be afraid of in breaking out into the world. The Times league of international universities puts 24 out of the top 25 in the English-speaking world, including five British ones. Intriguingly, the only exception is the formidable ETH Zürich, and Switzerland, like most English-speaking countries, has a structure in which universities are free-standing institutions, which is sadly not really the case in most continental countries, where universities are much closer to the Government Departments.
Although there may be a short-term concern, which we have heard expressed several times by Opposition speakers, that we might somehow lose out on collaborative ventures—even though we are putting in the money to compensate—on account of attitudes from the other side that are not in their best interests, the fact that we have so much excellence will, I firmly believe, win through.
We have another advantage that is particularly relevant to medical research. When we are dealing with America, which has the largest concentration of excellence in the world, we have a massive advantage, because we do not have the third party of the insurance companies constantly creating a drag on research. If patients want to be part of an experimental programme to access an experimental drug, perhaps as their last chance to stay alive, they can sign up for it in a way they cannot in America without permission from their insurance companies. That is why, for example, our first 14 experimental cancer medicine centres are attracting so much interest from American pharmaceutical companies.
I end by saying how very strongly I support the bid from Canterbury Christ Church University and the University of Kent to create a group of healthcare centres of excellence, with a view to establishing in the long run a medical school in Kent. We are the largest area in the country without its own medical school. The inspirational leadership of Dr Abdol Tavabie would make sure that the medical school addressed the very buzz words that we keep hearing we need to fix in the NHS. It is no good talking about things such as ending silos, transferring things from secondary to primary care and closer links between social and NHS care, which people have been talking about for 30 years, unless we hardwire them into medical training, together with feedback mechanisms to make sure that people are brought up to date on new skills automatically—they need to be programmed into the lecturers, Those are just some of the ideas that this incredibly innovative programme leader is pushing for in the new medical school.
I am about to run out of time. It is a sad fact that of the thousands of university students, including my own son who is a medical student, who come through our hospitals, relatively few of them stay. That is because areas do not have a medical school of their own backing them up. I end by recommending to the Minister that we do something about that.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The straight banana syndrome, whereby some commentators would blame everything on the European Union whenever anything in the world went wrong, seems to have flipped on its head. I would now call it the Private Frazer syndrome, whereby the moment anyone mentions Brexit, everything is doom and gloom, with forecasts of everything going haywire and wrong. My advice to the Government on science and technology is the same as it is on other issues that run into Brexit—get on with it! It is the uncertainty that causes problems. The article 50 vote should have taken place in July, and if we were too busy with internal elections, we could have had it in September. It should already have been passed. Delay and uncertainty is what industry tells me they do not like and do not wish to see.
Let me advise the Government on what to do when the repeal Act comes—I hope they will listen. Make it simple. Every single piece of EU law should be brought into British law. If the Conservative or any other party wants to change that in the future, they will have plenty of opportunity if it is British law. Every single thing should become British law in one Bill in one swipe. That would help to remove uncertainty, and it would save us a lot of time to concentrate on other matters in the House.
I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) that science does not see nationality. That is the problem with the European Union when it comes to science and technology, and, indeed, any other specialism: it sees nationality, but it sees nationality within the European Union. I have been involved in bidding for money, and I know that within the EU structures and rules, this or that EU country, this or that body, must be incorporated to provide the full mix, to the exclusion of the rest of the world—the other 170 nations, with all their expertise. That has been a strength on occasion, but it has far more often been a weakness in the EU. We should not see nationality when we are looking at science and research collaboration; we should see where the best expertise is.
I have spoken to many of my constituents, and several thousand have been polled. Something of a consensus is emerging in my area, and I want to share it with the House. The vast majority of people who voted remain feel that reducing immigration is critical to Brexit, while the vast majority of people who voted leave find access to the single market, in whatever form, perfectly acceptable. I think that the consensus is far greater than Members are prepared to admit.
What kind of immigration are we talking about? I do not think that my constituents will complain if Parliament decides that the big universities should accept students, teaching staff and experts in science and technology from abroad. Indeed, I will go a step further: I should like regional work visas to be introduced. My constituents do not have a strong view on which people Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland allow to work in those countries. They care about what happens in my locality. They care about whether we can stop Mr Ashley of Sports Direct employing 3.200 people from abroad and preventing them—my constituents—from applying for jobs, or reducing wages in adjoining industries. That is what they are bothered about. I think that, when it comes to where we need to be, the solutions are straightforward, although negotiations will always be complex. We need to get on with them.
We should bear in mind what we have missed out on. We were the leaders 30 years ago. We were world leaders in analogue technology, because we had the scientists, but our weakness was always to do with turning that expertise into manufactured products. Then there was the digital era. In digital microphones—indeed, in all forms of digital technology—we were world leaders 30 years ago, but we were wiped out because we were incapable of turning the technology into effective products, and the EU did not assist us in that regard.
We were also world leaders in the energy sector, but, classically, when it comes to science, technology and energy, the EU goes in 10 directions at once because of national pressures, and does not have the necessary coherence. Europe lags behind in energy technology. In the 1980s, we were world leaders in robotics—our academics were the greatest in the development of robotic technology —but neither we nor others in Europe were capable of delivering the jobs that others did. We skipped a generation in terms of application, and that applies to the whole computer industry even more graphically. We did not protect our embryonic industries and companies because we were not allowed to protect them, but now we are.
There is nothing wrong with control and protection when a new sector is emerging. It would be good for us to use our freedom to protect the blockchain technology sector, for instance. The geothermal sector will clearly be the next development in energy: we have that capacity again, and we should use our freedom to protect the sector and allow it to develop. We now have a great opportunity; we have always had the necessary ingenuity. We must allow our universities to retain their partnerships with, for example, German, French and Italian scientists and technologists, but also to have partnerships with countries in the rest of the world. We must use our freedom to protect embryonic industries, so that there will be production, jobs and wealth in this country as well as ingenuity and innovation.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on her excellent maiden speech. I look forward to working with her on many matters that affect residents of both our constituencies.
I thank the Government for granting time for this important debate, and I offer very special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for his kind words. It was an absolute joy to be interim Chair of the excellent Science and Technology Committee. Having chaired one of its sessions, I can tell the House that although some of its members, like me, voted to remain and others voted to leave, the Committee was unanimous when it came to the report on the EU and the opportunities and risks for science and research, and is unanimous in wanting Brexit to work for the science community and for research. That is why I am especially proud of the report.
The United Kingdom is a science superpower. As the Minister and others have said, we make up less than 1% of the world’s population, but 15.9% of its most frequently cited research articles come from the UK. However, as we said in our report, science is a global and a mobile endeavour. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock pointed out, people were the major factor in the evidence that we heard. The Minister was right to say that the UK should be a go-to place, but, as the report shows, the Campaign for Science and Engineering has said that it is not enough to allow EU scientists and students to be in our country; we must fight for them, to enable our science and research to succeed even more. It is great that there are guarantees for EU students, and I note that the Minister has repeatedly confirmed that they will be available to current students and those who come here in 2017-18 for the duration of their courses, but it must be said that the communication programme is not enough. That needs to be worked on.
We are also glad about the guarantees for Horizon 2020, and applaud the important information that the funding guarantees will not be taken from the science budget, but will be additional to it. After the publication of the report, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), met several of my Twickenham science businessmen and researchers, and I valued that greatly. I know that he noted many of the detailed points that were made to him. I hope he will also note that Horizon 2020 may end, and, as the leader of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist has said, we need to establish our own transitional research projects.
The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) spoke of concern about some of our EU researchers already leaving the UK. The Committee said that we needed proper metrics before, during and after Brexit negotiations. Are we losing people? Are we still heading those research projects? As has already been mentioned, there is a big negative.
The Department for Exiting the European Union needs a chief scientific adviser, because it needs guidance on the metrics and on the regulations. I know that the Minister has received evidence from the British Pharmacological Society. The position in relation to the European Medicines Agency is critical. We were leading on the regulations for clinical trials in pharmacovigilance. We have also received evidence from Twickenham businesses such as Ikon, LGC and Mindsoft about the unitary patent system. The Department needs a chief scientific adviser to address what it is going to do. It has to fight for the students, the scientists and the researchers from the EU, and it has to fight for the funding to maintain those research projects. In this Christmas season we have heard lots of wishes that should be on the Department’s Christmas wish list, but primarily it needs Santa to give it a chief scientific adviser.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr Mathias), who made an informed speech, and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who made an excellent maiden speech.
The importance of science to Britain’s industrial revolution is well known: Newtonian physics, Faraday’s electrical magnetism, Jenner’s vaccination. These scientific advances were not simply great intellectual achievements; they also made a difference to the way of life of everybody in this country and across the entire world, and that is still true today.
The quality of our scientific research is not only valuable in itself; it also underpins our economic performance, standard of living and quality of life. It imbues our values as a civilised country, and it is what distinguishes us from our medieval forebears.
The leading clinical geneticist Professor Sir John Burn of Newcastle University, who was born in west Auckland, undertook research in 1990 testing aspirin across 68 countries and found that regular doses can reduce hereditary cancer risk. I asked him about the value of pan-EU collaboration; he said it makes things more effective, makes it easier to lure the best scientists on to projects and, despite the bureaucratic hurdles, it produces better results.
My constituency hosts a Glaxo plant. Sir Andrew Witty, the chief executive officer, tells me that the innovative medicines initiative, part of Horizon 2020, facilitates pre-competitive research into questions such as liver toxicity, which is far more economic to tackle at the EU level than it could ever be for an individual country. Currently, Glaxo does 30% of its R and D in the UK; it would be costly to move it, but in a worst case scenario that could happen.
Members have already spoken about the financial benefits to us of joining in the EU programme. A key aspect is that we are at the heart of shaping the research. The European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures is currently chaired by a British academic, as is the European Research Area Board. We also host EU facilities and headquarters. Does the Minister think that if we became merely an associated country, or a non-associated third country, we would still be leading the EU direction for this research?
Everyone values Horizon 2020, so I call on the Government to make continued membership of it and its successor programmes a key objective in the negotiating strategy for Brexit. In the Treasury Committee, the Chancellor confirmed he was guaranteeing projects that receive Horizon 2020 money beyond that period, but the Minister was not able to tell us in his opening speech how researchers can know their guarantees meet his two further tests. I hope his ministerial colleague can explain that to us in the winding up speeches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
To save time in winding up, may I say now that the Treasury will underwrite all successful bids for Horizon 2020 that are approved by the Commission even when specific projects continue beyond departure? Government Departments will not assess Horizon 2020 grant applications; Horizon 2020 is an EU programme independent of the UK Government and grant funding is awarded by the Commission based on peer review. UK businesses and universities should continue to bid for those competitive EU funds while we remain a member.
Helen Goodman
I am pleased that the Minister has given that confirmation. It sounds as if the Chancellor is saying his criteria will be met by successful Horizon 2020 bidders.
Colleagues have spoken about the problems that will come if we lose freedom of movement—at best, discouraging European academics from working here; at worst, preventing people from coming at all. These people make up over 20% of teaching staff in some of the most crucial scientific subjects: physics, astronomy, mathematical sciences, biological sciences, chemistry and material sciences, and computer sciences. We cannot afford to lose them.
I will not repeat what colleagues have said and no doubt will continue to say, but it is vital that Ministers confirm the status of people who are in the country today. Furthermore, the Government should make it clear that they will seek a complete carve out for British and European academics post-Brexit so they can travel and work in each other’s universities.
The Government should commit to a shared post-Brexit regulatory structure so that researchers have a level playing field and minimised costs and can continue to run large population experiments in parallel across European countries. In essence this would be an open market in R and D post-Brexit.
We need to remember that scientific development is essentially a collaborative and co-operative part of human endeavour. It does not recognise national boundaries in the quest for truth. This is not a new idea. Writing to Robert Hooke in 1676, Isaac Newton said:
“What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much...If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who gave an exceptional maiden speech. Although she is no longer in her place, I wish her well in her future endeavours in this House and in serving her constituents. It took me back to my maiden speech; I spoke on the same day as my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). We both talked on science, and I congratulate her on the great work she has done since in helping to boost skills in that vital area.
I am delighted to speak on this subject. Science is a vital field, especially at this time of significant change and great uncertainty. Brexit is not something that we should fear. The fundamentals of our economy are good. Indeed, forecasts indicate that our growth will be stronger than that of Germany and France again next year. We should look forward with confidence as we navigate our way forward and realise the opportunities that lie ahead.
We must use Brexit as a spur and a call to action in addressing long-standing challenges that have been a drag on our economy for too long, including the skills gap and below-par productivity. Science and technology have a vital role to play here, as I am sure colleagues across the House will agree.
The advanced therapies manufacturing action plan from the Medicines Manufacturing Industry Partnership—both snappy titles—says that, as part of leaving the EU,
“it is vital that the UK makes all efforts to retain and continue to improve its fiscal offering in order to secure investments and anchor infrastructure in the UK and give confidence to investors.”
That is why I join the Select Committee on Science and Technology in welcoming the Government’s funding guarantee relating to the EU science projects that we have talked about at length in this debate.
I also pay tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he gets this: he understands how important it is that we build investor confidence and back innovation-led productivity and infrastructure. I welcome the £2 billion a year he announced in the autumn statement; it will be vital to science and innovation. It is an important step and hugely welcomed.
But this is not just about funding. Colleagues have spoken about the importance of collaboration. It is critical that we maintain relationships with European and other international partners and build our commitment to collaborations, not least of which is a science project that is vital to our area, the square kilometre array project at the Jodrell Bank observatory. This project will result in the creation of the world’s largest radio telescope. We must continue to be ambitious in backing world-leading scientific initiatives; that must be a clear priority.
That is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s demand and ambition for a modern industrial strategy that puts a clear value on science. She was right to say, in a speech in Birmingham during her campaign for the leadership of the Conservative party:
“It is hard to think of an industry of greater strategic importance to Britain than its pharmaceutical industry, and AstraZeneca is one of the jewels in its crown.”
AstraZeneca has a hugely significant presence in Macclesfield. The Prime Minister also gets this. She has learned lessons from Germany and Australia, which are setting out clear industrial strategies. We now need to do the same. We must not seek to pick winners; we must seek to create the conditions that will enable winners to emerge without being picked. There is a fundamental difference. I think we are well placed to do that.
When we consider our industrial strategy, it is clear that science and the life sciences have a role to play, particularly given their huge impact not only on job creation—there are 62,000 jobs in the life sciences—but in productivity per employee, which is critical, with £330,000 of gross value added per employee. That is staggering, and we must get behind this industry and other scientific endeavours to ensure that we realise all the available productivity improvements. It is also critical, as we all know in this House, that we tackle the productivity gaps that have plagued us for too long.
Here are some of the asks that I want to put to Ministers. Will they please continue to take action on the infrastructure that will be vital in underpinning our economic performance, not just on HS2 but on trans-Pennine links to unlock the potential in the north? Will they take action on skills and drive up the quality of apprenticeships? I am pleased that the Department for Education’s post-16 skills plan has an emphasis on health and sciences, as this will be crucial. I also urge Ministers to speed up the adoption of new medical treatments by implementing the accelerated access review. I was delighted to read what the Health Secretary said about this in his recent article in The Daily Telegraph. It will be vital for life sciences and for improving patient outcomes.
We need to see more being done in the north. We talk a lot about the golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London, but important clusters are being developed in the north as well, not least in the life sciences corridor in Cheshire that links into the university city of Manchester. That will be key for the northern powerhouse. We will need to expand the network of catapult centres, and I am delighted that such a centre is being launched in the form of the medicines technology catapult at Alderley Park. We also need to have the anti-microbial resistance centre located there. As we do these things, we will build confidence in business. I have already mentioned AstraZeneca’s investment in Macclesfield, which has been most welcome.
Dr Mathias
Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the EU regulations on phase 1 clinical trials have not been helpful, and that there will be opportunities in that regard in the future?
David Rutley
Absolutely. We need to seize those opportunities and get behind science and the life sciences.
Looking at local examples, we have seen 600 jobs being created in just a couple of years at Alderley Park following AstraZeneca’s decision to relocate to Cambridge. Those jobs are highly important for the north. But this is not just about the life sciences. I have already talked about Jodrell Bank, and I very much hope that Ministers will support my drive to have it nominated as a world heritage site. That will be key in celebrating the science heritage of that site, which will be important for the north and for the visitor economy.
I also welcome the fact that the Government are re-examining their excellent work on research and development tax credits and allowances. This has helped to underline the importance of science and to show that the UK economy is open for business. I am pleased that the Chancellor has indicated that there will be a review of the tax environment to ensure that we can build on the introduction of above-the-line tax credits to make us even more competitive.
I cannot match the Christmas closing lines of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), but I will echo the words of one of my constituents in one of the great Christmas jingles: it is time for us now to look to the future; it’s only just begun.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I would just say to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) that, had my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and I known that the Chair of the Committee was going to write the last line of the report, we would not have voted for it in the first place. [Laughter.] None the less, I am delighted to be here this evening to support the Committee and its report and to discuss this extremely grave and urgent matter in the few minutes that I have. I shall try to be as brief as possible.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on a very coherent and well delivered maiden speech. I disagree with her on Heathrow, but I agree with her on exiting the European Union. I shall set out my position on that briefly if I may.
I told the then Prime Minister during the statement on 27 June following the referendum that in all my almost 25 years as a Member of this House, when faced with a difficult matter, I have always regarded my primary responsibility to be to the people of Lewisham West and Penge. They voted by roughly 2:1 to remain in the European Union, which is convenient for me because I share that judgment. That is why, the week before last, I voted against the Government amendment to the Opposition day motion on a timetable for article 50. I accept that I was in a substantial minority, and I will probably remain so, but I have told my constituents that I will not vote for anything that could undermine our relationship with the European Union.
My position is that we really should have made more effort to reform the institutions of the EU, but the chance to do that has now gone. I accept what might well happen in the future, but others have written to me to say that my intention is a betrayal of democracy. This House collectively has to try to represent the British people overall, but any individual Member really represents only the people who vote for them. If I have got this issue wrong—that eventuality has been known to occur—I will happily go back to my constituents at the next election and rest on their judgment. I do not believe that leaving the EU is in the best interests of this country, of my constituents or of the city of which my constituency is part, and I will not vote for it. It is no betrayal or denial of democracy, as some have suggested, for Members to represent their constituents to the best of their ability.
The subject of today’s debate is extremely important. The UK is among the international leaders in science and research. I know that some people will say that British is best, almost regardless of what they are talking about. They say that something British is the best in the world even when they have little or no experience of what the rest of the world has to offer. In the fields of science, technology and research, however, there is a clear and strong case to be made that Britain is in a strong position, and widespread concern has been expressed, not least in today’s debate, about the uncertainty into which the British science and technology community has been placed following the decision of 23 June.
I will now provide an indication of just how much things have changed in the intervening six months. When the Science and Technology Committee did a report into EU regulation of life sciences—it would become the first report of the 2016-17 Session—under its previous Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), we took evidence in March and April and received 33 written submissions. In compiling the report that is appended to today’s debate, as the current Chair pointed out, the Committee held two evidence sessions in July and took evidence from Ministers, one of whom is in his place, in October. Given the entirely changed landscape of the science and research background, that inquiry attracted no fewer than 264 written submissions. Many came from the research universities and institutions that have been mentioned today, but many more came from individual academics and researchers who are concerned about the position in which they have been left.
I accept that it will not be easy to provide assurances in the short term. I dissent from something said by one of my hon. Friends earlier about getting on with things and getting them done quickly. I accept the value of clarity in the short term, but I want to ensure that we get this right despite my better judgment—I outlined that earlier. It is better to get it right than to get it soon. If it is possible to do both, all well and good.
All Members, not just those here present, will have received numerous submissions about this evening’s debate from a wide variety of medical charities, universities, and other organisations. I do not have the time to read it out now, but I particularly commend the submission from the Royal Society, which highlights people, networks and collaboration, investment, and regulation as the key areas to address. On providing clarity, the Government could take the smart step of guaranteeing the position of EU nationals in the UK now. They could then go with a strong hand to the negotiations after article 50 has been triggered for equal treatment of British nationals overseas.
In conclusion, the referendum result has raised serious questions about the future of several vital industries and economic activities in the United Kingdom. Financial services may be particularly exposed, but science and research is at least equally significant to the wellbeing of our people. Amid the numerous complexities of designing our future relationship with the European Union, the Government must do all that they can, as soon as they can, to resolve the serious issues facing the entire science and research community.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I welcome the fact that this debate is happening in Government time, and I was delighted to support the Back-Bench application for it. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd). I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in her absence. Had she been here, I would have gently pointed out that Richard III is a rather popular monarch in Leicestershire and has been rather good for our tourist industry.
This debate is important to my constituency, which has Loughborough University at its heart, to my constituents and to our potential life science opportunity zone at Charnwood Campus. It is a shame that the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation is not still in his place, because I had hoped that he might have given us an early Christmas present by announcing life science opportunity zone status for the Charnwood Campus. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will make a note of that, although I do not expect him to make such an announcement this evening. I must also mention the other businesses and organisations in my local area that rely on science and research, including the University of Leicester. The Science Minister recently visited Loughborough, so he will know that, according to the 2014 research excellence framework, 65% of Loughborough’s academic staff are involved in internationally leading research, putting the university 17th out of 154 higher education institutions. It ranks 10th in England for research intensity and generates in excess of £40 million a year in research grants. That experience is directly relevant to the university’s concerns about EU funding and collaboration.
It is right to recognise the commitment of this Government and previous Governments to science and research funding. I pay tribute to the science Minister—he is now back in his place and if he has not heard from his fellow Minister about my request for an early Christmas present, I suggest he ask now—to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and to the previous Member for Havant, who now resides in the other place, for fighting the science corner in successive Budgets, autumn statements and spending rounds. The Government are delivering on their manifesto commitment to protect the science capital budget, and the science budget of £4.7 billion will rise in cash terms every year in this Parliament.
It is fair to say that science and research funding was perhaps not at the forefront of the campaigning or in the general hubbub around 23 June. People do not always understand—I certainly did not before becoming the MP for Loughborough and thus for Loughborough University—what Brexit might mean for innovation, jobs and Britain’s place in the world. The Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee was right when he said that how that aspect of Brexit is handled—I am paraphrasing so I hope that I have got this right—goes to heart of whether we remain an outward-facing nation, leading the world in research and cutting edge science and technology, or whether we cede that position to other countries. One local business put it to me like this:
“Being in the EU puts us in a much larger market than UK alone. It helps to attract and employ the best people to compete in fierce international markets. The UK should be seen as modern, open and inclusive to invite further investment.”
Some on the Government Benches will disagree about the terms on which we conclude Brexit, but we can agree, based on figures already cited, that UK research is enormously influential around the world. What was missing from the discussion before 23 June was just how important EU research funding is in supporting the UK’s research and how much that funding is at risk at the moment. It is about not only money, but uniform regulations, which should not be overlooked in future negotiations and agreements.
Advances in research and the consequent benefits to society and the economy could not be realised simply by having the same level of funding go through a UK funding body. Loughborough University tells me that urgent action is required to guarantee UK participation in EU research networks post-Brexit, including continuing to contribute to funding of EU research programmes initiated during the two years after invoking article 50. We will all have anecdotes about research bids in which the UK has been dropped completely as a participant or co-ordinator due to the referendum, but I know of at least one case in which the UK institution was invited back into the project following the Treasury statement in August on underwriting UK participation, which demonstrates how important that announcement was and how important continuing announcements in the same vein will be. I welcome the Chancellor having given that commitment. We have already heard demands that the UK have associated country status in Horizon 2020—third country status would be much less satisfactory.
A non-university example is Medilink East Midlands, which has supported over 1,000 companies in the development of innovations through the European regional development fund project that it ran between 2008 and 2015. It has three new ERDF projects that will continue that support for the next couple of years, and it is worth noting that ERDF has been the only source of funding for business and innovation projects available to them since 2010. Over the past seven years, Medilink EM has delivered an intensive programme of innovation support to the east midlands life sciences sector. In addition to supporting over 1,000 companies, that has meant producing gross value added of over £8.2 million, creating or safeguarding 480 jobs, and helping over 25 new product launches. As we also heard, however, none of this is possible without talking about people, and this is top of the worry list for those most affected by this debate. We have already heard about how much money international students bring—£11 billion to the UK economy each year— but they also make an important cultural contribution. In 2012-13, 5.5% of students studying in the UK were from EU countries, generating £3.7 billion for the UK economy and sustaining 34,000 jobs in local communities. As a local Member of Parliament representing a large university, I can tell the House that those are not always high-value jobs; we are also talking about the cleaners, cooks and administrators who make a university function, leaving aside the other jobs created locally which rely on the university, such as those in retail and leisure. I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) that students should not be taken into account in net migration numbers. I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement at last week’s EU Council meeting that she wants an early deal on the rights of EU citizens, and I shall continue to push Ministers to honour that.
In the short time available, I just wish to say that by 2019 we are going to have new immigration and trading policies, and we look forward to a new industrial strategy, and we must have a new relationship that enables our institutions to take part in EU funding for science and research.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The debate about leaving the EU and science is not unique in having myths associated with it, and I wish to talk about two today. The first, which has been mentioned by a number of people, concerns problems with scientific collaboration and financing. As has been well documented and elucidated, this country benefits in its research budget: we are a net gainer in research. It has also been pointed out that we are a net donor when it comes to overall European funding. What is often not stated is that we are net contributor to the science budget as a whole—
Graham Stringer
I see the Minister is nodding. Science is funded through the European development funds and other funding, and when we look at that, we see that we are a net contributor. It should be possible, with human ingenuity, to sort out that funding issue.
Secondly, let me mention collaboration. There is not time to go into this fully, but one of my hon. Friends mentioned 17th century science. Isaac Newton put his theory of gravity together while a plague was going on. He used the work of Johannes Kepler, a German who put his work together by stealing work in Denmark and working on Italian and Polish work while the Thirty years war was going on. Science finds a way to collaborate across all sorts of boundaries.
I want to quote from the Science and Technology Committee’s report that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) referred to, “EU regulation of the life sciences”, which was published about a week before the referendum. It was passed unanimously by the various parties on the Committee, albeit after some debate, and it is worth reading. The myth is that somehow the EU is pro-science and is good for science, but the report states:
“Our predecessor Committee’s inquiries had showed some resistance from the European Commission to evidence-based policy making and science, including the hostility to GM Organisms (along with an arbitrary and unscientific use of the precautionary principle), the dilatory approach to revising the Clinical Trials Directive and the Electromagnetic Field Directive, as well as the sacking of Professor Anne Glover.”
The EU is hardly a body with a good record on science. The sacking of Anne Glover was a disgrace. She was sacked not because she was a poor scientist, but because she was a good scientist giving evidence about GM foods. Greenpeace, quite disgracefully, lobbied against her staying, and the Commission, spineless as ever, sacked her.
The clinical trials directive has already been referred to. Not only was it a bad directive that led to science leaving the EU because it was ineffective, it took too long and it was inconsistently applied—the EU is now proposing new regulations for 2018, which we hope will be more effective—but it has taken 20 years, while science and scientists have been leaving the EU, to put that directive right. The electromagnetic field directive was relatively quickly rectified, as it took the EU only 10 years to put that right. It was hindering work on machines for diagnosing cancers and other diseases using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and other instruments.
Then we come to the phthalates. One phthalate was banned, and the EU then banned a series of phthalates. Almost the first lesson that any pupil gets in chemistry is that sodium chloride is essential for life and potassium chloride is a poison. We cannot just say that because one phthalate might poison rats, which was the evidence base the EU was using, all phthalates will poison rats. An over-use of the precautionary principle has meant that the ban on GM foods has continued, and because of that this country does not have the benefit of a blight-free potato and many other beneficial agricultural products. During the referendum debates, we were told how good the EU was for industry. As I never tired of pointing out, our agro-chemical industry had almost disappeared because of the Commission’s and the EU’s attitude to science.
I will refer to two other non-EU agencies, mentioned in the debate, that show how anti-scientific the EU is. One is the European Space Agency, an excellent organisation that does some very good work indeed. When the Science and Technology Committee visited it in Rome just before the last general election, its senior scientists were desperate to keep the Commission out of their work because they were worried about its anti-scientific attitude. The Galileo project, which is funded primarily by the European Commission and is also used by the European Space Agency, is three times over budget and only halfway through—it will take about three times as long to complete as was expected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge said that it was better to get things right than not get them right; I think the EU had its chance to get things right, but there was never any reform. Now we are out, we can look after our own science.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate.
Following June’s historic referendum, I have been working closely with institutions and businesses in my constituency to ensure that, now more than ever, science and technological institutions have the right frameworks to secure as much funding as possible, before and after we leave the EU. I want to put this in context. Plymouth has a global reputation for marine science engineering research, not only through Plymouth University, which is well known for its technology work, but through the Royal Navy, the National Marine Aquarium, the fishing industry, the Marine Biological Association, which was set up in the 1870s to explore whether we could ever over-fish our waters, and Plymouth Marine Laboratory.
Plymouth Marine Laboratory did a great deal of research into CO2 emissions and global warming. I am not surprised; after all, Captain Robert Falcon Scott was a Plymouth boy. I pay tribute to Stephen de Mora, chief executive of PML, for the work that he and his team have done in preparing me for today’s debate. Both PML and the Marine Biological Association do much for science and technological research—not only in the south-west, but throughout the rest of the country. They have links with South Korea, and together they have done much research into the movement of plankton in and around Antarctica—plankton are a key part of the diet of fish; without them, we would not have all those fish that we like eating.
I was pleased that in his recent autumn statement, the Chancellor announced that the Government are committed to making science and research a lynchpin of our economy after Brexit by taking steps towards increasing science spending, as the Science and Technology Committee had previously urged. I am also pleased that the Government have provided reassurance to the science and research community by promising to maintain the funding that now comes from EU grants beyond the point when the UK leaves the European Union. That is more important than ever: a Government study recently found that for every £1 of public investment in research and development, the private sector invested a further 136% on average—a pretty good return, as far as I am concerned.
I am unashamedly pro-science. Science contributes to economic growth, enabling the development of new goods and services, attracting inward investment and creating jobs. In February, when the former Prime Minister formally announced the referendum date, my local paper, the great Plymouth Herald, ran an article entitled “19 things EU funding has done for Plymouth”. In 2020, we will commemorate the Mayflower leaving Plymouth to found the American colonies. Interestingly, the strapline for Plymouth used to be “The Spirit of Discovery”, but then, of course, we did have Sir Francis Drake, and an enormous number of scientists have come from Plymouth. However, an incredible 16 of the 19 projects in that article sit within my constituency, with many involving science and research. In short, the funding is vital for industry and for my constituency, although I recognise that not all EU funding is necessarily generous, and I would encourage the Science and Technology Committee to undertake an inquiry into how the situation could be improved.
Statistics on the EU Horizon 2020 programme, published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy earlier this month, indicated that the UK ranks first in terms of participation. Previously published statistics showed that UK-based researchers lead far more projects in Horizon 2020 than researchers from any other nation.
As we leave the EU, I would like the British Government to continue to invest in R and D and not only to work with research and science organisations in the EU but to use this opportunity to forge new alliances with our non-European partners in the US, where a significant amount of research and development takes place, and the far east, including South Korea. Although the costs of development in global research may be higher in the short term, I hope that market forces will make sure we bring them down.
One contentious issue, which we have heard about today, is immigration. I quite understand the Government’s position of not wanting to take the student population out of the figures, but it is really important that we make sure the Government are much more proactive in talking about the number of students. I am very aware that they have to do some work on that.
While I welcome the fact that any non-UK EU citizen who has lived in this country continuously for five years will be allowed to remain here, the Government must get the balance right between protecting those researchers who contribute so much to our science and technology, and listening to the very real concerns about immigration that Members of this House heard on the doorstep during the referendum campaign.
The June referendum’s vote to leave the European Union was historic, providing not only uncertainty but huge opportunities for our excellent science and technology sectors. Let us seize this opportunity to show the world that Britain is open for business and ready to lead from the front when it comes to improving the lives of everyone around the world through science and innovation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We are going to chop the speech limit down to six minutes.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
This is a very welcome debate, and I congratulate the Government on recognising that Members of the House are worried about how the Prime Minister plans to take Britain out of the EU and about what the fine print of Brexit will be—not least for science and research and for the many interlinked sectors and economies.
The impact on our universities and on their ability to maintain their immense contributions to science and research is one of the many concerning and complex challenges Brexit throws up. The wide role played by our universities cannot be overestimated. Universities are engines for so much in our economy and society. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they generate an annual output of £73 billion and around £11 billion of export earnings for the UK economy. They create jobs, drive innovation, support growth, and are beacons recognised by the rest of the world for their integrity, quality and innovation.
At a regional and local level, their importance is no less noteworthy. The University of Bradford, in my home town, is an important and central part of the city in many different and positive ways. The university supports local and regional growth, encourages enterprise and business development, attracts investment and talent, and provides and creates employment. Bradford is not unique in that regard. Our universities are dynamic, and they make an invaluable contribution to the UK’s place in the world. Brexit must not be allowed to undo that intentionally or inadvertently. The Government must protect and enhance the way in which British universities bring about positive impacts on behalf of the UK, not least in science and research.
Collaborative working with the EU in this field makes an enormous contribution to Britain. In its report on the challenges of Brexit, MillionPlus, the Association for Modern Universities, stresses that the value of cross-country collaboration between academics in different EU countries cannot be overstated. This collaborative research, and the relationships that stem from it, need to be promoted as part of the negotiations to leave the EU. That is just as important as guaranteeing funding. In 2014-15, UK universities received £836 million in research funding from EU sources—15% of the total value of all research funding that year. MillionPlus says that this often proves more accessible than funding from UK sources.
As many Members will know, the Alzheimer’s Society offers one example of the importance of research and how a bad Brexit may damage Britain. The society points out that Britain is a global leader in dementia research but worries that this position, particularly in relation to funding, could regress as we exit the EU. The Alzheimer’s Society and I are urging the Government to prioritise securing continued access to EU funding schemes and programmes for research as they negotiate a new relationship with the EU post-Brexit. That is one example of how EU collaboration and investment can be critical; there are many others.
Collaborations are vital for science. Scientists should be able to work with the best in their field irrespective of their geographical location and institutional affiliation. Researchers collaborate; they overcome all sorts of institutional and financial difficulties by working together and pooling resources. EU funding has played a part in overcoming the sorts of challenges that researchers face. I am sure that I speak for many universities, and all the organisations who are beneficiaries of the research they do, when I urge the Government to look seriously at how to make up shortfalls in funding for research that arise from Britain’s departure from the EU post-Brexit.
I hope that the Government will commit to making sure that any lost research and innovation funding arising from Brexit is replaced. I also hope that they will reassure our research community and preserve our international reputation by committing to a real-terms increase in science funding. Safeguarding what we have and reassuring those with a vested interest is only the first step. The next phase will be to ensure that in the decades to come the way in which Britain works with the world does not lose sight of the vital and specific needs of our universities and the research they carry out. The Government will need not just a long-term plan for leaving the EU but a plan for engaging with the rest of the world on many important and fundamental levels.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Scientific research is one of the United Kingdom’s biggest assets, and we must ensure that Brexit provides us with an opportunity. We are in a position to critique and improve on aspects of EU legislation that hold back our development, to adopt the policies that have benefited us, and to create a Britain that is increasingly outward-looking and pioneering in science and research.
Many sectors claim that their people are their greatest asset, but this is most clear in the area of scientific research and innovation, where individual qualities count for so much, skills need to be developed over a period of years, and there is a great deal of specialisation. The search for and recruitment of talented engineers and scientists is already very challenging, and the potential for a barrier to go up between the UK and the EU is a great concern. I was pleased that the Prime Minister attempted to resolve this problem to enable the 1.3 million British subjects living in the EU to remain there and the 3.3 million EU citizens to remain here, but disappointed that Donald Tusk, playing politics with peoples’ lives, rebuffed the proposal.
When discussing migration, especially in the context of Brexit, we have to get the tone and values right. During the referendum campaign, I talked to hundreds of people about what it would mean to leave the EU, and controlling our borders was a significant concern, although not the greatest. I did not meet anyone who thought that we should stop scientists and engineers from coming to and settling in the UK. There is a desire that Britain should control her borders but also enable those with most to contribute to come here. It should be of huge reassurance to members of the scientific community that the British people greatly value their contribution, no matter from where they came.
Our universities sector is world-leading, with three in the top 10 of the Times Higher Education world university rankings. There is only one other European university in the top 10 and it is Swiss. To maintain our global position, it is vital that, post-Brexit, the whole of the UK universities sector not only maintains its attractiveness to EU students, but enables more students to come from countries such as India by removing barriers. Given that students come for a set period of time and for a specific purpose, they should also be taken out of our immigration figures so that the numbers reflect those seeking to remain here.
Although the vote to leave the EU has caused some to raise fears that it will result in our becoming an inward-looking nation, cut off from the world and its opportunities, most prefer to be optimistic. Brexit is an opportunity to ensure that people with the skills and talents that we need come to Britain so that we have an immigration system that works for everyone.
The UK has been a net beneficiary of EU funding for research, benefiting from the collaboration opportunities offered by EU programmes such as Horizon 2020. However, we need to be clear that our overall contributions massively outweighed any financial returns in this particular sector. Some countries receive most of their Horizon 2020 moneys in structural funds to build up their science base, but Britain largely receives money based on excellence. We ought to be clear that scientists from across the EU gain enormously from collaborating with us. We ought not to think that we are in a weak, dependent position, because we are not.
Funding concerns have been raised by the Science and Technology Committee in its seventh report of this Session. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response in the new year. Like many, I was encouraged by their recent announcement that there would be guaranteed funding for participation in Horizon 2020 projects, even if the project finishes after our departure from the EU.
The Prime Minister’s announcement of an additional £2 billion a year of funding by 2021 for science and innovation through the new industrial strategy is welcome, but I would like clarification on where that money will be spent. Given that we will no longer be a member of the EU, we will not receive any funding from the successor to Horizon 2020. Is it possible or expected that a proportion of that £2 billion will be used to buy into, in part or in full, the successor to Horizon 2020? According to the European Commission’s rules, Britain can participate in Horizon 2020 outside the EU, just like Tunisia, Norway and Israel.
Brexit offers an opportunity to correct any failings in EU policy for science and research. For example, the EU clinical trials directive, which was approved in 2001 and introduced in 2004, is widely seen as being a failure due to increased costs, delays and differing interpretations across the EU. It is due to be replaced by the clinical trial regulation, which is widely expected to be much better and is currently due to be implemented in October 2018. That demonstrates how slow the EU can be in amending and changing regulations, with that process taking nearly 20 years.
In conclusion, I am glad to hear assurances on the future of British science and its funding, but the whole scientific community has a responsibility to secure the future of British science. It is for each and every one of our scientists to go across the world and tell everyone that we are open for business and that science has a bright future in the UK.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of UK science and research, particularly in the two world-class universities in Bristol—the University of Bristol and the University of the West of England—one of which is in my constituency and the other just outside it, as well as the business and science incubators, the catapults and the other institutions that value and need a good research environment in the European Union.
Since the referendum I have been talking with the universities about the impact on science and research of a possible exit from the EU. The science carried out at the University of Bristol is pioneering, from better early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease to tackling antimicrobial resistance; from food security to understanding how we can prevent and stop violence against women. The University of Bristol has leading researchers doing vital work. Meanwhile, across the city in UWE work is being done on big data, developing flood resilience, improving air quality, shaping sustainable suburbs and improving labour productivity. I am sure we all agree that those are important things.
If I may join in the Higgs boson name-check, Mr Higgs was in the class of 1946 in Cotham school in Bristol West. The school has educated not just Mr Higgs but my nephews and nieces and the sons of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), so I am very fond of it. I am glad to be able to get a Higgs mention in.
There are five key issues of concern for science and research, and they are linked; no single strand stands alone. Those issues, which were set out in the recent report by the Science and Technology Committee, are: funding—that has been mentioned quite a lot today, so I will not dwell on it—people, collaboration and influence, regulation, and facilities. As Professor Ian Diamond, chair of the Universities UK research policy network, explained,
“there is no point having a regulatory framework if you do not have the talent; there is no point having the talent if you do not have access to the grants.”
Kevin Baughan, chief development officer at Innovate UK, said:
“We cannot really look at each of those parts individually. We need a strategy and a plan that allows us to move the whole ecosystem forward, because together they take worldclass science and turn it into jobs and growth; and together they allow businesses to export, to compete in wider markets and to build broader partnerships.”
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), I am in favour of science for science’s sake, but I think it is critical that we are clear about the economic benefits of having world-class universities. The presence of the universities in Bristol contributes such a lot, as do the staff and the students, whether they decide to stay on after graduation or beyond the life of their research project. Some are telling me that they do not want to stay, and they feel as though they might as well take an offer from a university in Berlin, Bonn or Copenhagen. Some who have families or partners from the EU say they no longer feel welcome. That is a great worry to me.
Universities UK has said that it wants the Government to recognise that our universities are one of our best exports. They contribute to the economy directly through income generated, and indirectly through longer-term contribution to knowledge. I am not going to say anything else from that page of my speech, because someone else has already said it. I think it is good to junk things when they have already been said.
I have every confidence that the universities in Bristol can compete, whatever the circumstances they find themselves in, but the issues of concern that I have mentioned need to be tackled. As well as big universities such as the ones in my constituency, I am concerned about smaller universities, which often specialise in a particular field but which are less well-equipped than the larger universities, with their economies of scale, to weather any storm arising from the uncertainty about Brexit.
In Aberystwyth, the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences—I have to declare an interest, because my niece is a PhD student there—conducts pioneering research into topics from ways to help crops to resist disease to finding out what microbes live in glaciers; that is the project my niece is involved in. Other small institutes such as the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, various institutes for music and the arts, the School of Oriental and African Studies and the Royal Agricultural University all have unique contributions to make. I worry that their size will make it harder for them to weather the storm.
I urge the Government to consider the various options for our relationship with the EU through the lens of what will make it easiest for our universities—of all shapes, sizes and specialisms—to continue to be the world-class institutes that they are. What agreements can we make on free movement of students and researchers? I might as well be honest and open, as I have been in every debate on Brexit so far, about the fact that I am a passionate believer in the value of the free movement of people, and I think that universities have a strong case to make for why that should apply to them.
What is the best regulatory framework for us to be in in order to collaborate with other EU universities? How can we make sure that British people are not delayed access to new medical treatments because of different rules? One way to ensure that the Government keep those things in mind is, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) mentioned, to have the voice of science in the process. I am deeply concerned by the fact that, as the report by the Science and Technology Committee mentions, the post of chief scientific adviser at the Department for Exiting the European Union has not yet been advertised. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on that.
Finally, will the Minister tell us at the end of the debate whether the Government have considered the other recommendations in the report by the Science and Technology Committee? Will the Government commit to keeping student numbers out of the immigration targets and caps? If they have not yet prepared a response to the Select Committee report, when will they do so? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some—or, ideally, all—of these questions, because the production of knowledge is one of the things we do best in this country and one of the things I am proudest of in my constituency.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire).
Whatever our view of the United Kingdom’s place in the world, it is probably fair to say it is indisputable that the UK is a science giant. The impact our excellent science and research base has had on the country as a whole has been profound, particularly in our great universities. As I have said previously, my constituency of Cambridge is particularly productive—a hive of science and innovation. The University of Cambridge has fostered almost 100 Nobel prize winners, and the city and surrounding area is home to a thriving network of life sciences and technology companies.
However, as Baron Rees of Ludlow once cautioned:
“Unless we get smarter, we’ll get poorer”.
Eight years later, at a time when our relationship with Europe is at a crucial juncture, that warning is all the more significant. Unfortunately, in the words of Prospect, the trade union representing many people working in the sector:
“It is inescapable that the decision to Brexit has resulted in an instant reputational hit for UK science.”
Let me begin with a plea to the Government to provide concrete, real reassurances to the EU nationals working in science and research around the country. Existing EU research staff need certainty, which is sorely missing at the moment.
I recently visited a lab at the department of physiology, development and neuroscience at the University of Cambridge as part of a pairing scheme run by the Royal Society. I shadowed a neuroscientist-neurologist, Susanna Mierau, who is studying autism, and spent much of the day with her and her colleagues. It was a brilliant and inspiring day, but what was particularly striking was the number of people working in the lab who were EU nationals. It is the same in labs around the city and across the country.
The Royal Society tells us that there are 31,000 non-UK EU citizens working in research and academia in the UK. The Babraham Institute just outside Cambridge says nearly a third of their employees and visiting researchers are non-UK EU nationals. The Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, which is on the biomedical park in Cambridge, tells us that EU nationals are a significant and valuable part of their workforce, who are dedicated to beating cancer sooner, with 33% of its PhD students and 39% of its research fellows being non-UK EU nationals. The adjoining Medical Research Council laboratory of molecular biology says that 40% of its research students and 45% of its postdoctoral researchers are from the EU. At the University of Cambridge as a whole, about a quarter of academics and postdocs are EU nationals.
EU nationals are undertaking vital work across the UK to tackle global challenges and improve people’s lives, and they make a huge contribution to UK science and research. Sadly, however, written evidence from the organisations I have mentioned testifies to those people all feeling “very anxious and unwelcome”, “insecure...or even abused”, and
“concerned about their ability to continue working here”.
I find that genuinely horrifying, and I urge the Government to tell EU nationals working in UK science that they are welcome in this country.
The evidence shows that the EU researchers attracted by the UK are at the top of their fields. More than half of European Research Council consolidator grant recipients in the UK in 2014 were non-UK EU citizens. The University of Cambridge argues that UK institutions risk losing this talent and the accompanying European Research Council funding should EU researchers no longer be attracted to the UK, which is the potential consequence of any restrictions on freedom of movement. Losing access to funding is not just about attracting talent; it is also about retaining it.
All of this is not just about the UK’s standing, but about scientific progress itself. Collaboration and the pooling of international talent are essential to scientific innovation. The famous discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick involved a visiting US scientist, and monoclonal antibodies were developed by an Argentinian and a German postdoctoral fellow. Science knows no borders, so talented people and their ideas must be allowed to flow freely. If EU citizens are required to apply for a tier 2 visa to work in UK universities, that will pose a risk to universities’ ability to recruit and retain staff. Maintaining researcher mobility and refusing to create barriers to internationalism must be a priority in Brexit negotiations.
I will conclude by briefly mentioning a couple of other vital areas. I have spoken previously about the importance of ensuring that the UK has continued access to the EU regulatory framework for new medicines under the European Medicines Agency. If we reject the importance of that—as, alarmingly, the Secretary of State for International Trade did in extraordinarily cursory fashion very recently—access to new treatments will slow down, drugs prices will go up and our NHS will foot the bill. Furthermore, our life sciences sector will suffer. In Cambridge there are more than 160 life science companies, but if our country is outside the single market and is no longer able to work with the EMA, and if it moves its headquarters from London, parts of the industry will surely follow. Just recently Sweden was reported to have thrown its hat into the ring to host the EMA headquarters.
Likewise, our technology sector is reliant upon retaining the current regulatory system, in this case ensuring that UK data protection rules are at least in line with the new general data protection regulation following Brexit. The cross-border sharing of international data flows is essential if we want our technology and financial services sectors to remain globally competitive. The Minister for Digital and Culture said in response to an Adjournment debate that I secured recently:
“We want a data protection framework that works best for the UK and meets our needs. Those consultations will be forthcoming.” —[Official Report, 12 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 594.]
I wonder whether we can now be told when those consultations will be published. He also said that the Government were considering all options for the most beneficial way of ensuring that the UK’s data protection regime continues to build a culture of data confidence and trust, which safeguards citizens and supports businesses in a global data economy. Perhaps the Minister responding today can outline some of those options.
We need better answers from the Government and soon, or we risk seeing the great advantages and opportunities achieved by UK science and tech squandered, at great cost to us all.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who I rather feel covered every corner of how important it is for science that the movement of people and scientists is kept in place.
I do not really apologise for being parochial; I am here to speak on behalf of Northern Ireland. I was vice-Chair of the Committee for Education in the Northern Ireland Assembly for three years. Under the previous Minister, I watched funding cuts for Sentinus, teaching and, basically, the whole of science, yet somehow Northern Ireland remained high up there with its results. However, we should keep in mind that this year it has dropped some six places in the science tables.
I spoke about this the week before last, but it is key to Northern Ireland, being an island off an island and having a land border with Ireland, that we keep our trade and the movement of people, which is becoming even more essential to our economy. The universities want all universities in the United Kingdom to thrive. Queen’s University is very much part of the Russell Group. It sees it as absolutely essential to maintain mobility of staff and students throughout the whole of Europe, along with access to research funding and collaboration in projects. That is the key, so when Ministers look at Northern Ireland and Brexit, I ask them to ensure that research and development and the funding for universities are some of our top priorities.
We have Ulster University and Queen’s University, with the Magee campus in Londonderry. When it comes to funding, Ulster University has had €9.92 million to date and is looking to try and get another €10.5 million. Queen’s has attracted €61 million and wants to get more, but the message that they are sending us is that they need clarity. They want an end to the uncertainty. They know that the funding has been guaranteed up to when we leave, but after that they need to be able to promise something to the people they are trying to attract, so that we hold them there and do not lose them.
To borrow a little bit of the Christmas spirit, someone said to me last week that we should be following the star. All students follow the star: they want to go to the university where that star professor is, so we have to make sure that we keep the key people in the universities. If there is a key message to take on board, that is it. I am grateful for what the Chancellor has said and for the clarification, but in Northern Ireland we need to know that the funding will be ring-fenced and not lost in the Barnett formula and spent with other things. We need to make sure that it comes through to the universities.
I was pleased to see that one of the British Academy’s key points was about paying particular attention to Northern Ireland and working with the Irish. Another of its points, which we should all remember, was that 50% of academic papers are written with international partners. That is how it should remain. We should keep working together. That does not mean only Europe—we can and should look outwards to gather in specialists from the whole world.
Northern Ireland is well known for aerospace, defence, pharmaceuticals and medical research—one example would be Frank Pantridge, the cardiologist. Like all hon. Members, I could name plenty of people who have set examples, but we have to ensure that it happens into the future. At the moment, the anecdotes we are hearing tell us that Northern Ireland universities are losing out. People are already looking elsewhere for collaboration. We must ensure that we stop that today. Six per cent. of University of Ulster and 30% of Queen’s staff come from Europe. We must ensure that we keep those people.
It is essential to take another point on board. The UCAS tells us that the number of students coming to Northern Ireland is 9% down on last year. We had increased the number every year until this year. We must look at what we are doing on science.
I have pleaded enough. I hate always making Northern Ireland a special case, but it is our home. It is important that we pull all those things together, work and see everywhere thrive.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Few will be surprised if I approach today’s debate from a decidedly Scottish perspective. With five universities ranked in the top 200 academic institutions in the world, Scotland certainly punches above its weight, which is reflected in the world renowned academic research carried out north of border. The University of Edinburgh is one example. The research carried out there is truly groundbreaking. We would be hard-pushed to find someone who has not heard of the Higgs boson or Dolly the sheep. It is little wonder that the University of Edinburgh enjoys such a consistently high placing in international league tables.
We should rightly be concerned when that esteemed university warns of the risk of harm to the quality of its research posed by Brexit. In written evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee, the institution gives a stark warning that our exit from the European Union could lead to fewer excellent researchers getting permission to apply to universities here; that fewer international universities will be willing to collaborate with UK universities and researchers; and that less funding could be available. It argues that that could lead to a loss of its global reputation, a loss of opportunities for UK researchers and scientists, and less high-quality advice being available to the Government and business. It warns that, in turn, that could seriously impact on our ability to tackle global problems such as clean energy, food security and ageing populations.
The Government seem capable only of sowing more confusion. There are reports that the Home Office is considering plans almost to halve the number of international student visas issued. Forty-two per cent. of students at the University of Edinburgh are EU and international students. Those proposals will only compound the stark Brexit warning it has issued.
One positive measure that the Government could take now is to give clarity that the immigration rights of EU nationals currently living in Scotland will not change in future. Such assurances would help forward planning and the retention of researchers and scientists. I recently received a letter from Professor Craig Mahoney, principal of the University of the West of Scotland, which plans to open a new state-of-the-art campus in my constituency. In the letter, he emphasises the huge importance of international students not only to universities but to our society and economy. He cites a report from BiGGAR Economics, which found that the university generates £538 million gross value added in Scotland and supports almost 4,500 jobs. He stresses that a significant element of the corporate strategy of the university is to grow the number of international students. It is my belief that the uncertainty caused by Brexit seriously jeopardises that. The immigration status of EU nationals is not some negotiating piece for the Prime Minister, and treating it as such is causing damage.
In addition to clarity on immigration, the Government should start to give answers on future research funding. The University of the West of Scotland has received more than €740,000 of Horizon 2020 funding, with Scottish higher education institutions receiving around €165 million in total. The promise of a Treasury guarantee for current Horizon 2020 funding is welcome, but simply does not go far enough. The Government need to provide the necessary certainty so that academic and research institutions know that they will have enough support for the duration of their projects. We also need a clear sign of Government intent to put in place an equivalent funding framework post Brexit.
The UK already compares very badly with its competitors, and the decision to leave the EU will only further exacerbate the UK Government’s failures in the fields of science and innovation. The hugely negative effect that will have on our economy cannot be understated. The Scottish National party Scottish Government take a very different approach, fostering innovation, investment and internationalism. We want Scotland to become a fairer and more competitive economy. Madam Deputy Speaker, you can be assured that those of us on the SNP Benches will not stand idly by and watch the Tories wage war on our world-class education institutions.
Almost six months after the vote to leave the EU, it is time for the Government to get their act together and start coming up with some answers. I hope the Minister will do so tonight.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on a subject that is very close to my heart. As an NHS scientist before I came to this place, I worked in a field that thrived on collaboration and recognised no geographical boundaries.
As many Members have said, our UK universities are rightly held in high esteem worldwide. We have 18 of the top 100 universities in the world, including four in the top 10. Listening to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), I was pleased to hear that even the Brexiteers are remainers when it comes to our universities.
Liz McInnes
You’ll get your chance.
Looking at British science, it is well known that Britain punches well above its weight in the international university league tables. It does so mainly thanks to EU grants. It is not awash with funding, and in fact has the lowest per capita spending on research of any G7 country.
The referendum outcome has led to uncertainty about its implications for the higher education sector. It is easy to trot out the phrase “Brexit means Brexit”, but, as ever, the devil is in the detail and, for the sake of the future of science and research in this country, that detail cannot be glossed over in a soundbite. There are two aspects of the human and intellectual cost of Brexit for universities. The first is the potential for another brain drain. The second is the potential restrictions on overseas research students.
I say another brain drain as it sadly would be nothing new. Many senior figures in British universities remember the lack of support from the Thatcher Government in the ’80s and the exodus of scientists abroad. It is ironic that the four British Nobel prize winners this year, Duncan Haldane, David Thouless, Michael Kosterlitz and Sir Fraser Stoddart, are all based in the US, having been forced out during the 1980s brain drain. British research scientists are worried that the Prime Minister’s mantra of “Brexit means Brexit” will lead to a lack of funding and grants for British science and the potential for a modern-day brain drain.
Added to that is the potential for UK universities to become less attractive to international research students. The vice-chancellors of the London School of Economics, King’s College, London, and Bristol have already voiced their fears about recruitment of international students, and the serious potential financial and human resource consequences for our universities.
The vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, is a stalwart remainer, but in common with many who voted to remain, he is a pragmatist and wants Cambridge to get the best out of Brexit. He says that to achieve this the Government must provide some basic clarity on what exactly Brexit means. He is asking for three things from the Government: clarity on the national status of university staff; a recognition of the collaborative ideal implicit in EU projects; and a Government guarantee of vital university budgets.
I hope the vice-chancellor’s requests will be heeded by the Government. He is, after all, what some might regard as something of an expert. Although the people of this country were urged not to listen to experts during the referendum, on this subject, and indeed on many others affected by the Brexit negotiations, it is absolutely vital that the Government pay heed to our finest minds. They are not asking for a running commentary; they are asking for clarity and a coherent, informed plan as to the exact nature and manner of our departure from the EU. The EU makes substantial financial contributions to research in UK universities. Research funding from the EU amounts to around £l billion per year, while our own national research budget is below international averages.
I represent a Greater Manchester constituency and universities across our region have more than 4,000 EU students currently on campuses. That equates to spending of £90 million per year not just on tuition fees, but on expenditure in the local economy. Manchester University, which is 29th in the world’s top 100 universities, received £48 million in research funding in the past two years alone. The loss of such substantial funding and a failure to attract EU students could not fail to have a detrimental effect on our area. I cannot lay claim to a connection with Mr Higgs, but in a recent interview on the effect of Brexit one of Manchester University’s most famous academics, Professor Brian Cox—who, like me, was born in Oldham—said:
“The central issue for science is that it’s a global pursuit. I work at the Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva. That’s a global project. The thing scientists and universities are most worried about is movement of people around the world. We need to say this is a country where you’re welcome to live and study and do science. But at the moment, the image we’re representing to Europe and the rest of the world isn’t the right one.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate. As a health spokesperson, I take a great interest in medical research and I am intensely proud of our universities in Northern Ireland, which are top in their field of medical research. I am also very happy to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes).
I always, unashamedly, go out to bat for Northern Ireland and Strangford, and I will do so today. As a Brexiteer—one who voted to leave and was very proud that the people of the United Kingdom and my constituency also made that decision—I see an opportunity. The Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology at Queen’s University Belfast is a cross-faculty, interdisciplinary research centre with over 300 clinical and basic researchers from across the world. It achieves the highest quality of research excellence. Research in the institute extends from population studies of cancer etiology, through tumour biology and clinical trials, to outcomes and health services research. The institute is committed to fostering transdisciplinary investigation of areas of cancer control that lie at the interface between fundamental, clinical and population research. The three are currently populated by approximately 250 faculty, graduate and post-doctoral trainees and support staff. Opportunities for graduate and post-doctoral training are offered in partnership with several departments at the university, including: biomedical, anatomy and cell biology, biochemistry, microbiology, immunology, pharmacology and toxicology, community health and epidemiology, mathematics and statistics, oncology, pathology and medicine, and Queen’s school of policy studies. All that is done with expertise at Queen’s University. The institute is supported by the Terry Fox Foundation, in partnership with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
This high level of research needs a highly qualified and specialised skill set. It is clear that in leaving the EU we need to ensure that that skill set is protected and that our universities are able to continue their priceless work. I support the recent call by the president of the Royal Society in the Financial Times to ensure that we continue to build on our position as a world leader in science and innovation. We are doing that in Northern Ireland, and we want to continue to do that. We are looking to the Government simply to make sure that that happens. I have every faith that the Brexit team understands the necessity of the arrangements that need to be put in place to ensure that this knowledge and skill share can and will take place. I see the Minister nodding in appreciation, and I am sure that it will be confirmed further in a few moments when he rises to speak.
It is clear that UK research benefits from the immigration of top foreign researchers to the UK. These include several Nobel prize winners, so we must have in place the ability to ensure that they are able to live and work here for the benefit of the UK and our scientific and research industry. As the President of the Royal Society has said:
“Today, 30% of our academic research staff are from abroad and a third of UK start-ups were founded by non-UK nationals. We are second only to the US as a destination for global talent. Their presence ensures that we remain first-rate, and importantly, produces a first-rate environment for training home-grown talent. Losing them would be a disaster for our economy. We need to take immediate steps to reassure those who are here that they remain welcome.”
And they are welcome; we want them to stay. I hope the Minister will say this very clearly in few moments. The role played by foreign scientists and graduates must not be overlooked or underestimated. They are an essential component in the cog of our industry, and I am taking the opportunity to underline that fact and put it on the record in this Chamber today.
In 2015, over half of the UK’s research output was the result of an international collaboration, and these collaborations are increasing. The European Research Council, which is part of Horizon 2020 and funds frontier research purely on the basis of scientific excellence, has established a very strong international reputation. In Queen’s University, we have international partnerships with companies and businesses, with other universities across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and indeed across the world—all coming together to bring the needed scientific excellence right there at Queen’s University in Belfast in Northern Ireland. Although this funding stream does not require international collaboration, 58% of papers with ERC funding have co-authors who are based in other countries.
Collaboration enhances the quality of scientific research, improves the efficiency and effectiveness of that research and is increasingly necessary, as the scale of both budgets and research challenges grow. I am sure that in his response, the Minister will confirm that the collaboration that already takes place will continue post-Brexit and into the future. The primary driver of most collaboration, however, is the scientists themselves. In developing their research and finding answers, scientists are seeking to work with the best people, best institutions and best equipment that complement their research, wherever they may be. It just happens that most of those good people are in Belfast at Queen’s University.
This collaboration must be maintained and enhanced, which brings me back to my foundation point about Brexit: this is an opportunity to put in place mutually beneficial co-operation between countries that we must make the most of. I believe we have an opportunity to do just that. We work better as a team, and Brexit must take the opportunity to put in place the rules that enhance the games and bring the best results. I have every confidence in the Brexit Minister and his team here in this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—we are better together!
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Before I start to conclude the debate, it is worth noting that, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, while we have been debating this important issue, somebody has driven a lorry into a Christmas market in the heart of Berlin, killing nine people. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in expressing our solidarity with the German people at this time and our shared commitment to work together to oppose all those who challenge the democratic values that we share across Europe.
This is the third of our general debates on exiting the European Union, and I am sure that at some stage the Government will tot up all the hours we have spent in the Chamber and claim that it in some way represents the involvement of Parliament in the Brexit process. I see the Minister nodding. However, that misses the point. Although we have had a very interesting debate, in which Members on both sides have demonstrated their understanding of and commitment to the importance of science and research in the economic future of our country, we have not been much illuminated on the Government’s thinking or plans, which I had thought—perhaps naively—would have something to do with these general debates.
I welcome the many speeches that were made today, particularly the powerful maiden speech from the new hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). No doubt the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) will pass on my view—which I am sure is shared throughout the House—that her speech demonstrated that she will add real value to this place. She rightly emphasised that we have become a divided country, and spoke of the need for leadership—a leadership which I think is sadly lacking at present.
As I have said, we are no clearer about how the Government aim to protect science and research in the Brexit negotiations. For example, the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), the Chair of the Education Committee, asked the Minister a relatively simple and straightforward question—whether the Government would seek associate country status in successor programmes to Horizon 2020—but we received no answer.
Members have pointed out throughout the debate that as we navigate our way in an increasingly competitive world, the future of our economy will depend heavily on research and innovation. Many have talked of our strengths, but there are also weaknesses which we need to recognise. A particular weakness is the lack of investment in research and development. We have slipped from leading the OECD countries in respect of spending as a percentage of GDP in 1979 to trailing behind all our competitors. The United States invests 2.8% of its GDP in R and D, and OECD countries, like the EU, average 2.4%, but the UK invests just 1.7%, less than half the 3.9% invested by South Korea, which, as a result, remains a major manufacturing nation.
As was pointed out by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), one of our strengths—and it is considerable—is the research capacity of our universities. However, that strength will be at risk if the Government get Brexit wrong. What does getting it wrong look like in relation to research and science? What are the risks? In an excellent report published by the Science and Technology Committee, its Chair, the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), highlighted the five key issues: funding, people, collaboration, regulation and facilities. He also rightly expressed a fear that if we were not careful, science could be one of the casualties of Brexit. I am sure that all of us, throughout the House, share a desire for that not to be the case, in which context it would be useful if the Minister answered the hon. Gentleman’s question about when the Department would appoint a chief scientific adviser.
Because our universities are so good, as many have pointed out, we do disproportionately well from EU research funding, better per head than any other EU country. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), EU programmes provide nearly 15% of UK university research funding, and we can all agree on the importance of that funding. With it comes critical collaboration, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) was right to refer to the pan-European collaboration that comes through involvement in Horizon 2020 and its predecessor programmes. All that will be at risk if research is not placed centre stage in the Brexit negotiations.
The second point made by the Chair of the Select Committee was about people. Again because our universities are so good, they attract great staff from all over the world. Some 28% of academics are non-UK citizens, and 15% are from EU countries. When it comes to key research staff, the proportion is much higher—more than half in some STEM subjects. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), we have all heard stories of jobs declined, or of those already here questioning their future in the UK because the Government will not give the assurance for which the House asked in July: a unilateral commitment that those who are currently in the UK will be able to stay when we leave the EU, on the same terms that they currently enjoy. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) pointed out, we should never forget that these are highly mobile people. They do not have to be here; they have lots of other offers available to them. They are not a drain; they are an asset to the UK.
If we leave the EU with no deal on the future movement of workers, we will fall back on current immigration rules which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) pointed out, will not work because there are tens of thousands of early-career academics and researchers who will not meet the tier 2 income threshold, which could create a crisis for our research community.
As with staff, so with students, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and others pointed out. Around 125,000 of our 436,000 international students are from the EU, and their future is uncertain. A survey before 23 June indicated that one third of non-EU students would find the UK a less attractive destination if we chose to leave. The worst outcome is we could lose more than half of our international students currently in the UK, costing billions of pounds, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) pointed out, highlighting the impact on her local economy, which will be repeated in local economies across the country. That will not only cost money and jobs, but will bring into question the viability of many courses, particularly postgraduate courses, and particularly in STEM subjects, which would no longer be available to UK students.
One would imagine that the Government would be seeking to mitigate this risk by setting out a clear strategy for maintaining our position as a destination of choice for international students. But instead the Home Secretary has, extraordinarily, put international students at the centre of her plans to cut migration, making a bad situation worse.
What do we need from the Brexit negotiations? First, we need a plan. I am pleased that the House agreed, and we are looking forward to seeing it so that we can start some meaningful debates to replace the general debates we are enjoying so much at the moment. Clearly the Minister is not going to share the plan at this stage, but I hope he will share his views on a few key questions that will be central to it.
On funding, will the Minister give a clear commitment that the Government will prioritise research and innovation in the negotiations with our partners in Europe, with a view to ensuring continued UK participation in EU research programmes, not just for the full duration of Horizon 2020 but for framework programme 9 and successor programmes? Will he outline beyond the £2 billion already announced—which I think takes our R and D investment as a percentage of GDP from 1.7% to 1.9%, on a rough calculation—what plans he has to strengthen support for research and innovation more widely to mitigate any damage from leaving the EU?
On staff, will the Minister press for the earliest confirmation that EU nationals working in our universities and on research programmes in the private sector can remain on current terms without having to apply for leave to remain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) argued? Will the Minister go further and say what assurances the Government will give to those who join our universities during the pre-Brexit period until 2019, because if there are no such assurances, recruitment will be made significantly more difficult? What representations is the Minister making about future visa arrangements post-Brexit so that we can continue to enjoy the benefits of securing the services of the best researchers from the EU and the rest of the world?
On students, does the Minister agree that we need early clarity on fee levels and access to student funding for EU students? We have it for next year, but what about 2018-19, and will it apply to postgraduates as well as undergraduates? Does he agree that we need to confirm the immigration status of existing and prospective EU students and their right to remain in the UK for work and postgraduate study?
Among the many issues we face, these are relatively straightforward questions, but an awful lot depends on the answers. If the Minister cannot answer them fully tonight, I hope he will ensure that the answers are in the plan that we will see in the new year, because our economy and our future as a country depend on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). First, I should like to echo his comments about the appalling loss of life in Berlin. I am sure that the whole House will join us in expressing solidarity with and sympathy for the victims. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families affected, and we should stand shoulder to shoulder with Germany and our European allies and partners after a terrible incident of this sort.
This has been an excellent debate and I would like to thank all hon. Members who have contributed, particularly the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who made an accomplished maiden speech and who spoke about Parliament bringing people together after the referendum. I agree that it is the responsibility of all of us to aim to do that. This has been the third in the series of debates on important issues arising in the context of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union that was promised by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I would like to note how fruitful my ministerial colleagues and I have found these debates. I am also glad that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central has enjoyed them so much. I had the very first debate in Westminster Hall when the House returned after the summer recess, and it is a delight to conclude this term with the last major Government debate in the main Chamber.
The UK’s global status as a science and research superpower is fundamental to our wider economic competitiveness. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) described it as the engine of prosperity. This Government want the UK to be the go-to place for innovators and investors across the world, and we intend to secure the right outcome for the UK research base as we exit the European Union. This debate has highlighted some of the issues that we know we will have to consider as we negotiate to leave the EU, but retaining and building on our science and research base is a top priority that is shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, as we have seen today.
Before I begin to respond to some of the helpful points raised by Members, I would like to take time to point to the action that the Government have already taken to secure our place in the world of research and science.
The Government are determined to ensure that all relevant views from stakeholders are reflected in our analysis of the options for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. We are conducting a range of meetings with stakeholders to build national consensus around our negotiating position. This includes a wide programme of engagement within the Department to ensure that the views of the research and science sectors are heard. I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) that we are, in fact, listening to experts.
My ministerial colleagues and I have met a number of higher education institutions and groups, including Universities UK, the National Academies, the Russell Group and the Universities of Swansea, Reading, Ulster and Strathclyde, to name but a few. Just last week, I attended the new stakeholder working group on EU exit, universities, research and innovation, hosted by the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson). The sector strongly supports our ambition to create an environment in which the UK as a whole can continue to be a world leader in research, science and the tertiary education sector.
We are also continuing to talk to representatives of the science and technology sectors. Between myself and ministerial colleagues, we have recently met Sir Mark Walport, the Government chief scientific adviser, as well as the presidents of the Royal Society and the Royal Academies and representatives from the life sciences, environment, chemicals, space and tech sectors. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who spoke passionately about data, that the digital sector has advocated a strong position on the freedom of movement of data.
I have also enjoyed giving evidence to the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), and I welcome the report, to which the Government will respond in full at a later date. To answer a point raised by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias), I point out that we are working closely with the Government’s chief scientific adviser and the Government Office for Science to ensure that we have access to the expertise that we need. I recently visited Surrey Satellites in Guildford to see at first hand the levels of innovation in the UK space industry, which the science Minister was right to praise in his opening speech. We will continue to meet such stakeholders in the coming months.
The Government have already taken action on some of the concerns raised by such groups. The Treasury will underwrite all successful bids for Horizon 2020 that are approved by the European Commission, even when specific projects continue beyond our departure from the EU, giving British participants and their EU partners the assurance and certainty needed to plan ahead for projects that can run over many years. The Treasury guarantee sends a clear message to UK businesses and universities that they should continue to bid for competitive EU funding while we remain a member of the EU. My right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), with whom it was such a pleasure to work during her time as Education Secretary, gave an important example of where restored funding was a direct result of the guarantee. It will help ensure that the UK continues to be a world leader in international research and innovation.
We have provided further assurance to universities by confirming that existing EU students and those starting courses in 2016-17 and 2017-18 will continue to be eligible for student loans and home fee status for the duration of their courses. We recently extended that assurance to postgraduate support through research council studentships, which will remain open to EU students starting courses in the 2017-18 academic year. The funding support will cover the duration of their course, even if the course concludes after the UK has left the EU. As the Science Minister said earlier, we will decide the policy for the 2018-19 academic year in good time for applications.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central and his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, challenged the Government on our science funding, but at a time of tight control over overall public spending it is significant that the Government were able to protect the science budget, with a total investment of £26 billion between 2016-17 and 2020-21. We have been going even further to support a healthy science and technology ecosystem in this country. The Government recently committed to substantial real-terms increases in Government investment in R and D, rising to an extra £2 billion a year by 2020-21, to help put Britain at the cutting edge of science and technology. I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, who is Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) in welcoming that.
A new industrial strategy challenge fund will direct some investment to scientific research and the development of a number of priority technologies in particular, helping to address Britain’s historic weakness in commercialisation and turning our world-leading research into long-term success. To realise the full economic potential of new technologies, we have also announced a review of the support for organisations undertaking research through the tax system, looking at the global competitiveness of the UK offer. The Treasury will look at whether we can make this support even more effective to ensure that the UK continues to encourage innovation actively. Ultimately, we need to ensure that our world-beating science and research base maintains global research excellence in our institutions, innovation in our businesses, and strong local economies across the UK.
It was striking to hear hon. Members from both sides of the House, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, and the hon. Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), speak passionately about the benefits that science, universities and research bring to their constituencies. While we can be confident that our fundamentals are strong, we need fully to evaluate the consequences, challenges and opportunities to UK science and innovation of leaving the EU. That will take time, and I am grateful for the support and challenge that we have received from this House and from a wide range of informed sources.
I see continued confidence in the UK as a natural home for and world leader in science and innovation. Since the referendum, for example, we have welcomed many hundreds of millions of pounds of new investment in the life sciences and pharmaceuticals sector from Alnylam, GSK and AstraZeneca, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield; an £80 million investment in space technology from Seraphim Capital; and important job announcements from Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and IBM, which will build four new data centres here in the UK. A recent survey by the CBI shows that 70% of businesses plan to increase or maintain their innovation spending following the vote to leave the EU. Only 7% plan to reduce their investment. The UK has always been one of the most innovative nations on the face of the earth, and I am certain that it will remain so.
I will now respond to some of the helpful points raised by hon. Members from across the House. We have covered a wide range of topics today, so I want to try to summarise the comments made and what I have learned across three key areas: funding, people, and collaboration.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation and I have both already set out, UK businesses should continue to bid for competitive EU funds while we remain a member of the EU, and we will work with the Commission to ensure payment when funds are awarded. The Treasury will underwrite the payment of such successful awards, even when specific projects continue beyond the UK’s departure from the EU. The Government have also reassured organisations that structural and investment fund projects signed before the UK withdraws from the EU will be guaranteed by the Treasury after we leave, up to 2020.[Official Report, 9 January 2017, Vol. 619, c. 2MC.] These projects will have to provide strong value-for-money evidence and be in line with UK strategic priorities. We have heard submissions from across the House on the future relationship with Horizon 2020, and it is too early to speculate on the detail of our future relationship with that and its successor programmes. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that we remain a world leader in research and innovation.
The views expressed in the House today, including by many who campaigned to leave, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), have echoed what we have been hearing from stakeholders on the importance of research mobility. We are carefully considering the impact of this across the sector, but our ambition is to create an immigration system that allows us to control numbers, and encourage the brightest and the best to come to this country.
Jim Shannon
May I invite the Minister to visit Queen’s University Belfast? That would encourage people there, it would be a chance to show businesses what we are doing and it would allow the partnerships at Queen’s University to grow even more.
Mr Walker
I would be delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman’s invitation. I have already visited one university in Northern Ireland, but I would be delighted to visit another, as soon as the opportunity arises.
There has been no change to the rights and status of EU nationals in the UK, or of British citizens in the EU, as an immediate result of the referendum. The Prime Minister has been clear that during negotiations she wants to protect the status of EU nationals already living here, and the only circumstances in which that would not be possible are if British citizens’ rights in European member states were not protected in return. I was glad to hear her repeat in her statement today her desire to see such a deal come early. Looking to the future, I will repeat again what my Secretary of State has said before:
“We will always welcome those with the skills, the drive and the expertise to make our nation better still. If we are to win in the global marketplace, we must win the global battle for talent. Britain has always been one of the most tolerant and welcoming places on the face of the earth. It must and it will remain so.”
Jim Dowd
Let us get back to the issue of the status of EU nationals in this country. Everybody will have noticed the somewhat embarrassing position in which the Prime Minister found herself at the European Council when she raised this issue; her next remarks apparently were,
“I think I’d better leave”,
which got no response at all. I am sure the Minister will not be able to answer this authoritatively, but what is preventing the Government from offering that undertaking now and then going on to article 50 discussions at the later date?
Mr Walker
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that it is very clear that the Government have the ambition of securing that through the negotiations. We have raised the issue at the European Council and the response the Government have received is that there is no negotiation without notification. We need to secure this issue through the negotiations. However, as many colleagues have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) and the hon. Member for Strangford, there are opportunities to support the needs of the research and scientific communities to attract global talent in the future. It is a mark of success that the UK is the second greatest destination for international students after the USA.
This debate has underscored what we have been hearing as to just how vital international collaboration is to successful research. We have also heard about the importance of access to European and global research infrastructures. Every international collaboration is different, and we will need to look carefully at all of them to ensure that UK scientists continue to have access to cutting-edge equipment and co-operations. In the majority of cases, UK access to research facilities is not dependent on being a member of the EU. For example, at CERN, we are a member in our own right and this will continue. The European Space Agency is another example of where our involvement is not dependent on the EU, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation has mentioned the continued investments we are making there.
We have taken no final decisions on how our future relationship on research with the EU will look. There are a number of options under consideration, but let me stress that international collaboration in this space is nothing new. We are thinking through how best UK researchers can continue to be able to work with the very best of their international counterparts, both European and more widely. We start from a strong basis: a recent survey showed that 47.6% of UK articles were internationally co-authored. In line with our Prime Minister’s vision for a global Britain, we should seek to keep building on that. The decision to double our investment in the Newton Fund was a positive statement of intent in this regard. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made clear, we must take the broader global opportunities. I should add that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is no longer in his place—[Interruption.] Oh, there he is—sorry. I greatly welcome the hon. Gentleman’s endorsement of our strategy for the great repeal Bill.
I would like to close by saying that the Government are committed to ensuring that research and innovation in the UK will continue to be a major success story after we withdraw from the EU.
Mr Walker
I will not; I have given way many times already.
As the Prime Minister said earlier, we will negotiate to reflect the kind of mature, co-operative relationship that friends and allies enjoy. That should include the fields of science and research, which are vital to our country’s prosperity, security and wellbeing. We are determined to ensure that people and businesses have stability and certainty in the period leading up to our departure from the EU and that we use the opportunities that that departure presents to reinforce our own priorities as a United Kingdom. In the field of research, Britain is not just a European leader but a global one, and throughout the process we will be doing all we can to ensure that we stay that way. The excellence of our research and the attractiveness of the UK as a place to do it are fundamental to our success.
As well as a more or less complete life history of Mr Higgs of Higgs boson fame, we heard a number of bids during this debate: from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) for a medical school; from my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough for a life sciences centre; and from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield for a world heritage site. There was also a request from the hon. Member for South Antrim for extra funding for Northern Ireland.
Although I am afraid I am not in a position to play Santa Claus from the Dispatch Box, I assure those Members that their pleas will have been heard. Speaking personally, I hope they get all the presents that they wished for. Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank hon. Members on both sides for their contributions today and to wish them and you a merry Christmas and all the best for 2017.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered exiting the EU and science and research.
Business without Debate
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 2 to 6 together.
Ordered,
Environmental Audit
That Margaret Greenwood be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Scott Mann and Joan Ryan be added.
Finance
That Mark Garnier be discharged from the Finance Committee and Mark Menzies be added.
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs
That Adam Holloway be discharged from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and John Stevenson be added.
Women and Equalities
That Mims Davies be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Philip Davies be added.
Work and Pensions
That John Glen be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Royston Smith be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Bradford Bulls and Rugby League
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Thank you for granting me this important debate, Mr Speaker. Ten years ago, the Bradford Bulls were the dominant force in rugby league—not just here in the UK, but in the world. In 20 years of the Super League, Bradford have been champions four times, jointly holding the record for the most titles. They won the league twice prior to the creation of the Super League and have been runners up in the top flight five times.
The Challenge Cup has been brought back to Bradford five times from the club’s 11 appearances in the prestigious tournament’s final. Bradford has won the World Club Challenge, where the European champions take on the champions of Australia, a total of three times—again, jointly holding the record for the club with the most wins in the competition. Bradford Bulls were also the first team ever to win the domestic treble in 2003.
Prior to the Super League, the Bulls were called Bradford Northern and the club was a founding member of the Rugby Football League in 1895. Its stadium at Odsal is in my Bradford South constituency, and it has been the home of the club since 1934. When Bradford moved to the Odsal, it was the biggest stadium in the country outside Wembley and it remains to this day the country’s largest rugby league club ground. In fact, the Odsal holds the record for rugby league attendance. In 1954, 102,569 spectators watched Warrington beat Halifax in the Challenge Cup final replay at the Odsal.
But the success of the Bulls extends beyond the field of play. Their connection with and development of rugby at the grassroots and in the community is noteworthy. Bradford’s community work is outstanding. Its foundation received the much-coveted Foundation of the Year award this year, and it worked with more than 30,000 people in 2016 alone. It runs 15 separate community projects, including coaching in local primary and secondary schools. The Sky Try project has been one of the most successful and has been delivered in association with the Rugby Football League and Sky TV in over 100—
Judith Cummins
In over 100 Bradford schools.
The Bulls are responsible for some truly amazing work growing the popularity and profile of rugby league in their own district. Participation in rugby league has increased by more than 50% in Bradford this year, and the number of women getting involved is increasing. Some 5% of all registered participation in rugby league in the country is in Bradford, and the figure has increased by roughly 1% every year for the past three years. Aside from the Bulls, there are 15 rugby league clubs within a 5-mile radius of Bradford city centre.
The legacy of the Bradford Bulls on the field and their incredible work off the field, as well as their strong contribution to developing rugby league and their work with their local community, demonstrate just how important and valuable Bradford is to rugby league.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to some of the fantastic wins Bradford Bulls have had over many years. Does she agree that, in a place like Bradford, with its high levels of deprivation, we need to do more to encourage young people and women to participate in sport?
Judith Cummins
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Today, however, the Bulls are a shadow of their former glorious selves. Worse still, the club and its impressive legacy are on the cusp of being lost forever. The Bradford Bulls entered administration last month—the third time since 2012. This was devastating news for my constituency. The Bulls are a highly respected institution in my constituency—as a sports club, an employer and a valued and proactive member of the local community. The impact was felt not just by the tens of thousands of loyal fans but, equally, by the city of Bradford and the wider region. It is also a major blow to the rugby league family.
Despite their relegation to the championship, caused by a points deduction from a previous period in administration, Bradford have continued to attract big crowds. In fact, the club has been responsible for just over a quarter of the total combined attendances in the championship for the last two regular seasons. The golden era of Bradford Bulls may have passed for now, but the Bulls retain an enormous presence in the world of rugby league. That presence cannot and must not be lost.
The Bradford Bulls need a solid foundation from which the club can be rebuilt, securing its future for generations to come—for the good of the club, its fans, its players and its staff, for the good of the city and for the good of the sport. Rescued, and with a future in the league and the chance to rebuild, the Bulls could recapture their past glory and continue to be a positive force for Bradford and rugby league.
It seems to me that the Rugby Football League, Bradford Council and, indeed, myself are on the same page when it comes to the future of the Bulls: we agree that rugby league has to be at the centre of any deal that brings the Bulls out of administration. There is a lot of work going on to make sure that that happens and that the club survives. I have met the administrators and know just how much work they, among many, many others, are doing.
My worry is that the site and its stadium—the Wembley of the north—are the focus of many potential suitors. I am worried that rugby is of little to no interest, and at best nothing more than a fleeting interest, to some of those interested in taking the reins at the Bulls—not all, but at least some. There is no doubt that the site at Odsal has considerable potential, which must be realised, but rugby league must be at the heart of that, and I hope it will be. The future does not have to be bleak. People in Bradford should expect top-level rugby league to be played in our city. Bradford is rugby league’s heartland. Bradford has boundless potential to restate its importance to rugby league and to re-establish itself as the spiritual home of the sport. Soon Bradford will be home to a new rugby league museum, which, of course, I welcome.
Bradford Council and the Rugby Football League both have a major interest in the site at Odsal. The council owns a great deal of the land around and near to Odsal. How exciting would that unique partnership be for the owner of the rugby club, right in the heart of rugby league country? Working together, the Bulls could be at the centre of an exciting regeneration at Odsal, and the regeneration of a historic and important rugby club. There is potential for far more. This is where I hope that the Minister will take particular note. The Odsal is the best located rugby ground in the country. It is the biggest, the best connected, and the most accessible, and, as I said, it is right in the heart of rugby league’s homeland. It is the northern powerhouse of sport. Bradford can claim to be the national powerhouse of rugby league; I have no doubt of that. The dream of what the Bulls and Odsal could become is very much what the northern powerhouse is all about. All it takes is the right owner, a brave and forward-looking council, the expertise and drive of a committed RFL, and the boldness to invest.
You know as well as I, Mr Speaker, that rugby is a bold sport: it is not for the faint-hearted. However, when push comes to shove, those with a role in this affair—those charged with safeguarding and developing the future of the club and the sport—must not shy away from the difficult challenges that are now apparent.
I cannot fail to mention how we have got here and the broader context within sport today. There is a great deal of work to do, not just by rugby but across sport, to tackle the profiteers who seek to plunder clubs and strip them of their very essence. Be they rugby clubs or football clubs, there is a serious issue with ownership in sport and with some of the people who take on our clubs. This is another point where I trust that the Minister will pay particular attention. How has this been allowed to happen to the Bradford Bulls three times in five years? What is wrong in today’s sporting culture that means that proud sporting institutions can be humbled and shamed in such a degrading fashion? Why does the law not successfully protect our sporting institutions? As we too often see elsewhere in sport, the fit and proper person test, although a strong safeguard in theory, does not, all too often, deliver what it should in practice.
The RFL’s rules are designed to do two things: first, to prohibit people who have or could have an adverse impact on the game and prohibit any club from controlling or influencing any other club; and, secondly, perhaps more importantly, to protect the long-term health, vitality and viability of our clubs. We are some distance from finding out why the Bradford Bulls have ended up in this position again, but there will be many questions for the RFL to answer. Are its fit and proper person rules too narrow? Do the rules help to create a culture and a vision of integrity in ownership? Do the rules protect the best interests of the clubs who are always the first to be most damaged? Are the rules robust enough? Sadly, I fear they are not.
I hope that the Minister can offer me assurances about the future of community clubs such as the Bradford Bulls. I ask specifically for assurances that our grounds will be protected from property speculators, ensuring that the sport itself is at the centre of any plans rather than the site it sits on, and that ownership of our clubs will be scrutinised more broadly fully to assess who is a fit and proper person. I would appreciate her thoughts on how her Department can help to make sure that this does not happen to the Bradford Bulls again. How can she ensure that the future of rugby league is protected, not just in Bradford but across the country? Will she support my call for a Select Committee hearing on the ownership of sports clubs that would go beyond the Bradford Bulls and beyond rugby league to look at the ownership of sports clubs more generally?
The ownership of the assets of a community sports club is a crucial issue. It sets the direction for the club and it is vital that the owners have a genuine interest in the club. A club’s assets, including its name, colours, badge and home, should not be tampered with without the consent of its most powerful stakeholders, the fans.
Rugby league is a sport that has never lost touch with its roots. It is and always has been the sport of working men and women, both on the pitch and on the terraces. Rugby league, led by clubs such as Bradford, is a sport that is strengthening itself at the grassroots and in the community. Rugby league, Bradford, the fans and the people of my constituency deserve better than what has happened to the Bradford Bulls. I hope that the Minister will commit to helping me understand how things have gone so wrong so many times.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for calling this debate on the future of the Bradford Bulls and rugby league. Despite being a soft southerner, I am a huge rugby league fan. One of my favourite players is Jamie Peacock, who is a legend of both Bradford Bulls and Leeds Rhinos, which is my team. I am grateful that it is you in the Chair, Mr Speaker, and not your Warrington-supporting deputy.
Before turning to the specific issues that the hon. Lady has raised, I would like to quickly pay tribute to Mike “Stevo” Stephenson, a rugby league legend who stepped down from the commentary box at the end of last season. His enthusiasm for the game was infectious and we armchair rugby league enthusiasts will miss him immensely next season.
I was sorry to hear of the Bulls’ recent financial problems and can appreciate that this is a deeply concerning time for the club and its fans. Rugby league clubs such as the Bulls are of huge importance to their local communities in so many ways and have such a positive impact at the grassroots of the sport. The club’s proud heritage, both as Bradford Northern and now as the Bulls, dates back to the very formation of the Rugby Football League more than 120 years ago. The Odsal stadium is notable for hosting the record rugby league attendance of more than 102,000 in the 1954 challenge cup final, and the club has continued to have great success over the years, winning the challenge cup five times and being the first club to win the domestic treble in 2003.
Many of the current England pack have come through the Bradford Bulls academy, and the Bradford Bulls foundation was judged foundation of the year at the Kingstone Press championship awards 2016. The foundation has worked with nearly 34,000 people so far this year through 15 separate community projects, including primary and secondary schools coaching, play touch rugby league, the junior bulls academy and activity camps.
As the hon. Lady has said, the Sky Try project has also been hugely successful. It has been delivered to more than 100 primary and secondary schools in the Bradford district, strengthening relationships with community clubs. As she and the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) have said, the Bradford Bulls women’s team reached the women’s grand final in October, inspiring future generations of women and girls to get involved.
I have no doubt that the sport’s profile will continue to grow further in Bradford and beyond as we build up to the 2021 world cup, which was awarded to England in October, following the RFL’s bid to host the tournament. I was delighted, as I am sure the hon. Lady and all rugby league fans were, that the Government were able to support the successful bid with up to £25 million to enhance the tournament and its legacy. In that context of apparent health in the community, it is all the more concerning that the Bulls have not only had to go into administration, but had to do so for the third time in recent years.
The hon. Lady alluded to the role of HMRC in Bradford’s recent financial history. It would be inappropriate to pass verdict on the club’s individual financial status and circumstances while the administration process is ongoing, and against the backdrop of the strict duty of confidentiality set out in legislation. In general terms,
HMRC will support businesses suffering short-term financial difficulties, but not those that are insolvent. HMRC does not enforce debts lightly, but, where the debtor cannot or will not pay, it will take such action where appropriate. It will instigate an insolvency only after all other avenues have been pursued to recover a debt and as a means to stop further debt accruing.
HMRC monitors actions to ensure that cases are worked on appropriately by insolvency professionals, and it will support actions that may increase returns to creditors, which in some cases may include HMRC. On the commencement of an insolvency, whether or not HMRC instigates the action, it will proceed no differently from any other creditor to finalise its claim. The administrator has a duty to investigate and administer the company within, as set out in insolvency legislation. HMRC will monitor these actions to make sure that the creditors’ interests are being met. In all those respects, HMRC will treat a rugby club no differently from any other company entering administration.
The future of Bradford Bulls and of the wider sport fundamentally depends on the ability of all those involved to deliver a sustainable business model. The Rugby Football League has a clear responsibility in supporting the sport to do this, ensuring that one such long-established club repeatedly being unable to recover its financial position is not the first indicator of endemic financial instability in the sport.
I will pick up on the specific issues that the hon. Lady raised about the owners and directors test with the Rugby Football League in the new year. In the meantime, I am sure that she will be aware that work within the “round ball” football leagues has significantly reduced the frequency of insolvencies of their clubs, both with the strengthening of owners and directors tests and with the financial regulations to which clubs must comply to remain part of the domestic competitions. In that respect, much progress has been made within the sport of football, particularly in the lower leagues.
The financial instability that many football clubs have historically suffered is not an environment we should ever allow to creep back in to sport. Perhaps that is something from which the rugby league and other sports can learn lessons. The termination of the Bulls’ membership of the Rugby Football League, and the potential for points deductions in the new season, is obviously a key factor in re-securing the future ownership of the club. I urge the RFL to continue to work closely with the appointed administrator to ensure the future of the club in this respect.
The ongoing wellbeing of clubs such as the Bulls and healthy domestic leagues is of great importance to a thriving sports sector, and I am clear that financial stability is just one facet of how the sector must continue to develop. It is important that sports clubs have good governance in place to sustain and support their financial viability. That is why there will be a requirement for all bodies in receipt of public funding, including the RFL, to agree to a new code for sports governance. The new sports governance code will come into force from the next funding cycle in April 2017. Organisations will be required to have strong leadership in place, with the right checks and balances to minimise the likelihood of financial and integrity issues arising.
The hon. Lady reflected on the importance of protecting facilities and their sporting contribution to the local area. I encourage communities to consider the provisions in the Localism Act 2011 that allow local groups to nominate stadiums in their area as valuable assets, and therefore to ask their local authority to place them on the register of assets of community value. By demonstrating the social value of an asset, communities can be given a right to buy it and preserve that value, should the site be put up for sale.
Bradford Bulls are a positive force in their local community, and I have no doubt that their prompt reinstatement to the Rugby Football League would be a wonderful boost to the area and the sport more widely. Such reinstatement remains at the discretion of the RFL, and remains dependent on new owners being in place, but I understand that there are interested parties engaging with the appointed administrator. I hope this can deliver an exciting new phase for Bradford Bulls, and I wish the club the very best in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
EU Asylum Reform Package
(7 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Merry Christmas everyone.
Before we begin, I will not so briefly outline the procedure. First, a member of the European Scrutiny Committee may make a five-minute statement about the decision to refer the documents. The Minister may then make a statement of no more than 10 minutes, and questions to the Minister will follow. Once questions have ended, the Minister moves the motion on the paper. Debate takes place on the motion, and we must conclude our proceedings by 7 pm.
Before calling a member of the European Scrutiny Committee to introduce the debate on the Government’s opt-in decisions on the European Union asylum reform package, I must inform the Committee that, contrary to the usual and expected order of proceedings, the motion before us this afternoon was put to the House and agreed last Tuesday, in advance of its debate in Committee. I am confident that the Minister will listen carefully to what is said today and that, if there are strong feelings, the House will have an opportunity to reconsider its resolution on the matter in the light of today’s proceedings. The Government will take steps to facilitate that.
Members of the Committee may also like to note that the documents referred to in the motion will remain under scrutiny by the European Scrutiny Committee after the debate has taken place and until cleared by the Committee.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Evans. This is an extraordinary state of affairs. There is no point to the Committee. Its point is to debate the issues and to refer them to the House. The House has already decided, and as this Committee is merely the servant of the House, it has nothing to debate. We should not be here, but be going off for our Christmas holidays.
The Chair
As attracted as I am to the latter suggestion, I am sure that the Minister will clarify the Government’s intentions as to the purpose of the Committee sitting. As I said in my lengthy preamble, in the light of today’s proceedings, should the Minister wish to reconsider the resolution passed last week—
Mr Rees-Mogg
Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. This is not a matter for the Government to say kindly how they will listen to the House; this is a matter of the House’s Standing Orders, which the Government are obliged to follow. It is not for the Government to play ducks and drakes with the proceedings of the House of Commons.
The Chair
I appreciate that point, Mr Rees-Mogg. As I said, this was totally exceptional, and I am sure that the Minister will explain during his short 10-minute speech why the proceedings were as they were last week. That was exceptional, but I take on board fully what you have said. Merry Christmas, Mr Rees-Mogg.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. The Opposition are not entirely clear why we have to debate something that the House has already passed. I take the proceedings of the House very seriously, and always have done, and therefore do not believe that we should make a mockery of them.
The Chair
The Minister will take that on board. There is unanimity between Diane Abbott and Jacob Rees-Mogg—it must be Christmas! As they say, “I believe.” We will move on.
Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make an explanatory statement?
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The documents we are debating—although perhaps fruitlessly—are at the heart of the European Union’s response to the migration and refugee crisis.
The European Commission believes that the EU’s existing asylum rulebook, the common European asylum system, has been weakened as a result of unilateral action by member states to protect their borders, restrict access to their territories and make it more difficult to obtain protection. It says there is too much fragmentation, with too little trust in member states’ asylum systems, which has created pull factors, drawing individuals to member states with higher asylum recognition rates and better reception conditions. The Commission’s reform package purports to reduce the scope for differential treatment, depending on where an application for international protection is made; to deter asylum shopping and secondary movements between member states; and to establish effective burden sharing and solidarity mechanisms.
Today’s debate concerns three asylum reform proposals, published by the Commission in July, which would change current EU asylum laws determining who qualifies for international protection, the procedures applicable to asylum claims and how asylum seekers are to be treated while their claims are being examined. It also concerns a new EU resettlement framework, which is intended to provide safe and legal pathways to the EU for individuals in need of international protection, and to cut off at source the people-smuggling networks that exploit the vulnerability of migrants and refugees.
All the proposals are subject to the UK’s justice and home affairs opt-in, meaning that they will apply to the UK only if the Government decide to opt in. The Government have the option to wait and see how negotiations progress and seek to opt in at the end of the process, once the proposals have been formally adopted, but if the Government want to vote on the outcome, they have to opt in during the initial three-month opt-in period.
The European Scrutiny Committee recommended in September that the Government’s opt-in decisions on each of the proposals should be debated on the Floor of the House, so that the House as a whole had the opportunity to influence and inform the Government’s decision. Those opt-in decisions are important. How the EU adapts its existing framework of asylum laws to respond to the crisis has far-reaching legal, political and humanitarian consequences. In 2016 alone, more than 4,700 individuals lost their lives crossing the Mediterranean to Europe.
However, as a result of the Government’s delaying tactics, we are being asked today to endorse retrospectively their unilateral decision not to opt into the Commission’s asylum reform proposals. Parliament has had no meaningful say on the merits of the Government’s decision or how it was reached, so will the Minister tell us why Parliament was sidelined? Will he also tell us why he has disregarded the Government’s own code of practice on parliamentary scrutiny of opt-in decisions, which makes it clear that opt-in debates should take place within the three-month opt-in period, to ensure that the Government are accountable to the House before, not after, they have reached a decision? Are the commitments made by the previous coalition Government to significantly strengthen Parliament’s oversight of EU justice and home affairs matters and make the Government more accountable for the decisions they make on the EU now a dead letter?
As the European Scrutiny Committee’s reports have made clear, the Commission’s asylum reform proposals raise important questions about member states’ collective commitment to implement humane, fair and effective asylum policies. Since the Government motion appears to leave open the possibility of a post-adoption opt-in, will the Minister tell us how active a role the Government intend to play in the negotiations? What outcome does he seek to achieve? Can he envisage circumstances in which the Government might wish to seek to opt into one or more of the proposals following their adoption? He shakes his head. No doubt he will expand on that in his comments shortly.
Would it be feasible for the UK to opt into some of the proposals but not others, given the interdependence of the Commission’s asylum reform package? Finally, if the Government do not seek to opt in post-adoption, as the Minister appeared to indicate, what assessment has he made of the impact that different asylum rules in the EU and the UK may have on the UK’s asylum system once the UK has left the EU?
I conclude with the observation that the Government’s handling of today’s opt-in debate, including last week’s unfortunate error on the Floor of the House, reinforces the European Scrutiny Committee’s concern that the Government have become complacent about fulfilling their scrutiny obligations at a time when effective scrutiny and accountability to Parliament on EU matters are more important than ever. The Minister has been slow in responding to the reports that we have published, and reluctant to engage constructively with external stakeholders. We have sought but not yet received an assurance that his Department is fully committed to fulfilling its scrutiny obligations and is adequately resourced to do so. I hope that the Minister will give us that assurance today.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister to make an opening statement, I remind the Committee that interventions are not allowed during the statement. I call Mr Goodwill.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for setting out her Committee’s position very clearly. That was very helpful in setting the context.
In relation to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, I understand that the premature approval of the four measures last week was due to a mistake, possibly made in this building, not in the Home Office, but I take full responsibility for the fact that we had to exercise our opt-out before we had this debate. I make it clear, as Mr Evans did, that I will be listening carefully to the arguments that are made, although on this issue I would have to hear arguments stronger than any other argument that I have heard in this place to change my view on these four proposals. However, as the Committee will know, we did opt into some of the proposals in this field—in particular, the Eurodac regulation, which is helpful in terms of sharing fingerprint and biometric data.
The Government are not deploying delaying tactics on these measures, but I note the Committee’s concerns regarding the timing of the debate. Unfortunately, there is sometimes pressure to debate Government business, which means that opt-in debates cannot be scheduled as quickly as we would like.
I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending these important measures for debate. The four measures under consideration—the asylum procedures and qualification regulations, which are two separate regulations, the reform of the reception conditions directive, and the Union resettlement framework regulation—represent the second wave of a package of proposals to reform the common European asylum system, or CEAS. The European Commission put forward a wide-ranging package of reforms to CEAS in a communication published in April. The House has already debated the Dublin IV, Eurodac and EU agency for asylum measures in the first wave of the Commission’s proposed reforms.
The Government have already decided not to opt into the four measures being considered today. I apologise again to the Committee for the fact that it has not had a chance to debate the proposal before the opt-in deadline, although I suspect that few would argue with the wisdom of not doing so, particularly in the light of Brexit.
The new proposals on qualification, asylum procedures and reception conditions reform the package of asylum directives that was adopted between 2011 and 2013 as part of the second phase of CEAS. In relation to the asylum measures, as hon. Members are probably aware, the UK did not participate in the directives of 2011 and 2013 owing to concerns about the limits that that would place on our national system. We remain bound by the first phase of CEAS directives from 2003 and 2005.
The qualification and asylum procedures proposals reflect a shift by the Commission from setting standards for asylum procedure and criteria in a directive, which permits member states some flexibility in transposing the provisions into national law, to a regulation, which limits member states’ ability to set their own national rules in accordance with national interests. That would be a substantial change for the UK, given that we did not participate in the directives of 2011 and 2013.
However, the migration crisis has highlighted the challenges presented by large-scale secondary movements, and I welcome the proposals’ overarching aim of discouraging abuse and secondary movements. The Government are and remain committed to running a high-quality asylum service. However, elements of the proposals under consideration differ from UK practice—for example, in relation to both the duration of leave to be granted to beneficiaries of international protection, and access to the labour market. I would not wish to limit the flexibility of the United Kingdom system in those areas by agreeing to the provisions set out by the European Union. Furthermore, should we wish to align ourselves with the EU on those matters in future, we could do so through domestic legislation.
It is clearly necessary to develop a European asylum and migration framework that controls illegal migration, deters abuse and prevents unwarranted secondary movement. However, that does not mean that the Government agree with all the Commission’s suggested policy options. Although we respect the fact that our European partners may wish to pursue greater commonality in their asylum systems, we remain of the view that the functioning of national asylum systems is a sovereign issue. I see no reason to change our approach from that taken for the second phase of these directives, and we have therefore decided not to opt in.
On the proposed Union resettlement framework regulation, the Government have been clear that we consider resettlement schemes to be best operated at the national level. We are of the view that the stated reasons for action at an EU level, such as alleviating pressures on countries hosting a disproportionate number of refugees, gaining influence in policy dialogues with third countries or improving the resettlement process, can equally be achieved through close co-operation between international partners operating national resettlement schemes. National schemes also allow resettlement efforts to be aligned with the domestic and international priorities of individual member states. For those reasons, the Government have decided not to opt in to the measures.
The Chair
We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that questions should be brief. Subject to my discretion, it is open to a Member to ask related supplementary questions.
Mr Goodwill
The usual channels are particularly in the frame for this one—although it was not spotted by those who otherwise spot these things.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, even if that pleasure is slightly tempered by the fact that the debate may well serve no purpose. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister one question: can one draw any understanding of the Government’s negotiating position on Brexit from decisions on opt-ins—or not opting in? As those negotiations proceed, is this something that we will see guiding our policy in the areas in which we may seek further commonality with the European Union?
Mr Goodwill
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. Although I am reluctant to disagree with him on the Committee’s not serving a purpose, I have to say that what is said here could cause the Government to opt into the measure at a later date. However, I rather suspect that the debate will stiffen my view that we have made the right decision.
My hon. Friend tempts me into the area of Brexit negotiations. I suspect you might pull me up were I persuaded to go into that area, Mr Evans. All these matters are under consideration. As I said in my opening remarks, we feel that they are best determined at a national level, which is even more important as we approach the era in which we are no longer members of the European Union.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. Going back to the points of order raised at the beginning of proceedings, will the Minister explain why we are debating the measures not only after the proverbial horse has bolted, but after the deadline for opting in? I appreciate that the former may be owing to human error, but the latter treats Parliament with a fair dose of contempt.
Mr Goodwill
I have already tendered my apology for the matter having been decided before it could be debated. Indeed, I mentioned the logjam of measures that are coming forward and the pressure on parliamentary business in some cases. I repeat my unreserved apology for this not having been brought forward sooner, but no colleague has raised with me a concern that we have made the wrong decision. I hope that the debate and the questions will give Committee members the opportunity to explore other aspects of the four measures before us.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans—for the first time, I think. Given that some funding has already been allocated, will there be a financial loss to the UK from not opting into the resettlement proposals?
Mr Goodwill
We do not expect any funding that has already been agreed to be affected by our not opting into the regulation. The UK has already been allocated funding from the asylum, migration and integration fund through to the financial year 2019. In any event, the UK may have left the European Union before the regulation comes into effect. No EU funding has been allocated to the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement scheme, which is our primary way of delivering our obligations for resettlement, since the scheme’s expansion.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The Minister has made it clear a couple of times that he does not think he will change his views, but will listen none the less. He emphasised that his view was that, on these matters, we should be sovereign, and that his Government would not wish to opt in, and he asked for retrospective agreement again. We also have the matter of premature approval and a logjam to deal with. Even though we have not finished this debate, he seems confident that he will not change his views. How can we hold the Government to account if this is how the procedures and systems work?
Mr Goodwill
I repeat my apology, but I would certainly be interested to learn, perhaps from a supplementary question from the Scottish National party, whether it believes that we should have opted into any of the four measures.
We in this House have the power to pass legislation, so even if we do not opt into measures, we can take our own approach to some of them. Indeed, looking at our successful roll-out of the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement scheme and the other schemes in the area, as well as our long-standing gateway and mandate scheme, I believe that we are stepping up to the mark with our responsibilities. EU legislation would not add anything in that regard.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the Minister for his apology. I think he has made the right decision, albeit in the wrong way. I note that the Government are doing considerably better than the last Government, and very considerably better than the coalition Government, in bringing forward debates in European Committees, though I think one debate is still outstanding from a recommendation in January 2013. Although that is not satisfactory, the situation is not as bad as it has been.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend will know that the treaty of Lisbon says a lot about giving national Parliaments more power and more say over these things. It is yet to be made apparent how that will be rolled out across the European Union. In the meantime, this Parliament remains sovereign in the UK, and after Brexit we will have even more sovereignty to exercise on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Has the Minister considered whether there are any negative implications of not opting in?
Mr Goodwill
Obviously, we continue to observe a watching brief. Should the Government, at any time, decide to opt in, that will be possible, although time is limited, given the Brexit negotiations. I continue to work closely with other member states, particularly those that are under pressure, such as France, Italy and Greece. The application of these four measures will not impact on the priorities of this Government or, indeed, this House. The timetable for final agreement may well be protracted, and we may well have left the European Union before the measures take effect.
Kate Green
Further to that response, are there any aspects of the proposals that the Minister would wish to adopt into UK domestic law, or legislate for in UK domestic law after Brexit?
Mr Goodwill
We already have a number of measures on the statute book that address how we deal with asylum seekers, and how we approach the tremendous need, particularly in the areas around Syria, to bring people here. We are using the Syrian vulnerable peoples scheme, and the other scheme bringing 3,000 children and their families from the wider middle east. I see no reason to opt into these measures. The freedom that not opting in gives us means more options and opportunities to step up to the mark and meet our international obligations.
The Chair
If no more Members wish to ask questions, we will proceed to the debate on the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 11316/16 and Addendum, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted and amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third country nationals who are long term residents; further takes note of European Union Document No. 11317/16 and Addenda 1 to 2, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU; further takes note of European Union Document No. 11313/16, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a Union Resettlement Framework amending Regulation (EU) No. 516/2014; further takes note of European Union Document No. 11318/16, a Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast); endorses the Government's decision not to opt in to the above proposals under Protocol 21 on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the EU Treaties; notes that the Government is able to opt-in post-adoption; and supports the Government's intention to continue to support other Member States on asylum matters.—(Mr Goodwill.)
Ms Abbott
The Minister was at pains to say earlier that the function of a national asylum system is a sovereign matter, but I put it to the Committee that there is inevitably a tension between sovereignty and an international system that is fit for purpose in the light of the challenges that western Europe faces from unprecedented waves of migration, whether from the war zones in the middle east, sub-Saharan Africa or any other part of the world. The Government’s decisions on this matter are disappointing, because they seem to be dogmatic rather than meeting the challenge of the moment, but they are not surprising.
Progressive voices across the world have been calling for a more collaborative strategy for handling the refugee crisis. No one who has visited any of the refugee camps and seen people in them from all over the world—I have been to camps in Calais, Lesbos and Lebanon—can fail to appreciate that only international collaboration can meet the challenge; more barbed wire, fences and policemen will just create more chaos, difficulty and instability. The opt-out decisions seek to preserve and heighten a wall between the UK and the European Union, but we will not rise to the challenge of waves of international migration unless we are prepared to co-operate with EU partners. It does not matter whether we are in the EU or whether we are in Schengen; when refugees are converging on western Europe from four points of the globe, the notion that an individual country can pull up the drawbridge and deal with the matter as one of sovereignty, as the Minister puts it, is misguided.
The reasoning behind some of the decisions falls heavily on our imminent departure from the European Union, but even when we leave the EU, the British Government must work with our neighbours on a sustainable and co-operative asylum policy. There are a number of policy areas in which, as the Prime Minister herself has set out, we will continue to need sustainable co-operation, but rather than facing up to our responsibility to asylum seekers, we are opting out of playing a meaningful and co-operative part in the solution.
We are facing the biggest refugee crisis since the second world war. I am not necessarily defending the detail of the measures, but I believe that the intention behind them is for us to work with the EU in the spirit of solidarity that started the EU project after the war. This is not a question of our legal status within the EU; it is a question of our being part of the family of European nations, and it is in that spirit that I draw the Committee’s attention to what is problematic about the decisions that the Government have taken.
The proposals, although they may not be perfect, would certainly make for a more efficient system and take the burden off Greece, Turkey and Lebanon. Our arm’s length refugee policy stresses the way in which money is raised for spending in the region, but we should also look at the refugee crisis in western Europe. How can we expect Lebanon, a country half the size of Wales, to host more refugees than the whole of Europe, and to then do even more? How can we expect Jordan, a nation with one of the world’s highest youth unemployment rates, to create jobs for its 1.4 million refugees? How can we expect Turkey to use the $3 million EU pot effectively to prevent refugees from leaving its camps for Europe?
I raise those points pre-emptively, ahead of the comments the Minister may wish to make about the money we are spending in the region. I am aware of the projects that are being funded in the region—I have seen them at first hand—but in spite of that work, refugees continue to cross the Mediterranean and find their way to Europe, and more are risking their lives to get to the continent every day. How we handle that is a test of our humanity and our principles. Sadly, the Government are content to fall at every hurdle.
As I said, earlier this year I visited the refugee camps in Lesbos. I was struck by the kindness and hospitality of local people there, but it is wrong that Greece, which is already on its knees economically, should be bearing such a disproportionate load. Whether or not we are in the EU, this approach—that we are somehow not part of the European family of nations and can draw up our drawbridge—is wrong. There is also a disproportionate burden on the people of Italy. I repeat: whether or not we are in the EU or part of Schengen, it cannot be right to leave fellow members of the European family of nations to struggle with such a burden. That is not only about doing the right thing; leaving them to struggle will not work when it comes to managing the tides of refugees.
Great Britain has a proud history as a sanctuary for those who have fled persecution. The east end of London has long provided a home for people fleeing persecutions, from the Huguenots to the Jewish people fleeing pogroms in Russia, and from the people who fled Vietnam to those coming in the present day. The decisions being made today do not reflect the best of Britain’s history as a place of sanctuary, or its values. The Government claimed to see merit in co-ordinating the efforts of the asylum office, and in the standardisation of residency permits, but we now seem to be opting out of the updates to those measures.
In May, the Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs said:
“The time has come for a reformed and more equitable system, based on common rules and a fairer sharing of responsibility.”
I cannot believe that many British people would object to common rules and fairness, but that is what the Government are seeking to opt out of. They have previously said that the proposed new agency has more powers over member states; I would argue that those new powers are marginal. On the standardisation of residency permits, the Government cite the cost of designing a form we may never need to use. That is ridiculous. If we leave the EU, as I have every expectation we will, and if we are to continue working in partnership with EU countries on areas of shared concern, we will need standardised systems.
The Government claim they want co-operation, but we seem to be using Brexit to renege on what some may regard as our moral duties. Our moral obligation to refugees, many of whom are coming from parts of the world with which Britain had a historical relationship, will not end when we leave the European Union, and neither will legitimate applications for asylum, which we have a duty to meet under European conventions. People are looking for the UK to demonstrate how we will approach these matters as a state separate from the EU. Will we hold true to the values we claim to represent worldwide? It is a great pity that we even have to ask that question.
It might be argued that this is not a refugee crisis, but a crisis of western Governments failing to recognise their legal and moral responsibilities. Britain should not be content with backing away and rejecting out of hand common-sense measures that would achieve greater co-operation and therefore greater effectiveness in meeting the challenges we see with the waves of refugees crossing continents.
Gavin Newlands
I will be very brief, for two reasons. The first is that, with my throat, I am not sure I would get through any lengthy remarks. Secondly, it all seems rather pointless, as has been mentioned several times.
The Scottish National party supports the broad thrust of the proposals and the principle of trying to achieve consistency across the EU, but it has some concerns about some of the specific proposals. For example, in chapter 1 the provision that refugee status or humanitarian protection would not be available to people who are in danger because of what they have done since leaving their home country—for example, speaking out against a tyrannical Government, but only after leaving—would seem potentially to weaken rather than strengthen the protections. Also, regular status reviews seem to be based on a grant of asylum of three years, rather than five. In chapter 2, there are some very strict interim time limits, and the use of accelerated procedures as a matter of compulsion.
However, we feel that engaging with the EU in amending these proposals is the way forward, because we are talking about an international crisis and we need an international response. Overall, we want some improvements in some of the proposals during negotiations, but it would be better to participate than to stand on the side.
We will accept the Minister’s apology, but it is quite disgraceful that the Government have yet again provided MPs with a belated and limited opportunity to scrutinise and debate these issues.
Kirsten Oswald
Like my hon. Friend, I do not plan to say a great deal, but it is worth putting on the record that this is a very important issue. Personally, I am not entirely comfortable hearing the Minister referencing “Brexit” and “logjams” while he explains why we are not looking at this issue closely. As my hon. Friend said, there are a number of important aspects that warranted further debate; I will not labour them, but it is sensible to discuss them rather than to have the situation we are dealing with today, whereby the Government have already brought matters to the Chamber.
The proposals are a good start in terms of our common asylum system. There are details that would have borne further discussion and scrutiny. However, the unprecedented scale of what we are dealing with means that we should do much better and that the UK Government should commit much further; there certainly is not a commitment to an appropriate number of refugees, in our opinion. People expect us to deal with this situation differently; I think that they are very shocked by the crisis that we are dealing with, and people want to help.
I appreciate the Minister’s remarks on how we have got here, but as my hon. Friend said, we are talking about an international crisis, we need an international response and it is disappointing that we do not have the opportunity to input to that process.
Mr Goodwill
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. Irrespective of the opt-in decision under discussion, we remain committed to addressing the migration crisis and working with the EU and member states to tackle this high-priority issue.
The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, the shadow Home Secretary, talked about “waves” of migration. When discussing these issues, one needs to bear in mind what pull factors can lead those “waves”. Indeed, many of the people who find themselves in unseaworthy boats, either in the Aegean sea or in the Mediterranean, are responding to pull factors that can result in the people traffickers being able to carry out their particularly horrible business.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right when she refers to the most vulnerable people. Having visited refugee camps in Jordan, I would say that the most vulnerable people are those in the camps—indeed, the people in the berm on the Syrian border—and not necessarily those people in Greece, Italy and France, which are safe countries.
As a former Member of the European Parliament, I believe that the United Kingdom post-Brexit will still be in the European family; it is just that we will no longer be sleeping in the spare bedroom. Indeed, the UK will be able to take a lead in Europe and will not necessarily be limited by the speed of the slowest, which is all too often the problem in getting agreement at European level.
Kate Green
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am very curious about how he thinks we will be able to lead the way when we are out there on our own. Also, does he agree that the way to have influence with third countries, which would be an important part of the solution to this appalling global crisis, would be to act in concert with our European neighbours?
Mr Goodwill
I would be more inclined to take lessons from our EU friends and colleagues if they all stepped up to the mark, as we have done by spending 0.7% of our income on overseas aid. We are the second biggest donor to the region around Syria—£2.3 billion of aid is going in. That shows that we put our money where our mouth is and do not just talk about making that commitment.
Kate Green
Does the Minister agree that our European neighbours might be more impressed if we took refugees and asylum seekers on the same scale as Germany, which has taken several hundred thousand, or Greece and Italy, which are forced to deal with being the point of arrival for many people, and are unable to cope with that?
Mr Goodwill
We are taking refugees from the region under the two schemes that we have put in place, as well as the long-standing scheme. That does not contribute to the pull factor that results in people traffickers carrying out their business, and indeed, sadly, in fatalities and people meeting a watery grave in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The policy followed by some of our European allies has been absolutely disastrous. The British Government are the one Government who have got it right: they are helping in the region, rather than encouraging people to take extraordinarily dangerous journeys. The Government really deserve to be supported in that.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend, as so often, is absolutely right. Let us not forget that the UK remains one of the largest member state contributors to Greece’s efforts to implement the EU-Turkey agreement. We offered 75 personnel initially and a further 40 this month. The UK has deployed a Border Force search-and-rescue cutter to the Aegean and contributed assets to the NATO mission, including the HMS Mersey, an offshore patrol vessel. We contributed £2 million to the assisted voluntary return project through the International Organisation for Migration office in Greece from January 2014 to 2016. The UK has allocated up to £34 million to the humanitarian response in Greece, including £8 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, £11.5 million to the Start non-governmental organisations, more than £1 million to the IOM, and more than £1.8 million of essential supplies, including more than 3,100 tents for more than 15,600 people, 60,000 blankets, 8,000 sleeping bags, 8,000 sleeping mats, and other basic items. I do not call that not standing up for people in need. We have contributed vessels and resources to Italy to support efforts in the central Mediterranean, including a chartered Border Force vessel as part of Frontex’s Operation Triton, and one officer in the Rome maritime rescue co-ordination centre. The UK has also directly supported the German Government with returns.
The Government recognise that there are problems with elements of CEAS, as has been highlighted by the migration crisis. It is necessary to develop an asylum and migration framework in Europe that works to control illegal migration, deters abuse and prevents secondary movement. However, that does not mean that the Government agree with all the Commission’s suggested policy options, or indeed that they are in the UK’s national interest.
I recognise that there are positive elements in these proposals, but not opting in means that we can retain the flexibility and sovereignty of the UK system and provides the UK with greater scope to continue tackling abuse of that system. The SNP raised the point that the new asylum procedure regulation would provide applicants with a right to a personal interview during the asylum process. That conflicts with current UK practice, which provides for an interview to be omitted when an application is made merely to frustrate a removal decision.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Minister said that he thought some elements of the proposals that we have opted out of were positive. Will he indicate which, and how the UK will be able to take those positive opportunities in the future?
Mr Goodwill
I have already said that our failure to opt in does not obviate the possibility that we can participate in some of the schemes. I have already mentioned what we are doing in Italy and Greece. The recent operation following the clearance of the Calais camps shows that we have been able to deliver on that.
Let me give another example of the implications of not opting into the proposal. On the reception conditions directive, the Commission proposes reducing the time limit for access to the labour market from nine to six months. In the UK, asylum seekers are allowed to work only if their claim has been outstanding for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. The Government policy on access to the labour market also provides permission to work only in jobs on the shortage occupation list published by the Home Office.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, we already participate in various schemes, including the Dublin III process, under which large numbers of people have been brought to the UK. The Government are providing more than £70 million in response to the wider Mediterranean refugee crisis. The UK has also established a £10 million refugee children fund to support the needs of vulnerable refugee and migrant children arriving in Europe.
The UK has also, as I have mentioned, committed to resettling 20,000 Syrians—we are on track to do that by the end of the Parliament—as well as 3,000 vulnerable children and family members by 2020, in addition to our gateway and mandate schemes. We already share best practice with member states through resettlement schemes.
The proposals under consideration today are still being negotiated. Previous iterations have been subject to extensive negotiation. The Government will continue to monitor the negotiations and consider areas of convergence and divergence. It is, however, the Government’s position that it is necessary to develop an asylum and migration framework in Europe that works to control illegal migration, deters abuse and prevents secondary movement. This does not mean that the Government agree with all the policy options that the Commission suggests, or that they are right for the UK. The opt-in decisions were made fully in line with the national interest.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Treasury
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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, 14 December 2016, Vol. 618, c. 337WH.]
Letter of correction from Simon Kirby:
An error has been identified in my speech during the debate on the UK Sovereign Wealth Fund.
The correct wording should have been:
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 sovereign 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.
Written Statements
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
The Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council took place in Brussels on 21 and 22 November 2016. Shan Morgan, the UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, represented the UK at the Youth, Culture and the Sport sections of the Council. As is procedure, this statement sets out a record of that meeting.
Youth
The Council was asked to adopt draft conclusions on promoting new approaches in youth work to uncover and develop the potential of young people. The conclusions recommended the need to promote effective and innovative cross-sectoral policies that can help young people realise their full potential. The UK supported the conclusions and these were adopted by Council.
The presentation was immediately followed by a policy debate on young Europeans at the centre of a modern European Union, introduced by representatives from the Young Audience Unit of the European Broadcasting Union. This debate discussed how best to connect young people to policy-makers. The UK described its successful UK Youth Parliament initiative and welcomed the opportunity afforded to participate in cross-EU dialogue with young people through the presidency’s successful Youth Conference.
Culture
The Council presented a progress report on the proposals for the revised Audio-visual Media Services Directive. The Audio-visual Media Services Directive seeks to ensure the effective operation of the internal market for television broadcasting services by ensuring the free movement of broadcasting services throughout the EU. The Commission (represented by Commissioner Oettinger) vowed to work constructively with member states in assisting the Maltese presidency reach a general approach by next Council.
This was followed by first reading on the proposal for a European Year of Cultural Heritage (2018). The objective of this initiative is to raise awareness of the opportunities that cultural heritage bring, mainly in terms of intercultural dialogue, social cohesion and economic growth. At the same time, the European Year aims at drawing attention to the challenges that cultural heritage is facing, including environmental and physical pressure on heritage sites and illicit trafficking of cultural objects. The UK supported this and a general approach was agreed.
The Council was invited to adopt a proposal to amend the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033 to extend the access to EFTA/EEA countries. A general approach was agreed, with UK Government support of the proposal. The UK parliamentary scrutiny reserve was noted and maintained.
Finally there was a public debate, “towards an EU strategy for international cultural relations”. This discussed how the EU and its member states can co-operate to bring about a more strategic approach to culture in external relations. The UK’s intervention focused on the work of the British Council and the need to respect the principle of subsidiarity as member states must be free to pursue their own cultural agendas.
Sport
The Council adopted conclusions on sport diplomacy. The conclusions acknowledged that sport is a possible tool in supporting intercultural, economic and political cooperation, and that its potential can be part of extending and strengthening contacts between the EU and third countries. The UK supported the adoption of these conclusions.
This was followed by a public debate on the impact of sport on personal development. The UK intervention demonstrated the work the UK is already carrying out in this area through participation, Olympic legacy and the sport strategy.
Other business
The Maltese delegation presented information on the work programme of their incoming presidency.
The French delegation presented information on reform of the European copyright framework. This was followed by the Croatian and Irish delegations on the European Capitals of Culture 2020. The Italian delegation presented information on ‘Facing crisis in Europe: Investing in Culture’.
The Council was presented with information on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) meeting in Glasgow (19-20 November) by the EU member states representatives in WADA, Belgium and Malta. This was followed by the French delegation on development and specific features of the organisation of European sport.
[HCWS379]
General Affairs Council December 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)
I attended the General Affairs Council on 13 December. The meeting was chaired by the Slovak Presidency and held in Brussels.
The General Affairs Council discussed: the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework; inter-institutional agreement on better law-making; enlargement and stabilisation and association process; preparation of the European Council on 15 December 2016 and the European semester 2017.
A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2016/12/13/
Multiannual financial framework
There was no agreement on the multiannual financial framework and discussions will continue into next year. With the exception of Italy, who maintained their reserve, all member states were supportive of the current mid-term review proposal.
Inter-institutional agreement on better law-making
The joint declaration on legislative programming was adopted. This was signed by the presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission in Strasbourg. Vice-President Timmermans flagged this achievement saying it focused on real deliverable priorities.
Preparation of the European Council on 15 December 2016
There was a discussion of the agenda items for the European Council which took place on 15 December. The agenda would cover: migration, security (internal and external/defence) economic and social development (youth) and external relations, which will cover the EU/Ukraine association agreement.
I intervened to underline the importance of preparing business affecting all member states at meetings of the 28, and our intention to observe the rights and obligations of membership until we leave the EU.
On migration, I intervened to express our on-going commitment to a comprehensive approach, and sought proper evaluation of existing partnership frameworks before extending them to new countries.
On external security, I requested that the text of the draft Council conclusions be amended to clarify that the proposed planning and conduct capability should be for non-executive purposes only, to bring the text in line with conclusions at the FAC Defence in November, which had outlined a balanced approach that avoided duplication with NATO.
On economic and social development, I registered the UK’s support of ambitious language on the single market, including maintaining momentum on services and deepening of the single market.
On external relations, I supported the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions on Syria and pressed for explicit reference to Iran as an ally of the Syrian regime and a reference to restrictive measures among the options the EU ought to consider within the European Council conclusions.
European semester 2017
This agenda item was not discussed at the meeting, but the inclusion of the item followed the Commission publishing the Autumn Package of the European Semester on 16 November 2016.
Enlargement and stabilisation and association process
The Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Alan Duncan MP, took part in a discussion on enlargement, which focused on Turkey’s EU accession path. The Council could not reach agreement on the overall package of enlargement conclusions. Instead, the presidency issued a statement covering the conclusions which enjoyed broad support from the overwhelming majority of member states. We remain firmly committed to driving forward reform, embedding stability and addressing shared challenges in the Western Balkans and Turkey. EU and NATO accession processes are fundamental to delivering these objectives.
[HCWS381]
Multilateral Development Bank Replenishments
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)
In a world of global instability, effective international partnerships are more important than ever.
Britain has a proud track record as a global partner, contributor and problem solver. Our investment in institutions such as the World Bank helps us meet our responsibilities to the world’s poorest and is firmly in Britain’s national interest.
As a true leader on the world stage, Britain is successfully driving action to strengthen the multilateral system to ensure it is capable of meeting the unprecedented demands of the 21st century.
The world needs strong global institutions that are relevant not only for today but for the future—which is why ongoing reform at the World Bank is so important.
The UK is succeeding in securing these reforms. Following successful engagement from the UK and others, the International Development Association—which delivers the Bank’s work in the poorest countries—has agreed to:
double the investment that goes to fragile states;
increase support for poor countries dealing with protracted crises and hosting large numbers of refugees;
secure opportunities for job and wealth creation; and
boost investment in the private sector.
These reforms build on good progress made over the past three years. The recent multilateral development review found that the World Bank is one of DFID’s top performing partners, but there are still improvements to be made.
DFID is driving all agencies to be fully transparent about what, why, where and how they spend taxpayers’ money. We are pressing all our multilateral partners, including the World Bank, to publish their spending in line with international transparency standards, open up their management overheads and other costs to greater scrutiny, and push for similar tough requirements all the way down the supply chain.
The UK will continue to press the Bank and its partners to make further progress and deliver even stronger results on the ground.
Last week, the IDA negotiations that took place in Yogyakarta reached agreement on the replenishment of IDA to cover the period July 2017 to June 2020. The negotiations secured a total of $75 billion for IDA 18.
This funding will transform the lives of millions of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Thanks to this investment up to: 180 million children will receive life-saving vaccines, 20 million births will be attended by skilled health personnel, 45 million will get access to clean water, 35 million people will get access to reliable electricity, 10 million teachers will be recruited or trained, and 200 million children and women will get proper nutrition. These are big numbers—and behind each one are real lives that will be fundamentally improved because of this investment.
Given these impressive results, the reforms made since the last IDA replenishment, and wider reform commitments, the UK has agreed to contribute £2,516 million as a grant over the life of the replenishment, and a highly concessional loan of £820 million that will be repaid to the UK Government, to this total.
This month also saw the conclusion of the 14th replenishment of African development fund negotiations, which secured a total of $7 billion for 2017-2019. This investment will give tens of millions of people in Africa better access to transport and electricity, and millions of people access to clean water. After securing commitments from the AfDF to greater focus on job creation, women’s empowerment, private sector investment and investment in fragile countries, the UK has agreed to contribute £460 million to this total.
The world is changing fast. We all need to raise our game. The great power of the multilateral system is its potential to be more than the sum of its parts. This is why the UK will work relentlessly to drive up its performance and get the most out of every pound of taxpayers’ money.
[HCWS380]
Welsh Government Fiscal Framework
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
The UK Government and Welsh Government are today announcing a new funding settlement for Wales based on need, empowering the Welsh Government to grow the Welsh economy.
This historic agreement lies at the heart of the Wales Bill’s determination to provide secure, long-term funding for the Welsh Government. The deal sets out how the Welsh Government will be funded alongside the devolution of stamp duty land tax, landfill tax and Welsh rates of income tax in a manner that is fair for Wales and fair for the rest of the UK.
Through these new and principled arrangements, the Government have ensured that the Welsh Government will have a fair level of funding for the long term, taking into account Welsh tax capacity and treating population change consistently across tax and spending.
This deal underlines the mature relationship between Westminster and Cardiff as we move closer to agreeing a lasting settlement for the people of Wales.
This will be achieved through the creation of a new needs-based factor within the Barnett formula to determine changes in the Welsh Government’s block grant in relation to devolved spending. The Governments have also agreed to use the Comparable model to determine changes in the Welsh Government’s block grant in relation to tax devolution. Alongside the Barnett formula, this will ensure population change is treated consistently within the Welsh Government’s block grant funding.
This agreement will also double the Welsh Government’s overall capital borrowing limit to £1 billion and increase the annual limit to £150 million. We will also create a new Wales reserve to enable the Welsh Government to better manage its budget.
This agreement therefore paves the way for the National Assembly for Wales to consent to the Bill and enable the Welsh Government get on with the job of using their new tax powers to grow the Welsh economy.
[HCWS377]
International Labour Organisation Recommendation 204
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
The 104th session of the International Labour Conference 2015 adopted recommendation 204 concerning the transition from the informal to the formal economy. International Labour Organisation (ILO) recommendations, adopted following negotiation amongst ILO member state Governments and business and union representatives, serve as non-binding guidelines. The Government welcome this recommendation and recognise its importance in its global context, as it acts as a guide for all countries in their work towards making full, decent, productive and freely chosen employment a central goal in their national development and growth strategy. The recommendation is primarily aimed at those countries with less developed social security systems. It is not envisaged that this recommendation will have any impact on the UK as it is consistent with UK Government policies.
[HCWS378]
House of Lords
Scottish Government: Welfare
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McAvoy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in the transfer of full welfare responsibilities to the Scottish Government as provided for by the Scotland Act 2016.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McAvoy, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
My Lords, we have made significant progress to transfer the welfare powers in the Scotland Act 2016. Eleven provisions are already in force, including new powers for the Scottish Parliament to create new benefits in devolved areas and top up any reserved benefits. The UK Government remain committed to a safe and secure transfer of powers, and the joint ministerial working group on welfare continues to oversee plans for commencement of the remaining welfare provisions.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, does the Minister recall that time after time the SNP has asked for powers to mitigate the effects of Tory austerity in Scotland? It now has the tax powers and the welfare powers, but it does absolutely nothing. Does that not confirm that it prefers to moan and whine rather than to accept responsibility?
Lord Dunlop
I certainly recall what the noble Lord says, and I have a degree of sympathy with what he is saying. It is clear that the Scottish Government are having to face up to the reality that demanding the devolution of more powers is not the same as being able to use those powers effectively. If you want to replace existing programmes, you need first to know what you are replacing them with. The Government’s priority must be and is to work with the Scottish Government to ensure the safe and secure transfer of devolved welfare powers.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, is it not worth noting that the SNP claimed that it could deliver independence in two years after winning a referendum? It has been in government for over nine years. Should the people of Scotland not welcome the fact that it now recognises that it is not competent to take over the welfare responsibilities, not least because it is failing to meet outcomes and targets on education, health, transport, justice, policing, and local government—indeed, on everything? It is really time that it recognised that it is not up to the job.
Lord Dunlop
I certainly think that the realities of devolving welfare powers put into context the assertion of the then First Minister of Scotland, who said that an independent Scottish state could be established within 18 months. We have seen some of the domestic policy record; two weeks ago, we learned that Scotland’s schools had recorded their worst ever performance in PISA tests since those were set up in the year 2000. This underlines why the Scottish Government should perhaps spend less time searching for new reasons to hold another independence referendum and more time on the day job.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, have they not proved that you cannot fill a void with a vacuum?
Brexit: World Trade Organization Rules
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the acceptance of World Trade Organization standard rules on the United Kingdom’s negotiations for leaving the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Lord Price) (Con)
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the World Trade Organization. The UK is fully compliant with all the rules of the WTO and will continue to be as we leave the European Union. This has no bearing on the UK’s exit negotiations.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that air service agreements do not fall within the remit of the WTO. When we come to leave the European Union, undoubtedly there will be major negotiations to ensure and preserve open skies in Europe. Will those be a good example of the negotiations that will have to take place outside the Brexit negotiations and therefore outside the timetable set by Article 50?
Lord Price
My noble friend is right that a whole host of service agreements fall outside the WTO arrangements. The Department for Exiting the EU and the Department for International Trade are aware of those and will work diligently to ensure continuity when we exit the EU.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, do the Government agree with the Civitas research which finds that, if we are forced to accept WTO tariffs, EU exporters will pay some £13 billion per annum on their exports to us while our exporters will pay only some £5 billion on their exports to the single market? Given that the EU also has some 3 million more jobs through selling things to us than we have through selling things to the single market, is it not in the interests of the people of the EU, as opposed to the Eurocrats in Brussels, not to interfere with any of this but to agree to carry on as we are?
Lord Price
The noble Lord mentions some research. At the moment much research and many figures are bandied around, all based on assumptions about a future which right now none of us is clear about. However, I can agree with the noble Lord that any disruption in trade will be to the disadvantage of people both in Europe and in the UK, of whom there are 500 million. That is why this Government have talked about a smooth path to the new order post-Brexit, and we will work diligently to achieve that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is exactly six months this week since the referendum and we are still waiting for the Government to be clear about their stance on the customs union. We are also still awaiting urgent clarification, for which last week’s Lords Committee report specifically asked, of the legal position regarding when the UK can start negotiating any trade agreements—while we are discussing the exit terms with the European Union, or afterwards. When will the Government provide that legal clarification? It does not have to wait on any of the politicking we have seen in the last week, with the Secretary of State talking about making a case in Cabinet rather than in Parliament.
Lord Price
My Lords, we are very clear on the position. We are clear that, while we are a member of the EU, we cannot negotiate or sign free trade agreements but we can have exploratory discussions, which we are having at the moment. Once we leave, we will be free to negotiate and sign free trade agreements for the United Kingdom.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
When considering the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, does the Minister recognise that it is not Governments who pay tariffs when they are imposed but manufacturers and consumers, and that British consumers will either pay tariffs or have to pay higher prices for products if the very unacceptable and unwelcome situation were to arise in which WTO rules had to be applied by default?
Lord Price
My Lords, the Government have set out their position: we do not wish to apply tariffs; we wish to be a free trading nation, and that is what we will work towards. We will try to ensure continuity of approach for our businesses, for the EU and for third-party countries. That is what we are trying to achieve right now.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, given that the proportion of total UK exports going to the EU has fallen from over 50% 10 years ago to around 40% now, should not our continuing strategy, both as a Government and as an industrial nation, be to continue to increase the proportion of our exports that go to areas of the global economy that have better growth prospects than, unfortunately, the EU does? Has the Minister noticed the noises coming recently from the United States of America, Australia and South Korea encouraging us to do precisely that?
Lord Price
I agree with the noble Lord that our ambition should be to increase our exports. At the moment the UK, regrettably, bats below where it should. We are sixth in the league table, below France and Germany, and we hope to rise above that through a number of initiatives. Pursuing all trade options with all countries should be the Government’s approach, to make it easy and straightforward for businesses to export and to make sure that we are equally open to other businesses, both in the EU and elsewhere, which want to export into the United Kingdom.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Spicer’s question, as we are now told that more than half the total earnings of world exports come from services, intellectual property, information products, digital transfer and shared processes and not from traditional goods transfer, are we not reaching the point where the WTO rules—let alone the more outdated rules of the former single market and the customs union, which belong to past trade patterns—are of decreasing relevance to our trade prospects?
Lord Price
The noble Lord is certainly right that services are an increasingly important part of the UK economy, representing 80% of our GDP and 40% of our exports to the EU. However, I would not want to diminish the importance of goods transfer. The north-east of England is the second largest exporter of cars in the EU—it exports more cars than Italy. It is important for us to hold on to the fact that we produce goods in the UK and export goods from the UK. That must not be diminished as we pursue our agenda to increase our services around the world.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to the Minister carefully but I am still not clear what the Government’s position is. Mr Fox is openly briefing that WTO arrangements would be quite satisfactory. Mr Hammond commented recently that the WTO option would not be the most favoured outcome. Which is it? Can the Minister say precisely?
Lord Price
As the noble Lord knows well, the Government are still working towards their position for Article 50. They take in views from all sides. As I understand it, we have 20 different Select Committee reports coming to the Government in January alone. I have visited 21 countries over the past four months and I have spoken to 200 businesses and over 2,000 business people. We are open to listening to all parts of the debate and I welcome the report from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and this House, which was considered and thoughtful.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
What capacity does my noble friend’s department have for these negotiations in terms of experienced and competent negotiators?
Lord Price
In June of this year, the Trade Policy Group had 45 people working in it. We have now quadrupled that number, and we plan to increase it further next year to around 300 people. More than 1,000 people from outside have applied to work in the department, feeling that it is an exciting place to work at this time.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that we would be able to negotiate our own free trade agreements once we have left the European Union. Does that mean we will not be part of the customs union—we would not be able to negotiate our own free trade agreements if we were—and, if so, why did the Secretary of State for International Trade say yesterday that he was rather taken by the Turkish agreement which involves being part of the customs union?
Lord Price
I can only repeat what has been said in the Statements of my noble friend Lord Bridges to this House on a number of occasions, which is that the Government have not reached a position and are considering all options. Until they do so, we will not be in a position to reveal our plans further.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Lord cite any precedents for being part in and part out of the customs union?
Lord Price
I am aware that Turkey has arrangements whereby agricultural goods and food products are excluded from the goods provision, but that obviously does not include services.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, is it not becoming increasingly clear that day by day and week by week, Nigel Farage, Michael Gove, and to be fair, Gisela Stuart, have got us into an unholy mess? We do not know where we are on trade, on the movement of labour—or indeed on anything. Would not the billions of pounds we are spending on trying to organise this Brexit be better spent sorting out the crisis in social care?
Lord Price
The people of the United Kingdom were very clear when they voted on 23 June. Harping back does none of us any good and it does not do the United Kingdom any good. We need to move forward in a united way to get the best deal for the United Kingdom.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, can we move forward in a united way if Cabinet Ministers are putting forward different points of view? I was brought up to understand that the Government speak with one voice. Surely these arguments should be kept within the Cabinet instead of being ventilated publicly?
Lord Price
I come from the world of business and what we believe in is having boards with different experiences and whose members are able to express different views in a measured and considered way. I believe that that is exactly what is happening. Along with input from this House and the other place, as well as from businesses, that will lead us to the most considered and beneficial outcome for the United Kingdom.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that there is nothing the Opposition can teach us about having differing views on one subject or another?
Artists: Workspaces in Cities
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the provision of artists’ workspaces in major cities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, high-quality and affordable workspace is essential to ensuring that we can retain our finest creative talent. The Government encourage local authorities and property owners to make spaces available for cultural activities. Arts Council England supports artists’ spaces through funding and brokering partnerships. For example, Bristol’s Spike Island, which is supported by the Arts Council and Bristol City Council, provides subsidised workspace and offers opportunities to make national and international connections as well as peer support and collaboration.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said. The Old Gas Works in Fulham, for example, hosts a vibrant community of more than 200 creative artists and artisans. However, it is now under severe threat, as are many such workspaces across the country, as a result of rising property prices and upmarket residential property development. Can the Minister commit to exploring policies that are designed to save these workspaces, which are so vital to Britain’s cultural and creative future, and provide affordable new spaces through creative enterprise zones, the innovative use of public sector property, rate relief and support for creative land trusts?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the Government believe that funding decisions are best made at the local level. We think that local authorities are best placed to decide how to prioritise their spending. However, many local authorities do recognise the value of culture and are still prepared to invest in it because they realise that it brings huge gains. Arts Council England and DCMS are committed to working with local authorities and other partners to encourage the development of affordable workspaces, including through bodies such as creative arts trusts. For example, Arts Council England gives regular funding to Bow Arts Trust which is a GLA example of best practice and partnered by the London Borough of Newham. As well as providing affordable artists’ workspace, it provides learning and participation programmes.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that what is new is that artists are being forced out of London altogether which is surely not good for the cultural or communal health of the city? This is in contrast to Berlin, for example, where rent capping encourages artists and others to live and work within the city.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, we do not want artists to have to move anywhere if they do not want to. That is why I mentioned an example of where we are partnering and using Arts Council England money. But actually it is an ambition of the Government to move more away from London so more Arts Council England money is going to be spent outside London—the Great Exhibition of the North is an example.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, how does my noble friend define “artists” in the context of this Question?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is not only artists’ space being swept away; it is also small businesses such as breweries and metalworkers—businesses that contribute to a local area. Before the Olympics, we saw a lot of small businesses swept away because of the pressure of housing. Is it part of the Government’s industrial strategy to maintain some affordable space, perhaps within industrial sites?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree with the noble Baroness. As noble Lords will be aware, the Culture Secretary is on the economy and industrial strategy committee of the Cabinet. We would support more than just artists but craft bakers and local industries. We have been doing that in the north—for example, in Newcastle. The Great Place scheme, mentioned in the Culture White Paper and on which the Government spent £15 million, is helping in that regard and is all to do with creating vibrant communities with local arts and industries.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, it has become rather unfashionable to speak up for London, but it is worth remembering that London is a great capital city and is known worldwide for its cultural riches. Of course, it has many great institutions, which are a big draw for tourism and for our home market, but it also needs the small, innovative creative and cultural businesses referred to earlier. If they are starved out of London either by the cost of property or by strategy, be it from government, Arts Council England or anybody else, does the Minister agree that ultimately the cultural heritage of London will be diminished?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I agree. This is one of the world’s great cities. One reason for that and for so many people coming to visit it is its vibrant arts scene. All I was saying to the noble Earl was that we want to shift the balance a bit to increase funding outside London. It is part of the tourism strategy as well to show foreign visitors that there is more to this country than just London, albeit that London is a great city.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with Josh Baum, a poet from Hackney, who gracefully defines the issue by saying:
“When you see the Waitrose vans driving round the corner, you know the end is coming”?
Will the Minister commit to the Government working with local authorities and in particular the Mayor of London, to ensure that a healthy combination of artists, workspaces and Waitrose vans happily co-exists?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I found it a bit difficult to hear some of that Question because my noble friend Lord Price was chuckling due to the reference to his prior existence. We want a mix of arts, culture, Waitrose and any other supermarket we can think of.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, is this not becoming almost an art in itself—spinning an answer out of nothing? This is all about money. Arts Council England had its funding cut by 36% and has 10% more to go. Local authorities have seen a 56% reduction in their government grant. The Minister has talked about funding decisions best being made at a local level. Well, I wish him well with that.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that arts and heritage funding since 2009-10 increased by 9% from £627 million to £683 million in 2014-15. I agree that local authorities have had to make difficult choices, but Arts Council England will invest £1.1 billion of public money from government and an estimated £700 million from the National Lottery between 2015 and 2018.
Brexit: Invocation of Article 50
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to announce the exact date in 2017 when Article 50 will be invoked.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have set out the clear timetable for triggering Article 50 by the end of March 2017. This is giving us the time to develop our negotiating strategy and avoid setting the clock ticking until our objectives are clear and agreed.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that for millions of Britons, patriotism and Europeanism go side by side? What on earth does a,
“red, white and blue Brexit”
actually mean? Is red for the millions of dead in two world wars followed by six decades of peace in the European Community? Does white indicate the slide into xenophobia, particularly in England? Is blue just for the Tory interest, nowadays with a very small membership base supported by less than a quarter of voters in the last election?
Baroness Goldie
It is important to remember the genesis of why we are where we are: the expression of a democratic view, in a referendum, that the Government are instructed to leave the European Union. That is not straightforward—it is challenging, as this House is well aware—but the Government are committed, in discharging that obligation, to doing whatever is necessary to protect the best interests of the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, do the Government accept that Article 50 is only a clause in an international treaty and so, if the Eurocrats try to use it to our disadvantage, it should not be allowed to compromise the will of the British people as expressed in a referendum and an Act of Parliament?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord will be aware that I have on numerous occasions in this House reiterated my respect for the electoral will of the voters of this country in their referendum declaration, and I think that it has to be honoured by the Government. Article 50 is part of our European relationship. That is why the matter is currently litigious: the High Court took a view with which the Government disagreed and the matter now rests with the Supreme Court.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
It is indeed the case that the result of the referendum places an obligation on Her Majesty’s Government to initiate these negotiations, and that any attempt to use the triggering of Article 50 to delay or frustrate that process would be mistaken. However, that said, is it not also clear that the outcome of these negotiations is totally unknown and the Government cannot expect Parliament to say that we will agree to whatever that outcome might be? When we know that outcome, does my noble friend agree that it must be put to Parliament for approval?
Baroness Goldie
Both the Prime Minister and the Government have been clear that of course there is a role for Parliament in the process of exiting the EU. We are committed to extensive involvement by Parliament, which is already happening both in the other place and in this Chamber. It is important to underline that the Government will be mindful of all their legal and constitutional obligations in the process and will honour them in any future agreement with the EU.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, would it not have been a good idea for the British people to have understood the decision they were making before the referendum took place?
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I have often wondered, particularly coming from Scotland as a Conservative, what motivated voters in their electoral instincts when casting votes at elections. In a democracy, we have to recognise and respect the right of individual voters to look at the issues, make their decision and come to a view. That collective view as expressed in the referendum places an obligation upon the Government to discharge that result.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the glaring lack of clarity on a Brexit plan six months after the referendum means, in the words of the Financial Times on Saturday, that the Government are,
“giving businesses that rely on single market access little choice other than to act on their worst-case scenarios”,
that there will be a crashing out of the single market. What does the Minister say to those whose jobs will be lost due to her Government’s dithering?
Baroness Goldie
I think the noble Baroness is displaying a degree of uncharacteristic impatience, which I do not associate with her, and being unduly pessimistic. In fact, there are some very encouraging signs that we can make a success of Brexit. She will be aware that the Japanese technology firm SoftBank has announced a record £24 billion investment in the UK as it moves to buy microprocessor manufacturer ARM, and GlaxoSmithKline has announced a massive investment of £275 million. There are very encouraging signs and we should be heartened by that.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend agree with me in regretting certain aspects of behaviour by the Commission, such as deliberately cold-shouldering the Prime Minister and not inviting her to dinner and then claiming £50 billion in expenses? This sort of behaviour is not constructive to arranging a sensible deal with Europe going forward.
Baroness Goldie
Any negotiation, whether commercial, domestic or under international treaty law, such as this one, is never going to be easy and there will be various emotions prevailing at any one time. As far as I can detect, the important fact to recognise is that the Government of this country are determined to negotiate the best deal they can for this country and the EU is cognisant of the enormity of that decision and wishes also to co-operate in trying to make these negotiations as constructive as possible and recognise the mutual interest, not just to the United Kingdom but for the remaining states in the EU.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may return to the original Question about the date that Article 50 will be announced. It is a crucial decision, and I do not think that the noble Baroness answered the Question. That date sets the countdown clock to our exit from the EU. Twenty-seven other countries will have to agree the negotiations, so it will not be two years that we have but significantly less—it could be 15 or 17 months. Given that timescale, it is normal government and business practice to have a plan. When will the Government share their plan on both how they will conduct the negotiations and the basis of those negotiations?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The Government will set out their broad plans before triggering Article 50 by the end of next March. Indeed, she will be aware that in the other place, following a debate on 12 October, there was an important caveat, which the House agreed without Division, that nothing we do or say should undermine the UK’s negotiating position. We must acknowledge that and await details of the plan.
European Union Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Lord Woolmer of Leeds be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
Representation of the People (Electronic Communications and Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dunlop
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 November be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 12 December.
Policing and Crime Bill
Monday 19th December 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 68KB) - (16 Dec 2016)
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Policing and Crime Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 161: Requirement to state nationality
Amendment 1
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 1 and 2 deal with the same issue and are amendments to clauses requiring people to state their nationality when an immigration officer or constable suspects that an individual may not be a British citizen. Underlying our amendments is a concern that these powers may be exercised on the part of law enforcement officers in a discriminatory fashion. Suspecting that someone “may” not be British is a low hurdle.
At the previous stage, the Minister said that,
“it is already the case that officers may only ever act on reasonable grounds when exercising their powers”.—[Official Report, 12/12/16; col. 1012.]
That sounds all well and good, but if that is the case then why, in closely comparable provisions in Section 43 of the Immigration Act of this year, is there the formula:
“if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing”?
That formula is used in the case of requiring someone to provide a driving licence if he is suspected, or, as I say, if there are reasonable grounds for believing him to be not entitled to drive in the UK. Belief, as in the Immigration Act, is, as I understand it, in itself a higher hurdle than “suspicion”, but earlier this year it was considered that the formula which I have quoted was appropriate—both belief and reasonableness.
I was grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, during the previous stage. He made a substantive point about the term “reasonable”. Given the constraints of Third Reading, my amendments today are based on what might be called a technical point: that there is, as a matter of legal construction, a lower test to be applied under the Bill than under the Immigration Act. Two provisions which mean the same thing should be expressed in such a way as to indicate that. If they are expressed differently, there must be an implication—I hesitate to say this, given other noble Lords who are sitting around the Chamber—that they do not mean quite the same thing. To be told that we should base the point about reasonableness on what I think comes from the relevant PACE code does not, I am afraid, satisfy me. I probably took the Minister by surprise by making this point at the previous stage, but I hope that she may be able to answer the point, or better still to agree to the amendment.
This amendment also enables me to refer to a commitment given during the passage of the Immigration Bill, when we discussed the provision to which I have just referred. My noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, were very much involved with this issue and meetings were held with the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bates. I think that he was as concerned at the possible misapplication of the provision as we were, and we had quite a long meeting to discuss it. He offered this in debate:
“I would … like to make sure, when the consultation document is published”,
on that provision and the piloting of it, “that we reconvene”, and that the noble Baroness and my noble friend should,
“meet with officials again … to get the noble Lord’s and the noble Baroness’s perspective on that. How the pilot scheme will be framed will also be looked at. Again, we would value the noble Lord’s and the noble Baroness’s perspective. We will make sure that that happens before they are brought forward and placed in the Library, and before the pilot commences”.—[Official Report, 15/3/16; col. 1772.]
At the last stage, we heard that the provisions under the Immigration Act on the production of drivers’ licences were to be piloted. It was not known at that time whether that would be a pilot in conjunction with the pilot which is provided for in this Bill. I hope the Minister can give us assurances about wide consultation, including about where the pilots should take place. She was able to tell the House that one pilot would be in Hampshire, which everyone to whom I have mentioned it has reacted by saying that it is not a very helpful place to show whether the provisions might be used in a discriminatory fashion. That is a substantive point and I hope the Minister can assist on it, but at this late stage of the Bill I base the amendments on the technical point of comparison with the Immigration Act. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, these amendments were discussed on Report a few days ago. Amendments 1 and 2 add the world “reasonably” to this section of the Bill requiring someone to confirm their nationality. In that discussion, I made the point that in this section of the Bill the wording “without reasonable excuse” is used in respect of suspects in new Section 43B(1) and again in new Section 46C(1), and on that page there is also “for a reasonable cause”. That is different from the provisions for police and immigration officers. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, to write to me, and I think she was going to, but I have not yet had the letter. It is on its way. That is good to know. When she replies, I hope she will shed some light on why the Government do not need the same provision for both groups in this part of the Bill.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, these amendments again seek to provide in the Bill that a police or immigration officer exercising the powers in Clauses 161 and 162 to require a suspected foreign national to state their nationality and provide their nationality documents on request must act reasonably.
I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, suggested that the drafting of these clauses seemed inconsistent, given that, on the one hand, there was no express requirement on an officer to exercise the powers reasonably but, on the other hand, the defence operated only where the accused had a reasonable excuse. There is no inconsistency here. The reasonable excuse defence is a necessary safeguard which allows a suspected foreign national to offer legitimate reasons to an officer and, if necessary, a court, for their non-compliance. This might include, for example, circumstances where a document may have been destroyed with reasonable cause—a scenario which is also catered for elsewhere in immigration legislation. The requirement for officers to act reasonably in the first instance is, in the Government’s view, a quite different point.
I acknowledge that there are some variations in the drafting of the large number of existing Acts which set out UK immigration law. It is also accepted that certain actions in the Immigration Act 2016 explicitly require those exercising coercive powers to act reasonably. However, it is not the case that, in the absence of an explicit reference to that effect, officers are able, through that omission, to act unreasonably. This language is not universally applied, or required, nor is it used elsewhere in legislation which deals with the seizure or retention of nationality documents.
In exercising the powers conferred by Clauses 161 and 162, police and immigration officers must act in accordance with public law principles, which include acting reasonably, or they may be challenged in the courts by means of judicial review. I also note that the wording of these clauses is consistent with that used elsewhere in immigration legislation—for example, Section 17 of the asylum and immigration Act 2004, which uses the same language for similar purposes. Section 17 deals with the retention of documents that come into the possession of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer in the course of exercising an immigration function.
Finally, I should add that operational guidance in respect of these new powers will make it clear to officers the circumstances under which these powers may be exercised. In the light of this further assurance that these powers may be exercised only when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that an arrested person may not be a British citizen, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
However, I will just add a couple of things: of course we are very happy to continue to engage with the noble Baroness as our plans for pilots develop; she is also right that Hampshire was one of the places that was suggested for the pilot.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the noble Baroness sits down, did I hear her correctly say that these powers can be exercised only when an officer has a reasonable suspicion? If that is the case, then I do not see why it should not be in the Act and this amendment accepted.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
We take the view that the police should always act in a reasonable way.
Baroness Hamwee
I think that encompasses our arguments.
With regard to the pilots, I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s assurances, but had there been consultation on the choice of Hampshire, she might have had some useful input.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness is in a position to tell us whether there is a distinction between an immigration officer or constable “suspecting” under these clauses in the Bill and an officer having “reasonable grounds for believing”. Are these different tests? It seems to me that suspecting and having reasonable grounds for believing are not the same, but I think she is telling us that they are. Does she have anything that she is able to add?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I am slightly muddled by what the noble Baroness is saying. Could she explain that a bit more?
Baroness Hamwee
I take the point that different formulae are used in different parts of immigration law, but the Immigration Act to which I have referred provides for an officer to have “reasonable grounds for believing” something, while under this Bill, he simply has to “suspect” something. “Reasonable grounds for believing” seems to me to be a much tougher test than simply suspecting. The noble Baroness may have something she can share with the House on that.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
Suspecting and believing are slightly different words, obviously. Perhaps I had better write to the noble Baroness with more clarification.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I wonder whether this is something that we can add to the discussion or consultation on the pilots. If one is going to pilot two provisions in the same place, carried out by the same officers and prompted no doubt by the same observations, it would be quite interesting to have them either able or not able to require documents from the same people, but not able to do so because in one case the ground applies and in the other it does not. I realise we are getting into very fine detail, but it will be very real detail in the application. It is not the noble Baroness’s fault, but I can see that we are not going to be able to make further progress on this today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(4) The list of offences in subsection (3) is to be read as if it also included the corresponding service offences and, for that purpose, the corresponding service offences are—(a) an offence under an enactment set out in subsection (4A) which is such an offence by virtue of any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (3);(b) an offence under section 32 of 13 Chas. 2 c. 9 (1661) (An Act for the regulation and better government of the navy);(c) an offence under section 29 of 22 Geo. 2 c. 33 (1749) (An Act for amending and consolidating the laws relating to the navy);(d) an offence of sodomy mentioned in, and punishable under, section 38 of the Naval Discipline Act 1860, section 38 of the Naval Discipline Act 1861, section 41 of the Naval Discipline Act 1864 or section 45 of the Naval Discipline Act 1866.(4A) The enactments referred to in subsection (4)(a) are—(a) section 45 of the Naval Discipline Act 1866;(b) section 41 of the Army Act 1881;(c) section 41 of the Air Force Act 1917;(d) section 70 of the Army Act 1955;(e) section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955;(f) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957.”
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I shall not keep the House long with these amendments. Noble Lords will recall that on Report my noble friend Lord Lexden questioned why the list of service disciplinary offences in what is now Clause 166 did not include all historic enactments criminalising buggery in the Armed Forces. I would like to thank my noble friend for bringing this matter to the Government’s attention. Having examined it further, we agree that the list of naval offences should reach back to the Navy Act 1661. I should stress that the various enactments cited in Amendments 3 to 6 include offences which would still be covered by the criminal law today, notably bestiality. Accordingly, it is important to emphasise again that these posthumous pardons would be granted to a person convicted of an offence only where their actions would not be illegal under current law.
We are aware that that there may be parallel offences that applied to Army personnel which predate the Army Act 1881. In the time available since Report we have not been able to identify all the relevant statutes, but we are continuing to research this issue. If there are further offences to be added to the list, we will explore the best means of achieving this.
The other amendments in this group are minor technical and consequential ones. I beg to move.
“(6A) The definition of “service disciplinary proceedings” in section 101(1) of the 2012 Act applies in accordance with subsection (6) with the modification that it also includes any proceedings (whether in England and Wales or elsewhere) under—(a) 13 Chas. 2 c. 9 (1661) (An Act for the regulation and better government of the navy),(b) 22 Geo. 2 c. 33 (1749) (An Act for amending and consolidating the laws relating to the navy), or(c) the Naval Discipline Act 1860, the Naval Discipline Act 1861 or the Naval Discipline Act 1864.”
“( ) The powers conferred on the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland by subsections (2), (4), (10) and (12) are exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/ 1573 (N.I. 12)).”
Lord Rosser
“(1A) Material published under sub-paragraph (1)(d) must include— (a) copies of each document provided by the commissioner;(b) copies of each representation made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1);(c) a summary of the views expressed to the commissioner for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1);(d) the commissioner’s response to those representations and views;(e) the commissioner’s representation of why the benefits of a proposal under paragraph 1 cannot be achieved by other forms of collaboration.(1B) The consultation period must last for at least 56 days.(1C) Before the start of the consultation period the commissioner must—(a) produce a draft public proposal for the purposes of paragraph 1;(b) schedule public meetings with reasonable publicity;(c) invite written submissions.”
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 12 is in essence the same as our Amendments 12 and 14 on Report, which we withdrew in the light of the Minister’s response. In accordance with that response, I have since received a letter from the Minister that covers guidance on a PCC’s business case and consultation arrangements, and on the terms and conditions of fire personnel transferring to PCC fire and rescue authorities and to chief officers under the single-employer model.
My purpose in tabling this amendment at Third Reading is to ask the Minister to cover the content of her letter to me in her response today so that it is on the record in Hansard. The letter said that government Amendment 11 on Report meant that,
“the PCC would always be required to publish a response to their consultation, regardless of whether they have local agreement or not”,
and, crucially, that,
“the guidance will fully reflect the issues covered by your amendments 12 and 14”,
on Report, which are now reiterated in Amendment 12, which we are now discussing at Third Reading. The letter also said:
“Whilst this guidance will be owned and issued by APACE”—
the Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives—
“Home Office officials are part of an advisory group that has been set up to steer the development of the guidance and are working closely with the authors to ensure that it reflects Government’s expectations”.
In other words, the guidance reflecting the Government’s expectations will fully reflect issues covered by our Amendments 12 and 14 on Report, which are repeated now in Amendment 12, which we are now discussing at Third Reading.
If the Minister can place on record in Hansard the key parts of the letter that she sent me following Report, then from my perspective that would achieve the purpose of this amendment. In particular, confirmation of the points that I have just made, and which are referred to in the letter, about the guidance fully reflecting the issues covered by my Amendments 12 and 14 on Report, and the fact that the guidance will reflect the Government’s expectations, would be extremely helpful.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has dealt with the matter as he has and has sought to have the points put on record. I wonder whether, in replying, the Minister can confirm that in paragraph 3(d), the requirement on the commissioner to publish,
“in such manner as the commissioner thinks appropriate”,
is consistent with the description that the noble Lord has just given—and that, within statute, one cannot think something “appropriate” without it also being “reasonable”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained his amendment and the reasoning behind it. I am very happy to repeat the assurances that I laid out in my letter so that they now appear in Hansard.
I recognise the important principles behind the amendment and I agree that it is imperative that PCCs afford sufficient time during the consultation process to allow people properly to express their views and to provide sufficient material for them to form a proper opinion. However, it would not be appropriate to prescribe how PCCs should go about their consultation in the Bill; nor would it be appropriate for the Home Office to issue guidance on such matters. PCCs are locally accountable, and it would not be appropriate for Whitehall to dictate matters or fetter local flexibility.
I hope that the noble Lord would therefore agree with me that the points he has raised are properly a matter for guidance rather than for primary legislation—I think that was clear from what he said. As I set out on Report, the circumstances of each local consultation will be different, so we should not unduly fetter local flexibility to put in place proportionate arrangements that recognise the nature of each local business case. The amendment, while well intentioned, risks cutting across the local accountability of PCCs and risks Whitehall dictating matters that should rightly be left to local leaders.
In response to the noble Lord’s important concerns, I can, however, be very clear about the Government’s expectation that the PCC’s consultation will be undertaken in an appropriate manner and of an appropriate duration to allow local people to express their views and for the PCC to have taken them into account. There is plenty of case law relating to consultations of the kind that PCCs will be undertaking on their local business cases, and to discharge their formal statutory duty, PCCs will need to have regard to proper principles of consultation. We would expect PCCs to secure local legal advice prior to commencing a local consultation to ensure that their plans comply with the legal requirements set down by existing case law. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about consistency, I reiterate what I said privately: I think there is consistency.
To further strengthen the advice available to PCCs, we are also working with the Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives to ensure that its practice guidance on fire governance business cases covers the points that the noble Lord has listed in his amendment today and his previous Amendments 12 and 14. This includes comprehensive guidance on the duty to consult, the manner in which consultation should be carried out, its duration, and what arrangements PCCs should make to publish their response to the consultation.
The Government expect the guidance to address the matters to be covered in the PCC’s business case. By its nature, this must set out the PCC’s assessment of why he or she considers that it would either be in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or in the interests of public safety, for a Section 4A order to be made. If the PCC’s proposal is based on the first limb of this test, it would follow that the business case needs to address why other forms of collaboration, outside of a governance transfer, cannot deliver the same benefits in terms of improved economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
The guidance is currently being drafted by a working group that includes representations from fire and rescue authorities and the Local Government Association. The Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives is aiming to publish the first version in January 2017, shortly after Royal Assent. The document will continue to be updated to reflect the lessons learned from the first PCCs to develop and consult on their proposals. As it will be sector guidance, it will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure but, as I have just explained, it will be in line with the Government’s expectations. I commit also to sharing a copy of the guidance once it is finalised.
I hope that in light of these further assurances the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her reply. I take it from what she has said that the guidance will reflect the Government’s expectations, which are that the guidance will fully reflect the issues covered by our Amendments 12 and 14 on Report and our Amendment 12 at Third Reading. Will the Minister confirm that once again?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise for being slightly distracted by the last thing the noble Lord said, so could he repeat it?
Lord Rosser
I understand that the Minister confirmed, as stated in the letter that she sent to me, that the guidance will reflect the Government’s expectations and included in those expectations are that the guidance will fully reflect the issues covered by our Amendments 12 and 14 on Report and now repeated in Amendment 12, which we are discussing, at Third Reading. If the Minister will confirm that that is the correct interpretation, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I did just say, but perhaps not very clearly, that it will be both in line with the Government’s expectations and with the points made in the noble Lord’s Amendments 12 and 14—now Amendment 12. I am happy to reissue that reassurance.
While I am on my feet I wonder whether the noble Lord will indulge me because there is one aspect in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on reasonableness that I did not address. PCCs would be expected to act reasonably when determining how to consult locally on their proposal and we would expect them to have regard to relevant case law and to practise the guidance issued by the Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives. If there is a view that the PCC has acted unreasonably when determining what appropriate local arrangements should be, there would be an option to challenge the decision via the local consultation process or ultimately through legal challenge.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for repeating that reassurance. We have taken this matter as far as we can, and in light of her reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) In paragraph 28ZA (recommendations by the Commission or a local policing body)(as inserted by this Act), in sub-paragraph (3)(b), after “submission” insert “or completion”.”
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
The House agreed to Amendment 157 on Report on the parity of funding at inquests, which does not appear to be covered by the existing Long Title. Accordingly, this amendment is to cover Amendment 157, and comes within the Third Reading principal purposes as tidying up the Bill. I trust the Government will feel able to accept the amendment in the light of the decision of this House on Amendment 157 on Report.
My name is also attached to Amendment 16 in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, cannot be in the House today, but the House agreed to Amendments 188 to 193 on Report on support for victims and victims’ rights, which do not appear to be covered by the existing Long Title. Once again, this amendment to the Long Title is to cover Amendments 188 to 193 and comes within the Third Reading principal purposes as tidying up the Bill. I trust that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment in the light of the House’s decision on those amendments on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 15 is a tidying amendment to the Long Title and consequential to stalking offences. When I moved the amendment that was adopted by this House last week, I regret that I was not aware that it was encompassed by the Long Title, so I apologise for any inconvenience caused. I take this opportunity to say that I very much hope that the Prime Minister will look at this amendment. She has been terrific on violence against women and girls and, if she had a look at it personally, she might agree to accept it.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, as these amendments are purely consequential on various non-government amendments added to the Bill on Report, the Government will not oppose them. We are reflecting on the debates on the amendments put forward on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Brinton, and we will set out our position when those amendments are considered by the House of Commons on 10 January.
Lord Rosser
Baroness Williams of Trafford
In moving that the Bill do now pass, I shall not detain the House for long. I have felt the Bill to be a very constructive process, and in particular I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as well as the genius of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. If I ever need representation, I know where to go, as long as I have a lot of money! I particularly thank the officials, because they are not just from the Home Office; there are officials on the Bill from the Department for Transport, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministries of Justice and Defence and the Department of Health. Last but not least, I thank my noble friend Lady Chisholm, without whom I could not have got through the Bill in such a cheerful manner. She has kept me upright sometimes late into the night and has worked so seamlessly with me. It has been an absolute joy. I wish her well. I know that she is not retiring—she is just taking life a bit more sensibly—but I shall desperately miss her by my side in the next Bill that I do.
Lord Rosser
I shall be very brief, but I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for the courteous and open way in which they have listened to and sought to address, within government policy constraints, the issues raised during the passage of the Bill. I seem to have received a deluge of letters, for which I am genuinely very grateful, but it rather tests the statement that somebody, somewhere is waiting for a letter—that may no longer be the case in this instance. Actually, the number of letters that we have received in the light of the debates that have taken place is a reflection that the issues have been raised, considered and responded to, and I am very grateful for that. I thank the members of the Bill team for their help. I also thank all my noble friends, especially my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and other Members of this House who have contributed to the debates. We too wish the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, a very successful time, presumably on the Back Benches, from where I am sure she will continue to make her views known.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baronesses—the Ministers—for the way in which they have conducted proceedings on the Bill, and the members of the Bill team for the help and co-operation that we have received from them. My next offer of thanks is rather controversial and probably not in accordance with protocol but I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy, for the way in which we have discussed matters, which has helped the Bill’s passage
Pension Schemes Bill [HL]
Monday 19th December 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2017 View all Pension Schemes Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 70KB) - (15 Dec 2016)
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) the scheme’s member engagement strategy.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, this revisits an amendment debated in Committee and requires the scheme’s member-engagement strategy to be one of the pieces of information that must be submitted to the Pensions Regulator as part of the application for authorisation. As such, it would then sit alongside the scheme and the scheme funder’s latest accounts—incidentally, that assumes there are some. In a start-up situation there may not be. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that—the business plan and the continuity strategy. The latter, of course, addresses how the interests of members are to be protected if a triggering event occurs.
As was argued in Committee, understanding members’ views and needs is essential to designing investment strategies and to the assessment of value for members. Such engagement ought to be an essential component of designing a pension scheme and an integral part of its creation and continuance.
The DC guide sets out that good member communications provided at the right time and in the right format are vital if members are to engage and make decisions that lead to good outcomes for them in retirement. As the code reminds us, there are a number of ways in which the views and needs of members can be determined. It recommends choosing methods that are appropriate and proportionate depending on the size of the scheme and available resources. Included in the techniques which might be employed are member surveys, running workshops, holding member AGMs—although we left that degree of flexibility out of this amendment—focus groups and forums, and regular member panels.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Monks referred to the challenges of encouraging the member voice to be at the top of the agenda. He was speaking of his experience of a master trust with some 1 million members and 20,000 employers—a different proposition from engaging with perhaps just a few thousand members and a handful of employers. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, has reminded us, we are dealing with schemes where the risk is with the members—the employees—which therefore necessitates their effective engagement.
On Second Reading, and repeated in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Young—the Minister—expressed his support for the principle of member engagement. At col. 1758 of Hansard of 21 November, he expressed “a lot of sympathy” with the rationale behind the amendment then tabled. We hope that, on reflection, he might be moved a little further and is now able to accept it. The thrust of the noble Lord’s reason for rejecting the proposition appeared to be that there are comprehensive statutory requirements covering communications with members as well as guidance from the regulator and the Bill is not about stipulating how trustees should run an excellent scheme, and that they should have discretion about how they go about member engagement, provided, that is, that communications requirements which already apply are met.
This amendment does not seek to impose any particular approach to engagement on trustees, but it would mean that they would have the opportunity to lay out for the regulator how it is proposed to go about the task, and to demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and how in fact they are to be met in the particular circumstances of each master trust. It would be wrong to see engagement and communication as just a routine matter, especially given the scale of some of the existing master trust operations and given developing technologies. It seems a little odd that the regulator is required under the Bill to assess whether a range of persons are fit and proper; to take a view on whether any particular master trust scheme is financially sustainable and receive a business plan for this purpose; to decide on whether the systems and processes to be used are sufficient to be run effectively; and to determine whether a scheme has an adequate continuity strategy to address the interests of members in the event of a triggering event. However, it can look aside from whether a scheme has an effective member engagement strategy, as it can assume that statutory requirements and regulator guidance will be followed. Frankly, this seems a bit thin.
To accept this amendment would be a very clear demonstration to the sector of the importance placed upon member engagement. At the end of the day, the members are the very people the schemes are supposed to support. What is the downside in accepting this amendment? I beg to move.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the case made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. In my experience, in a defined benefit situation the trustee is rightly prescriptive with regard to the steps that need to be taken to satisfy a reasonable test of an engagement and communication strategy. It is blindingly obvious that it is different with master trusts, because they deal with a number of employers. Some of them might be very different in the work they do and the way they do it, so the extra link in the chain justifies this. No sensible person wants to litter primary legislation with a lot of detail. However, at the very least, the master trust needs to be constrained in law by satisfying itself in some way that it is taking steps, not just to ensure that the employers within the scheme are acting properly but so that the members of those individual schemes get the benefit of a flow of information and data which is appropriate to support the important provision of their pensions in the future. The case is well made. As I say, I am not in favour of adding things for the sake of it, but the cause is just. If, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggests, it is kept skeletal, as long as there is some duty in the primary legislation, the Committee would be much happier to consider the passage of this legislation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I begin by responding to the point that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made in his introduction about whether, if one was dealing with a start-up, it would have to provide accounts. Of course, it does not, because it cannot, so that bit of Clause 4(2) would not apply.
A range of amendments relating to member engagement were put forward for consideration in Committee, and during that debate and at Second Reading I made it clear that I had sympathy with the principle behind them, as I have with the case that has just been made. Member engagement is important, and members should be encouraged to develop a strong sense of ownership of their pension saving. As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, noted when we last debated this issue, the money that the scheme is managing belongs to them. I also agree that it is important that schemes should keep their members well informed, especially—again, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, noted in Committee—as a member approaches retirement.
That earlier debate focused largely on member communications. Communications are not quite the same as engagement, which is a somewhat broader notion including the idea of a two-way exchange. Effective communications certainly contribute to good levels of engagement but they are not the only factor that determines whether a member develops a sense of ownership of their savings. Noble Lords may also have drawn this distinction, which is why the amendment requires that broader “engagement” strategy. In practice, however, I believe that that strategy would inevitably contain significant detail on communications from a master trust, which is why I would like briefly to revisit some of the arguments on communications which I set out in Committee.
The purpose of this part of the Bill is to introduce robust minimum requirements which ensure that the interests of master trust scheme members are protected from the risks that arise in these types of schemes; it is not a Bill that seeks to prescribe every facet of running an excellent scheme. Some of those aspects, including how required outcomes may best be achieved in relation to an individual scheme, are matters for the trustees. That is why the documents listed in Clause 4 relate to the key risks and documents directly required under the authorisation criteria, rather than to wider documentation that the scheme may have.
I also noted that there is already a series of legal requirements setting out the minimum standards for communications in occupational pension schemes, which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, may have referred to. It is worth briefly recapping those requirements. Trustees must provide members with basic information about the pension scheme within two months of their joining, and they are required to update them if this information changes. They must provide most members with a member-specific projected pension and an annual benefits statement. They must also provide a wide range of information upon request, including the annual report, the scheme rules, information about the investment principles and information about benefits and transfer values.
I re-emphasise that those are only minimum standards. The Pensions Regulator publishes codes of practice and detailed guidance for trustees to help them run their scheme according to good practice. This includes guidance on member communications. Our view remains that, provided the statutory requirements are met, it should be for trustees to decide how best to manage member communications. This is one area where a good scheme has an opportunity to distinguish itself. Once the regime commences, our assurance regarding the calibre of trustees of master trust schemes will be further enhanced because they will all have passed the new fit and proper persons requirement.
I also take this opportunity to respond to a specific point that was raised in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, argued:
“The Pensions Regulator should have the opportunity to review the systems and processes related to communications just as much as the features and functionality of the proposed IT system”.—[Official Report, 21/11/16; col. 1754.]
I thank the noble Lord for that contribution, which I have considered further. Although I cannot go as far as he would like me to, I hope that I can go a little further than I did in Committee. I can confirm that the Bill as drafted allows the regulator to take into account the systems and processes relating to communications and engagement when assessing the adequacy of a scheme’s systems and processes more broadly. I can also confirm that the Government would intend—subject, of course, to consultation—to use the regulations under Clause 11 to ensure that the regulator specifically considers a scheme’s systems and processes in relation to these important communication matters when deciding whether the scheme is run effectively.
There is of course the wider point of the engagement of individuals with workplace pension savings, which we take seriously. As part of the review of automatic enrolment that we announced on 12 December, the Government specifically committed to consider member engagement. In a Written Statement, the Minster for Pensions confirmed that the review would include,
“how engagement with individuals can be improved so that savers have a stronger sense of personal ownership and are better enabled to maximise savings”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/16; col. 38WS.]
This review will be supported by an external advisory board, which will include pension provider representation, and we will ensure that we engage closely with the industry as part of that review.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that response. It ended up a lot more positive than when it started and where it looked as though it was heading originally.
The noble Lord reiterated what he said at an earlier point in our deliberations about statutory guidance being met. My question was going to be: “How does the regulator know that that guidance is being met”? I think the answer is, from the processes under Clause 11 and what he said about systems and processes requirements. I am grateful for that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for his support. I look forward to further deliberations on the auto-enrolment consultation, which we will come to, presumably, in the new year. Having said that and noting what is just ahead, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
“( ) The first regulations that are made under subsection (4) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, these amendments put the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, not just ahead but well ahead—because he and other noble Lords expressed concern in Committee about the Bill’s approach to regulation. With many regulations subject to negative resolution, they felt that they would not be subject to adequate scrutiny. Noble Lords will remember that I responded that I would reflect on that point, and the amendments before us now are a result of that reflection.
We accept that the first regulations made under several of the powers in the Bill could be made under the affirmative resolution procedure to allow for scrutiny via parliamentary debate. After the first set of regulations introducing the authorisation regime has been brought into force, subsequent amendments to those regulations are likely to be relatively minor and, as a result, we do not think that affirmative resolution at that stage would be appropriate. Parliament will, of course, have the opportunity under the negative resolution procedure to require a debate on any such regulations if there is concern.
The provisions that will be subject to affirmative resolution as a result of these amendments represent significant aspects of the authorisation regime, including the fit and proper person test, financial sustainability, systems and processes, continuity strategy and significant events.
I owe the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, a proper exposition of the process of how we get to these regulations. Currently there is an engagement process with stakeholders to develop the detailed policy. We anticipate that that and an initial consultation to inform the regulations will take place in the autumn of 2017. That will be followed by formal consultation on the draft regulations. Our intention is to lay the regulations over the summer period and commence them during October 2018.
I will now touch briefly on the actual provisions that are covered. Clause 7 relates to the need for individuals involved in the scheme to be fit and proper people. Subsection (4)(a) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the regulator to take into account certain matters when assessing whether a person is a fit and proper person to act in a particular capacity. Clauses 8 and 9 relate to the financial sustainability of a master trust. Clause 8 requires that the regulator must be satisfied that the business strategy relating to the scheme is sound and that the scheme has sufficient resources to meet certain costs. The power in Clause 8(4) is to enable regulations to set out matters that the regulator must take into account when deciding whether it is satisfied on these matters. Clause 9 relates to the requirement for a scheme strategist to produce a business plan, and the power in Clause 9(2) allows the Secretary of State to set out what information should be included.
Clause 11 makes provision for systems and processes. It includes a regulation-making power to require the Pensions Regulator to take into account specified matters when deciding whether it is satisfied that the systems and processes adopted by schemes are sufficient to ensure that they are run effectively. Clause 12 sets out the requirement for the scheme strategist to prepare the continuity strategy. The powers in subsections (5) and (6) allow the Secretary of State to determine the format in which the level of charges should be set out. Clause 16 puts a duty on specified persons involved in running an authorised master trust scheme to notify the regulator when they become aware that a “significant event” has occurred.
This group of amendments also includes one further amendment which inserts a power to make consequential amendments to other legislation, including primary legislation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, with whom I have discussed this amendment, for allowing me to bring it forward at what I acknowledge is a late stage. It is a standard power that we have in other pensions legislation, and I really must repeat my apologies that it was not in place at the introduction. The power will be narrow in scope. It is limited to amendments that are consequential to allow for necessary technical fixes and will apply only to existing legislation and legislation passed in this Session.
While we have made every effort to identify and make the necessary consequential amendments in the Bill, pensions legislation, as I suspect noble Lords will acknowledge, is very complex and technical. Similar powers were included in the Pension Schemes Act 2015 and the Pensions Act 2014. The power is used to ensure that the legislation works as intended. For instance, the power in the Pensions Act 2014 was used to ensure that the new state pension was taken into account when setting the automatic enrolment earnings threshold. As was the case in these Acts, this power will also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure when used to amend primary legislation.
After the concerns expressed in Committee, I hope that these proposed amendments have met noble Lords’ concerns that the crucial aspects of the regime will have appropriate scrutiny. I also hope that I have explained why the amendment to Clause 37 is necessary in order to ensure that the legislation works as it should. I will once again repeat my thanks to noble Lords for bearing with me in bringing forward these amendments at this stage, and I trust that I have explained the position properly and given the appropriate level of reassurance. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, obviously I welcome the Minister’s amendments, which are a very appropriate response to our discussions in Committee. The compromise that he has struck is useful—and not just in these circumstances. It is actually not a bad idea for legislation to start adopting some of these things because it might avoid some of the tensions we have seen in the past in social security legislation in terms of trying to get access to the secondary legislation. Taking the first regulations under the affirmative procedure is an excellent way out of the problem we saw in Committee.
The timetable that the Minister has laid out is very reassuring and gives people an idea of what to expect in terms of the consultation and the timeframe available. I understand Amendment 24. I know that such provision has been used previously in pensions legislation, but Ministers at the Dispatch Box will be well advised to note that this clause will be particularly carefully looked at not just by the House committees that scrutinise these matters but by the usual suspects on the Back Benches who crawl over the fine print of these things. If the use of such procedure is deemed to be inappropriate, the negative procedure is always available to us to make sure that there is no abuse of the powers taken under Amendment 24. Otherwise, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the rest of us are doing quite well so far. I hope that we can keep up this strike rate for the rest of Report.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the introduction of these amendments, which are very welcome. He has been true to his word and we thank him for taking us through the process of dealing with the regulations. One of our criticisms of the Bill was the plethora of regulation-making powers therein contained without the prospect of sight of even drafts of such regulations by the time we had to conclude our deliberations.
It was for this reason that we sought to strengthen the parliamentary process for this secondary legislation by subjecting it to the affirmative regulation procedure. The Government are meeting us part way on this matter by requiring in some key areas that the affirmative procedure apply to the first regulations made under various provisions. As we have heard, the changes apply to fit and proper person requirements, financial sustainability, the business plan, systems and process, continuity strategies and significant events.
We have also had the benefit of briefings with the Minister and the Bill team, which have aided our understanding of the regime and how it is meant to operate in respect of a range of issues including non-money purchase benefits, significant events, tax and pause orders and connected employers. As our continuing amendments should signal, we are not in total accord with the Bill as it stands and consider further change desirable.
As to the Henry VIII clause introduced by Amendment 24, the Minister is right that we discussed it before it was laid and I was grateful for that opportunity to engage. We are not enamoured generally of such provisions, particularly when they emerge at the tail end of our deliberations. As originally explained to us, they will be constrained by being used only to make the implementation of the regulations effective. In the event, they seem to go further than that. I wonder whether the Minister might comment. We recognise also that these types of provision have been used by Governments of all persuasions.
We recognise the complexity of the provisions in the Bill as well as the agility of the sector in adapting to change and sometimes circumventing it. Our own scrutiny of the Bill has caused us to conclude that the primary legislation is not in perfect shape even after being improved by our amendments, but until the detail of the regulations has been consulted on, it is difficult to foresee in every respect ideally what changes might have been appropriate. This is notwithstanding the flexibility that the Government have already taken for themselves; for example, in Clause 39.
For us, the imperative is to see a fit-for-purpose Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible. We will therefore not oppose this amendment.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your understanding. I thank again the whole House and its committees, which made the point forcefully about making all these substantial regulations subject to the negative procedure. This was an occasion where we went back. There was a good suggestion—I am sure it was from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—that we should do it the first time via the affirmative procedure. I am with the noble Lord on this in thinking that that is a pretty smart way of doing this kind of legislation, because one can really clog up Parliament with affirmatives. I have to do quite a few of them and really, when one looks at them, it is overkill. This compromise may be something that we can look at becoming more of an institution in future. Let us just see on that.
On the power in Clause 37 and the pointed question put by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about its use, I assure noble Lords that that power is narrow in scope. It will be limited to consequential amendments to allow for necessary technical fixes. It will apply only to existing legislation and legislation passed in this Session. Just to make it absolutely clear, it can be used to amend primary legislation but only in this consequential context to allow necessary amendments to make the Bill work.
I am grateful for the understanding of the House on all these amendments—the last of them in particular. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I do not want to prolong this but may I just check one point? The noble Lord said that the Henry VIII provisions would be used only in respect of Acts passed in this same Session of Parliament. The wording sent to me says,
“an Act passed before or in the same session as this Act”.
Could the Minister clarify that?
Lord Freud
To make it clear, it incorporates legislation that now exists and the legislation that we will prospectively pass with this Bill.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
“( ) The first regulations that are made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
European Council: December 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week’s European Council. Both the UK and the rest of the EU are preparing for the negotiations that will begin when we trigger Article 50 before the end of March next year but the main focus of this Council was, rightly, on how we can work together to address some of the most pressing challenges that we face. These include responding to the migration crisis, strengthening Europe’s security and helping to alleviate the suffering in Syria. As I have said, for as long as the UK is a member of the EU we will continue to play our full part. That is what this Council showed, with the UK making a significant contribution on each of these issues.
First, on migration, from the outset the UK pushed for a comprehensive approach that focuses on the root causes of migration as the best way to reduce the number of people coming to Europe. I called for more action in source and transit countries to disrupt the smuggling networks, to improve local capacity to control borders, and to support sustainable livelihoods both for people living there and for refugees. I also said that we must better distinguish between economic migrants and refugees, swiftly returning those with no right to remain and thereby sending out a deterrence message to others thinking of embarking on perilous journeys.
The Council agreed to action in all these areas, and the UK remains fully committed to playing our part. We have already provided training to the Libyan coast-guard. The Royal Navy is providing practical support in the Mediterranean and Aegean. We will also deploy 40 additional specialist staff to the Greek islands to accelerate the processing of claims, particularly from Iraqi, Afghan and Eritrean nationals, and to help return those who have no right to stay. Ultimately, we need a long-term, sustainable approach. That is the best way to retain the consent of our people to provide support and sanctuary to those most in need.
Turning to security and defence, whether it is deterring Russian aggression, countering terrorism or fighting organised crime, the UK remains firmly committed to the security of our European neighbours. That is true now and it will remain true once we have left the EU. At this Council, we welcomed the commitment from all member states to take greater responsibility for their security, to invest more resources and to develop more capabilities. That is the right approach and, as the Council made clear, it should be done in a way that complements rather than duplicates NATO. A stronger EU and a stronger NATO can be mutually reinforcing, and this should be our aim. We must never lose sight of the fact that NATO will always be the bedrock of our collective defence in Europe, and we must never allow anything to undermine it. We also agreed at the Council to renew tier 3 economic sanctions on Russia for another six months, maintaining the pressure on Russia to implement the Minsk agreements in full.
Turning to the appalling situation in Syria, we have all seen the devastating pictures on our TV screens and heard heartbreaking stories of families struggling to get to safety. At this Council, we heard directly from the Mayor of Eastern Aleppo, a brave and courageous man who has already witnessed his city brought to rubble, his neighbours murdered and children’s lives destroyed. He had one simple plea for us: to get those who have survived through years of conflict, torture and fear to safety. Together with our European partners, we must do all we can to help.
The Council was unequivocal in its condemnation of President Assad and his backers, Russia and Iran, who must bear the responsibility for the tragedy in Aleppo. They must now allow the UN to evacuate safely the innocent people of Aleppo—Syrians whom President Assad claims to represent. We have seen some progress in recent days, but a few busloads is not enough when there are thousands more who must be rescued, and we cannot have these buses attacked in the way that we have seen. On Thursday afternoon, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary summoned the Russian and Iranian ambassadors to make it clear that we expect them to help. Over the weekend, the UK has been working with our international partners to secure agreement on a UN Security Council resolution that would send in UN officials to monitor the evacuation of civilians and provide unfettered humanitarian access. This has been agreed unanimously this afternoon, and we now need it to be implemented in full.
President Assad may be congratulating his regime forces on their actions in Aleppo, but we are in no doubt that this is no victory: it is a tragedy, and one that we will not forget. Last week’s Council reiterated that those responsible must be held to account. Alongside our diplomatic efforts, the UK is going to provide a further £20 million of practical support for those who are most vulnerable. This includes £10 million for trusted humanitarian partners working on the front line in some of the hardest to reach places in Syria, to help them deliver food parcels and medical supplies to those most in need, and an additional £100 million to UNICEF to help it provide life-saving aid supplies for the Syrian refugees now massing at the Jordanian border. As the mayor of Eastern Aleppo has said, it is sadly too late to save all those who have been lost, but it is not too late to save those who remain. That is what we must do now.
Turning to Brexit, I updated the Council on the UK’s plans for leaving the European Union. I explained that, two weeks ago, this House voted by a considerable majority—almost six to one—to support the Government by delivering the referendum result and invoking Article 50 before the end of March. The UK’s Supreme Court is expected to rule next month on whether the Government require parliamentary legislation in order to do this. I am clear that the Government will respect the verdict of our independent judiciary, but I am equally clear that, whichever way the judgment goes, we will meet the timetable I have set out.
At the Council, I also reaffirmed my commitment to a smooth and orderly exit. In this spirit, I made it clear to the other EU leaders that it remains my objective that we give reassurance early on in the negotiations to EU citizens who live in the UK, and UK citizens living in EU countries, that their right to stay where they have made their homes will be protected by our withdrawal. This is an issue which I would like to agree quickly but that clearly requires the agreement of the rest of the EU.
Finally, I welcomed the subsequent short discussion between the 27 other leaders on their plans for the UK’s withdrawal. It is right that the other leaders prepare for the negotiations, just as we are making our own preparations. That is in everyone’s best interests.
My aim is to cement the UK as a close partner of the EU once we have left. As I have said before, I want the deal we negotiate to reflect the kind of mature, co-operative relationship that close friends and allies enjoy: a deal that will give our companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the European market, and allow European businesses to do the same here; a deal that will deliver the deepest possible co-operation to ensure our national security and the security of our allies; but a deal that will mean when it comes to decisions about our national interest, such as how we control immigration, we can make these decisions for ourselves—and a deal that will mean our laws are once again made in Britain, not in Brussels. With a calm and measured approach, this Government will honour the will of the British people and secure the right deal that will make a success of Brexit for the UK, for the EU and for the world. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. It was unusual that, following the Council meeting, there was no press statement or conference from the Prime Minister. However, can I say how much we on this side of the House appreciate those announcements being made to Parliament first, which has not always happened recently?
There were two parts to this European Council meeting. The first, as we heard from the noble Baroness, discussed the current and serious issues that affect all existing members of the EU, and we were part of those discussions. The second part was about our leaving the EU, and did not include us and was much shorter, but it is clear that considerable debate and discussion had taken place prior to the formal agreement of those proposals. I want to come on to that later, but those issues that were discussed during the full Council meeting—Syria, Cyprus, migration, security and defence, as well as economic and social development—have huge implications for the UK and for our role, whether in or out of the European institutions, in the geographical area of Europe. It would be helpful to have some further clarification on the UK’s role in those discussions.
The Council discussed recent Commission proposals to increase resilience and reduce risk in the banking and financial sector. This clearly has significant relevance for the UK. What role is the UK playing in these ongoing discussions? At a Council meeting prior to the EU referendum, we signed up to some proposals. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether that commitment remains, prior to our departure? What discussions have been had with the banking and financial sector since then and prior to this Council meeting?
Secondly, one of the areas that convinced me that our departure from the EU would not be in the national interest was policing and security. We had debates in your Lordships’ House on the then coalition Government’s proposals on opting out—and then opting back in again—on policing and criminal justice measures. I note the comments in the conclusions of the meeting. Do the Government still intend to adopt the proposals on firearms and anti-money laundering, and to implement the new passenger name recognition legislation? During discussions on this issue, was there any reference to the UK’s role following Brexit and future security initiatives? The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, will be aware of the concerns raised on this issue by Sir Julian King, our European Commissioner for Security, and Claude Moraes MEP, who chairs the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
Paragraphs 11 to 13 of the conclusions outline the areas on which the EU needs to reach agreement on security issues early next year, and why co-operation within the EU and with NATO is needed on hybrid threats, maritime issues, cybersecurity, strategic communications and defence matters. In signing up to those conclusions, did the Prime Minister or her officials make any reference to how those commitments might be affected by Brexit, or has this not yet been considered?
As we watch the horrors of Aleppo increase daily, we all have to consider how much more those civilians can endure. It must feel to the thousands trying to flee that, having already lost their homes, their possessions and their loved ones, they are now losing hope. They are perhaps also losing faith that anyone really cares. When the Mayor of Aleppo spoke to the Council, he did so in desperate need for more help and more support. The EU is to be praised for its humanitarian support and for how it has sought to co-ordinate it, but the world has to do more. The UN decision and actions today are a welcome step forward, and I hope they lead to many more lives being saved and many more people being rescued, but what is important, as the Statement says, is implementation, not just resolutions passed or words spoken. Will the noble Baroness tell us what the Government will do to ensure implementation, and what is in place to monitor compliance, because we cannot stand more abuse of people in Aleppo? Our hearts go out to all of them.
Paragraph 27 of the Council’s conclusions states:
“The EU is considering all available options”,
with regard to Aleppo. For many in Syria and in Aleppo there are few options left. I welcome the statement in the conclusions about bringing those guilty of war crimes to justice. The EU is right to support political reconstruction, but only once a credible political transition is under way. Did the discussions focus on how to bring additional pressure to achieve this?
Finally, the last part of the meeting was just the 27 other countries discussing our exit from the EU. This was very specific in terms of the process of negotiations and in the comments by the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, after the meeting. It was also very specific on the principle on which the negotiations will be based. The Minister repeated the Prime Minister’s Statement:
“I updated the Council on the UK’s plans for leaving the European Union”.
I think we would all like to be updated on the Government’s plans for leaving the EU. I appreciate that the Government have not yet been specific—or have been very unspecific—but, with commitment to invoke Article 50 by the end of March, she will understand that if we are to get the best deal and arrangements for the UK, there is some anxiety about when the Government are going to publish further information. Indeed, we could not get exact information from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about when that information is going to be available. The noble Baroness tried her best to be helpful, but it is difficult in these circumstances.
This becomes even more important when there appears to be confusion at the heart of government about whether we can be half in, half out of the customs union, about how long negotiations will take and about whether a transitional period for negotiation or implementation will be needed. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, huffs and puffs over there and shakes his head. However, questioning how this will be done is absolutely essential for the Government to get it right. It really cannot be the position that, every time somebody questions how it is going to be done or wants more details, there is some kind of accusation that we are not acting in the national interest. We are absolutely acting in the national interest by trying to get more information to look at. The noble Lord shakes his head. I wonder why those who were the most enthusiastic about Brexit loathe any questions about it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, will understand that this House stands ready to assist and to be helpful. She will have already seen the very helpful, excellent reports from our EU Select Committees. They are identifying issues that need to be addressed to make sure that we have effective and more detailed solutions in the national interest. Can she give an assurance to your Lordships’ House that, despite whatever legislative responsibilities we may have, full and adequate time will be provided for such discussions and debates? As a scrutiny Chamber, we want to play a responsible and helpful role in ensuring the best arrangements for the UK.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, in the spirit of Christmas, I do not intend to dwell on the Brexit-related issues raised in this Statement. It would be wholly against those core British public service values of tolerance and respect for others to inquire at this festive season about the many and various splits in the Cabinet on all the relevant Brexit issues.
The overarching question which strikes me from a perusal of the agenda of this Council relates to the importance of the subject matter. The agenda included migration, security, economic and social development in respect of young people, Cyprus, Ukraine and Syria. These are some of the biggest issues facing the continent in our time, and it is vital that they are considered—as happened—by Europe as a whole in the Council. If Britain leaves the EU, we will not be at those Council meeting discussions. Have the Government given any thought as to how our vital national interest in key foreign policy issues such as this will be addressed if we are outside the EU? How will the British voice be heard when the rest of Europe considers these huge issues?
Of the issues discussed, arguably the two most important, in the short term at least, were migration and Syria. On migration, the Council statement said:
“Member States should further intensify their efforts to accelerate relocation, in particular for unaccompanied minors, and existing resettlement schemes”.
We welcome the Statement by the Government following this up to the effect that,
“we will also deploy 40 additional specialist staff to the Greek islands to accelerate the processing of claims, particularly from Iraqi, Afghan and Eritrean nationals, and to help return those who have no right to stay”.
It says a lot about the Prime Minister that she concentrates on those we are rejecting, not those we are accepting, and that she says nothing about what is happening in terms of the Government’s commitment to accept unaccompanied minors and others from the region. Could the noble Baroness the Leader update us on the position in respect of unaccompanied minors? What is being done following the dispersal of the Calais camps to identify such people in camps elsewhere in France which hold children who we might accept and to bring them to the UK under either the Dublin or Dubs criteria? What are we doing in Greece to identify unaccompanied minors who equally might expect to come to the UK?
The Government have justified their unwillingness to accept a single adult refugee from mainland Europe on the grounds that they would accept 20,000 Syrian refugees directly from the region over the course of this Parliament. Could the noble Baroness the Leader tell us how many have currently been accepted? The last time the Minister gave an answer at the Dispatch Box, we were accepting people at about half the rate needed to reach the 20,000 target. Has that rate increased in recent weeks, and if not, what plans do the Government have to rectify this shortfall?
On Syria, we welcome the additional £20 million expenditure. Is the Leader able to say how this fits into the overall European response and whether such figures are being matched by our principal European partners? The Prime Minister, in her Statement, referred to the meeting which the Foreign Secretary had with the Russian and Iranian ambassadors last week. What do the Government plan to do to maintain pressure on Russia and Iran to prevent any further indiscriminate violence against civilians as the evacuation of east Aleppo continues? Will the Foreign Secretary make sure that he remains in close touch not just with those two ambassadors but with other ambassadors in the region so that we can have direct and continuing input and pressure to ensure that the position in east Aleppo is resolved as smoothly—if such a word is appropriate—as possible?
Finally, the EU Council reiterated its support for the principle that,
“Those responsible for breaches of international law, some of which may amount to war crimes, must be held accountable”.
This can only happen if enough compelling evidence is collected. What steps are the Government taking, including financially, to encourage the collection of such evidence?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, first, before I answer those questions, I apologise, because I suggested that the Government had committed £100 million to UNICEF. That would be extremely generous of us, but I am afraid it is only £10 million. It is still obviously an important contribution, but I wanted to put that on record and apologise for getting the wrong figure.
As for the questions the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked me, we remain a full member of the EU with all associated rights and responsibilities. We will continue to honour our commitments while we are a member of the EU, and this extends to the areas of security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation. As part of the negotiations, we will of course discuss with the EU and other member states how best to continue that co-operation. It is vital that we do so. That is a key issue that we are concerned about.
On the issue of Syria, which both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness referred to, the Council made clear what needs to happen next in relation to Aleppo: we want to see safe evacuations from the city; full and immediate UN access to provide aid and ensure civilian protection; genuine protection for medical personnel and facilities; and respect from all the actors for international humanitarian law.
There was further discussion at the EU Council that made clear that we are continuing to consider all options available to hold countries accountable for their actions in Syria. We are of course very pleased to see the UN resolution passed today. The noble Lord asked about the other forums in which we will continue to play an international role. We will continue to do so through organisations such as the UN, NATO and others, and indeed we played an important role today in helping to ensure that that resolution was passed. Along with our allies, we will be making very sure that all parties fully comply with that resolution.
The noble Baroness asked about the publication of the Brexit plan. As we have said, we will publish it by the time we trigger Article 50. I also thank the EU committees, as she did, for their work, and I reassure her that we will ensure that ample time is provided to debate those reports in the new year, and that Parliament has a proper opportunity to scrutinise and discuss these important issues.
The noble Lord asked about the Calais camp resettlement. Since 10 October, we have transferred more than 750 unaccompanied minors to the UK, including approximately 200 children who meet the criteria for Section 67 of the Immigration Act. In the coming months, we anticipate that more eligible children will be transferred from Europe, including France, under both the Act and the Dublin regulations. I will have to write to him with more detail on the situation in Greece, as I am afraid I do not have those figures to hand.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s reassertion that we will trigger Article 50 before the end of March. That is of the first importance. I also suggest that the Leader of the Opposition, whom I greatly respect, as she knows, was talking complete nonsense when she spoke about somehow being half in the customs union and half out of it. You are either wholly in or wholly out.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I was quoting Liam Fox, who suggested that at the weekend. It was not my suggestion.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I suspect that that was completely out of order.
I personally would like to see a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union with no strings attached. However, I fear that that is unattainable; even if the EU were to agree with it at government level, the European Parliament certainly would not. However, we have nothing to fear about a World Trade Organization fallback. Is my noble friend aware that we do the bulk of our trade with the rest of the world on WTO terms, far more than we do with the EU, and that that amount of trade with the rest of the world is growing faster than our trade with the EU?
Lastly, speaking as a British citizen living in France, I urge the Government to reconsider the matter of the EU citizens legally resident here and to give an unconditional guarantee that they will stay, seize the moral high ground and not try to make them some kind of bargaining counter.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank my noble friend for his questions. As the Prime Minister made clear, her objective remains that we indeed give early reassurance in negotiations to EU citizens who live in the UK, and to UK citizens living in EU countries. She has made it very clear that we would like that to be discussed very early on. Our intention is clear, but we will need other European leaders to match our commitment. In terms of the negotiation itself, what we want is a strong Britain working with a strong EU. We want a deal that works both for Britain and for the EU.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, I concur, probably for the first time in my life, with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and say to the Minister that it would be bad politics and even worse ethics to try to treat citizens of the EU resident in the United Kingdom as bargaining chips in the forthcoming negotiations, and that it would be wise to take what he called the moral high ground by making an early announcement on our intentions as far as they are concerned. In response to her updating of the Council on recent developments in the United Kingdom on Article 50, did the Prime Minister receive any information from the President of France, the Chancellor of Germany and the Prime Minister of the Netherlands about their forthcoming general elections in 2017? Did they advise her that their attention is likely to be focused on domestic issues rather than Brexit and that, consequently, it might be ill advised to notify our intention under Article 50 early in 2017, rather than some months into a year in which other countries of great significance in our negotiations will not be paying much attention?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, the Prime Minister made very clear our wish in relation to EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU, and she raised that specifically during discussions. Obviously, we want to have a mature and co-operative relationship with the EU, and one would assume that that will reflect that. As I mentioned, she also made it clear that we will be triggering Article 50 before the end of March; all EU leaders are well aware of that.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, the Statement contained the usual vague statements about disrupting smugglers and traffickers. Can the noble Baroness the Leader tell us how many such people have been arrested or prosecuted in any of the relevant jurisdictions? Does she agree that Turkey is no longer a safe country to which to return refugees from either Greece or Bulgaria? Why are Turkish forces occupying a considerable part of northern Syria? Tunisia is another important country from the migration angle. Were any decisions taken by the Council to speed up productive investment to increase the number of jobs available there? Will any help be given to Tunisia to assess who is a refugee and who is an economic migrant?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I mentioned in the Statement, we have been working hard to try to ensure that we disrupt smuggling. That is why we have been fulfilling our obligations as part of Operation Sophia to provide assistance to people in distress, respond to those in need and tackle the callous smugglers. Our Royal Navy and border forces have rescued more than 26,000 migrants.
On the noble Lord’s points about Turkey, we share concerns about the direction that Turkey has taken and are actively raising them with the Government. But, as the recent terrible terrorist attack in Istanbul has shown, Turkey is facing serious threats and we want to maintain a robust private dialogue and press Turkey to ensure that it understands the importance of its actions being measured, in line with its international obligations. I will have to write to the noble Lord on his question about Tunisia.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the latest buzzword—or perhaps it is a buzz acronym—appears to be Smexit, which stands for the smooth and orderly Brexit which the Statement told us is the Government’s aim. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether this aim means that the Government are in fact united in wishing to see a transitional deal?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I can tell the noble Baroness that we are united on delivering the best deal for this country.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Will my noble friend confirm that the Government accept the OBR’s figure, which is that each week’s delay in leaving the European Union costs British taxpayers more than £250 million? Therefore, will she ignore those who argue that we should delay beginning the Article 50 process?
On the subject of those European citizens who are currently living in Britain, will she reject the appalling tactics by the President of the Commission who seeks to turn it into some bargaining position? As these families gather for Christmas, would it not be right for the Government to make it clear that they will be able to stay here and continue to work and make a contribution to this country? Surely that makes sense. If the Government believe that it is a bargaining position, how on earth will they be able to exercise the rejection of these people from our country, which would carry no support in any corner of this House?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I hope I have made it clear that the Prime Minister has been very clear that her objective remains wanting to give reassurance. We have made our intentions clear and we need other European leaders to match our commitment. My noble friend is absolutely right that we need to provide certainty where we can, which is why the Prime Minister has once again reiterated to our European partners that we will be triggering Article 50 before the end of March.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I regret that I am not suffused with the Christmas spirit to the same extent as my noble friend Lord Newby. While I am totally in favour of mature and co-operative relationships, when may we expect one such from the Cabinet? There is much concern about the uncertainty caused by our decision to move towards activating Article 50, so how is that uncertainty to be removed if Members of the Cabinet are consistently at odds with each other as to what the Government’s objectives really are?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I think I have been very clear. Our objectives are extremely clear: to deliver the best deal for the British people.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Is not the reality that there should be discussion in Cabinet about these very serious issues? What actually matters is that we come to a clear conclusion at the end of it, and I do not expect it to be rushed in five minutes, although I certainly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, said. I saw a German Minister quoted as saying that Germany would not be able to concentrate on these negotiations until after the German election, which is a singularly unhelpful thought.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Perhaps I can further reiterate on the deal that we want. We want to give companies the maximum freedom to trade with and co-operate in the European market and allow European businesses to do the same. We want to deliver the deepest possible co-operation to ensure our national security and the security of our allies. We want to ensure that we are a fully independent sovereign state and therefore able to make decisions of our own, such as how best to control immigration, and we want to make sure our laws are once again made in Britain. All members of the Cabinet agree on those issues.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Is the noble Baroness aware that war crimes of the gravest calibre are still being perpetrated against the civilian population in Syria by Russia, Iran and by the Government of Assad? Can she assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government have used their good offices to the fullest possible extent to gather evidence while it is still available and fresh so that these people can indeed be brought to justice in adequate time?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord is absolutely right. We are deeply concerned by reports that the regime forces and their supporters are carrying out summary executions, including of women and children, and that hundreds of men have disappeared on leaving eastern Aleppo and entering regime-held areas. That is why we are very pleased that the UN Security Council has adopted a resolution today which demands full access across Syria and particularly requests that the UN monitors evacuations from eastern Aleppo. We are doing all we can to ensure that all parties fully comply with that resolution and to make sure that if crimes have been committed the perpetrators are indeed punished.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has said that the objective is that our laws should be made in Britain and not in Brussels. That is manifestly correct. However, does she also accept that that means that the final terms, when they are known, should be subject to parliamentary ratification in this House and in the House of Commons, and if Parliament so decides, it would be perfectly democratic to hold another referendum on the known and agreed terms?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We have been very clear that we are implementing the will of 17.4 million people in delivering a referendum and now organising our withdrawal from the EU. We will, of course, comply with all constitutional and legal obligations that apply to the deal we negotiate with the EU.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL]
Monday 19th December 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2017 View all Pension Schemes Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 70KB) - (15 Dec 2016)
17:22 - Division on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 204 - Amendment 6 agreed.
Baroness Drake
“Scheme funder of last resort
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8, the Secretary of State shall make provision for a funder of last resort, to manage any cases where the Master Trust has insufficient resources to meet the cost of complying with subsection (3)(b) of that section.”
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, a key purpose of the Bill is to protect the pension pots of ordinary people from being raided in the event of a master trust pension scheme failing. At the moment, the considerable costs, including administrative costs incurred when a failing scheme is wound up and the members transfer to another scheme, are borne by the members themselves through the charges imposed. The intention of the Bill is to prevent that happening in future. It places a capital adequacy requirement on authorised master trusts to have available sufficient resources to meet such costs in the event of failure and provides for members’ pots to be transferred to another master trust. The Government argue that, in the event of a scheme failure, the capital adequacy and transfer regime will always work. There is no provision if it does not.
The provisions in this Bill, while welcome, cannot guarantee that there will always be sufficient resources available to a failing scheme to finance the costs of wind-up or that another master trust will always willingly pick up all the pieces and costs. No regulator is infallible. The amendment introduces a requirement on the Secretary of State to make provision for funds of last resort to manage those instances of failure. It does not prescribe what that provision should be—for example, a pension scheme with a last-resort public service obligation, or an obligation on master trusts for tail-risk insurance. But without such a provision, the Government cannot claim as they have that from the day it becomes law the Bill will protect scheme members and their pots from the costs of managing failure.
The reasons for this amendment are several: the Pensions Regulator will need to rely significantly on the judgment of its supervisors to assess whether a master trust meets the requirements for ongoing authorisation, to assess not only against current risks but also future risks and make judgments on when it is necessary to intervene. It will not be regulating a legacy system but the future evolving and expanding system, covering millions of members for a very long time. The Bill places a prohibition on using members’ pots to fund a wind-up, but that does not mean that it will all sort itself out. If providers go insolvent, who ultimately will ensure that the wind-up and transfer actually happens? Pots could be left in limbo for many months. Even if the trustees have a legal duty to make such a transfer, they will not be able to pay for advice and administrative services to enable it to happen.
The year 2008 taught us that even the grandest institutions with strong reputations can fail. No regulator can guarantee to remove all risk, and the Pensions Regulator is no exception. However exceptional, a situation could arise whereby a failing master trust will not have sufficient resources on wind-up. Regulator assessment of capital adequacy requirements may simply have been wrong. I hope that that never occurs, but the Government cannot guarantee that it will not. Administrative disarray, failure of controls in the outsourcing to third-party administrators, major computer failure or other failures can hike up costs and cause costly delay in wind-up.
I recently read The Prudential Regulation Authority’s Approach to Banking Supervision of March 2016, and paragraph 44 says:
“The PRA’s supervisory judgements are based on evidence and analysis. It is, however, inherent in a forward-looking system that … there will be occasions when events will show that the supervisor’s judgement, in hindsight, was wrong”.
The resolution regime when a trust fails provides for transferring members’ pots to another master trust. The Government are relying on the industry to always step up to the plate, but they cannot be certain that it always will. I am sure that there are master trusts now that are already concerned about what that means and will not want to commit to being part of a panel or carousel of providers which will always guarantee to accept the transfer of members. They may consider the unknown future exposure to costs or the liability for the administrative errors or failures of a failed scheme too unpalatable. They may want to cherry pick, leaving a less-profitable section of the members stranded. It is not difficult to imagine the sorts of problems that could occur. The Government cannot assume that the increase in scale achieved from accepting a transfer of members from a failed trust is a sufficient incentive for another provider to always volunteer to rescue.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have put my name, and would like to add to the very eloquent case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake; namely that it is very important that we provide protection for members when a master trust fails and give confidence in that regard. In the event of a failure there must be a guarantee backed by the Government. While I accept that we do not expect there to be many failures, there will undoubtedly be some. Therefore, it is necessary to provide protection for that eventuality. This amendment would provide a fall-back position when every other avenue has been exhausted.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 6, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Bakewell. This is a valuable opportunity for us to discuss member protection, which is clearly at the heart of the Bill and the master trust authorisation regime.
It is not clear why an amendment has been tabled that would require the Secretary of State to make provision for a scheme funder of last resort should a master trust have insufficient resources to meet the cost of complying with the duties arising from a triggering event and to cover the cost of running the scheme on. I simply do not believe this issue requires such a sledge-hammer given all the mitigations against this risk which the Bill introduces, to which I will return briefly later on. The intention behind the amendment is a lingering concern that a failing scheme might not be able to cover the cost of transferring its members’ accrued rights out. However, to require the Secretary of State to provide for a scheme funder of last resort would be a costly and disproportionate response. Unfortunately, the amendment does not provide any details of how such a scheme might be achieved at reasonable cost. It would appear to require quite large-scale infrastructural change—the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, mentioned the idea of creating an institution with a PSO. There would need to be transparency in the schemes to which the facility would apply, and we would need to prevent any moral hazard in its application.
I am aware that schemes have failed in the past, and I understand that in some cases these failures have proven expensive to resolve. However, those failures have almost entirely occurred in schemes offering defined benefit pensions. The risks in those types of schemes are very different and the complexity of their structures can make them much more difficult to wind up than a master trust offering defined contribution benefits. If a defined benefit scheme which has been operating for a long time fails, it is much more likely that it will be more time-consuming and expensive for that scheme to close than it would be for a master trust scheme. In the case of master trusts, the noble Lords have inadvertently blown the risk out of proportion.
On the mitigations I mentioned earlier, the Bill contains a raft of measures which address the same risks that the amendment is seeking to address. The financial sustainability requirement is a key risk mitigation as, among other things, it requires schemes to satisfy the Pensions Regulator that they have sufficient financial resources to comply with their continuity strategy in Clauses 20 to 33 and to run on, following a triggering event. On application for authorisation to operate, a master trust must satisfy the regulator that it has sufficient financial resources, and post-authorisation the regulator has an ongoing duty to monitor the scheme to ensure that it continues to be financially sustainable.
In carrying out its supervisory role the regulator will assess the amount of money that the scheme requires to meet its costs, taking account of its size, the assumptions set out in its business plan, the available assets and the financial strength of the scheme funder. Furthermore, to ensure that any resources are available at the point of need, a regulation-making power enables the Secretary of State to specify requirements that the scheme funder must meet in relation to the assets, capital or liquidity. This power might be used to require certain funds to be put aside and only accessible for specific purposes, and to impose requirements about the liquidity of any capital so that it is easily realisable. Should a scheme fail, Clause 33 prevents the trustees from increasing the charges paid by members during the event-triggering period, so members’ pension pots are protected.
To prevent schemes winding up with the records in disarray and without the financial resource to put things right, one of the authorisation criteria requires schemes to satisfy the regulator that they have appropriate administration systems and processes such as record management, IT systems, and resource planning. Schemes will be subject to regular monitoring.
To pick up the specific concern mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about the impact of an IT system failure on a scheme’s records, the requirement is for appropriate systems and processes, including back-up systems. The Pensions Regulator has not so far come across a master trust experiencing a computer failure; in practice, failures have been due to schemes not being financially viable.
Finally, it is inappropriate for the Government to intervene in the market by making provision for a scheme funder of last resort. First, such an intervention might undermine member protection by creating a moral hazard that disincentivised schemes from protecting their members. Secondly, if the Secretary of State were required to make provision for a scheme funder of last resort, this could disrupt the normal operation of the market by deterring other master trusts, or scheme funders, from retaining public confidence in master trusts and rescuing a failing scheme. We already know of some master trusts that have been consolidated by being taken over by others. In the extreme, the taxpayer could end up having to pick up the tab for failed schemes. However, the essential argument is that Clause 33 protects members’ savings from being used to pay for the costs of winding up or transferring. With that explanation in mind, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
I now turn to Amendment 23, which may provide some redress for my views on Amendment 6. This amendment introduces a new clause relating to compensation for fraud, and it may provide some mitigation for noble Lords’ concerns. In addition to protecting members’ interests through the master trust authorisation regime, we are ensuring, through the introduction of this new clause, that members in master trust schemes are protected from the risk of fraud. It will allow regulations to be made that modify the provisions on fraud compensation in the Pensions Act 2004 so that they can be more applicable to master trusts and to any other occupational pension schemes to which all or some of the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill apply.
At present, fraud compensation payments can be made to occupational pension schemes where certain conditions are met. These conditions include that the value of the scheme’s assets has been reduced and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that this has been due to dishonesty. Also, all the employers in relation to the scheme must have gone out of business or the businesses must be unlikely to continue as going concerns.
Master trust schemes are occupational pension schemes, and we think it is right that they should qualify for fraud compensation payments and that their members should be entitled to this protection in the same way as members in other occupational pension schemes. However, as master trusts are used, or are intended to be used, by multiple employers who do not need a connection to each other, they would be likely to have difficulty meeting that last condition on the insolvency of all the participating employers. Therefore, our intention is that regulations will remove this employer insolvency requirement for master trusts and add other conditions to make fraud compensation more suitable for these types of schemes. These regulations would, of course, be subject to consultation, which would allow us to engage with stakeholders in developing them.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will feel that on balance he has moved somewhat ahead in respect of these amendments.
Baroness Drake
I thank the Minister for his response and will address some of the arguments he put. The amendment does not introduce a sledge-hammer: it leaves the provision to the Secretary of State. It does not require a large infrastructure to deliver such a provision. It can be as straightforward as requiring master trusts to have tail-end risk insurance. It can use a precedent that is used in many other areas of identifying a provider or operator who carries the public service—
Lord Freud
I should make it clear to the noble Baroness that we looked closely at tail-end risk insurance. It works within the legislation and the regulator can accept it. We have not made it a major issue at this stage because, at the moment, no such insurance is available in the market. That may change, of course.
Baroness Drake
Perhaps I may finish my point. I understand what the Minister has described but is he saying that the Government will consider a provision such as tail-end risk insurance?
Lord Freud
I am saying that the clause is carefully drafted to allow tail-end insurance as part of the capital adequacy when the regulator looks at what is required. We are not in a position to do any more at this stage because that particular insurance is not available in the market. It may well become available in the market as people see the requirement.
Baroness Drake
I come back to my point that I am seeking not to tie the Government down to a particular provision or how they choose to interpret it, but to answer the question that no Government or regulator can guarantee that they can remove all risk of regulatory failure. In the Bill at the moment—unless the Minister wishes to contradict me—I can find no provision as to where responsibility would fall in the event of such failure occurring and there is not the funding to deal with the wind-up and the transfer.
I do not accept that it increases the chances of moral hazard. The Bill gives the regulators considerable power to set tough requirements. Indeed, the whole purpose of the regime is to address the moral hazard of introducing a profit motive into a trust-based arrangement. The existing regulation and legislation does not deal with that. However much we iteratively discuss this—I welcome the Minister contradicting me—in the event of a regulatory failure and a trust that does not have the means to finance wind-up, there is nothing in the Bill to show how a member is protected.
Lord Freud
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for inviting me to intervene again. Under the Bill, if there are costs, they will not fall on the members, so who is she trying to protect? As to my point about the sledge-hammer, if we could have found tail-end insurance, which the noble Baroness mentioned, it would have been cheaper. Other ways that I can think of are quite expensive. It is not appropriate to suggest a solution that is not available.
Baroness Drake
The Government are asserting that the costs will not fall on the member because they have put in place a prohibition to say that the costs will not fall on the member. However, if the member is in a master trust of some size which has to go into wind-up, and there are not the resources to deal with that wind-up, there is no answer to the question of who will bear the costs. An answer has to be given, and this amendment is asking the Government to put in place a provision to give effect to that prohibition and say that there will be an alternative provision to ensure that the costs do not fall on the member. I do not believe that the Minister has answered the questions. There are millions of people with potentially billions-worth of assets under the regime, and this is a fundamental question which remains unanswered.
Lord Freud
The noble Baroness has been so generous and I will take the opportunity to go over this because it is slightly back to front from normal. This is not like a defined benefit scheme worth billions of pounds which are at severe risk. This is about the costs of moving the money that is attached to individual people to another master trust. It is a completely different order of risk. I know that she is coloured by what she has seen in the defined benefit world, but this is quite different. It is a much smaller risk. As I have said, in any case the costs do not fall on the members and the mitigation issue is disproportionate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will pursue this point because, unless the Minister can give a categorical assurance, this is the only way to ensure that the Government take the issue seriously and pursue a remedy that is appropriate to the risk that she has outlined.
Baroness Drake
I thank my noble friend for her support. I am not coloured by the defined benefit experience at all because I am quite capable of distinguishing between the two. I am sure that I understand the risk posed in this draft legislation. However, I come back to the point. The Government may wish to assert that the costs of winding-up and transferring could be considerable if the records are in disarray, if no master trust is willing to pick up the pieces, or if other problems occur. The Government can assert as a matter of policy that the costs will not fall on the member, but there is nothing in this Bill to copper-bottom that they will not. I feel that the Minister has not answered that question. I am not proposing a sledge-hammer and I am not tying the Government’s hand, but they must introduce a provision which states that if the policy is to prohibit increasing members’ costs when a wind-up after a failure occurs, in extremis if there is regulatory failure that provision will come into effect. I am not persuaded by the Minister’s reply and on that basis I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Freud
“( ) The first regulations that are made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 10 in this group. Amendment 9 takes us back to scheme funder requirements, which we debated in Committee.
Our concerns expressed at that time were about the rigid nature of the provisions requiring a scheme funder to be constituted as a separate legal entity and for the activities of such entities to be restricted to the particular master trust. Our concerns remain, and in particular include representations made to us that preventing a single provider supporting more than one master trust could inhibit consolidation and the ability to rescue failing schemes. Further, where the scheme funder is currently part of a wider, well-capitalised legal entity—perhaps an FCA and PRA-authorised insurer—to force a restructuring could weaken and not improve the position of the funder.
Our original amendment was to delete the requirement for the scheme funder to be a separate legal entity and to carry out activities only for the master trust, replacing this with a requirement that the scheme funder should be approved by the Pensions Regulator. The Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Young—rejected this approach, arguing that it would make it more difficult for the regulator to obtain transparency on the financial position of the funder and its financial arrangements with the master trust. Our revised amendment therefore requires that the scheme funder be constituted and carry out its activities in a manner that enables its financial position and the financial arrangements between it and the master trust to be transparent to the regulator. It sits alongside the regulations that will set out the requirements of the scheme funder accounts. It may well be that some will choose the existing formulation of the Bill to do this. Others may have a different approach, especially if they are existing trusts. However, they must satisfy the regulator as to the transparency of the arrangements. Moreover, they must continue to satisfy the regulator on this point.
On 21 November, the Minister in the House of Lords, at Hansard col. 1789, rejected the idea that the Bill’s existing requirements placed restrictions on shared services or would lead to the disruption of existing business. The requirements are apparently not designed to require the unpicking of any shared service agreements. We suggest that this analysis is suspect. From what the Minister said, it would seem perfectly possible for a scheme funder to receive a charge from a group or associated company for services it has received, presumably with an arm’s-length profit uplift, but not for the scheme funder to make a charge for services it has rendered, with or without uplift, because this would be outwith Clause 10(3)(b). If the issue is transparency, what assurances are received by an incoming group charge which cannot be obtained in respect of an outflow?
Shared service agreements do not necessarily arise by all costs originating in one entity that are then allocated across a group. Individual companies might bear costs, all or part of which are contributed to a pool and then reallocated across all or some of the group entities, and there may be a changing pattern from year to year. Incidentally, whereas in the Government’s formulation a scheme funder may not charge for services to another company, associated or otherwise, it seems there is nothing to inhibit the flow of dividends upstream. Is this right? What is the position of a scheme funder which provides a guarantee to another entity? Is the provision of a guarantee an “activity” for the purposes of Clause 10(3)(b) or not?
It is important that these group flows are transparent—we accept that. But the assertion that the regulator’s task is easy when dealing with inward group flows but more difficult for outward flows from the very entity that is being regulated seems difficult to sustain. The Minister said that he expected costs allocated to master trusts to be transparent to the regulator through the business plan accounts and other related documents. If transparency can be achieved in this manner for inflows, why not outflows from the scheme funder, or indeed for it having more than one business line?
Of course, we accept and support the significance of the scheme funder in these arrangements and the importance of being clear as to its financial strength. However, as outlined already, are not the Government in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water in circumstances where a scheme is funded by an FCA-regulated entity with the robust capital requirements that this entails? Further, the Government have yet to answer how the clause currently works in circumstances where the master trust provides benefits other than money purchase benefits. If there were any activities carried out for non-money purchase benefits, which seems inevitable, the scheme funder would appear to fall outside the definition of a “separate legal entity”. Is this correct?
The Minister is also on record as suggesting that groups of companies are used to restructuring their statutory accounting arrangements to reflect changes in focus. That may be true, but it does not mean that it can inevitably be achieved without costs, especially taxation, if non-group entities are involved.
We look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Flight, on Amendments 11 and 12, the thrust of which appears to enable a scheme funder to carry on other activities, as well as those for the master trust, although these must be disclosed to the regulator for the purposes of assessing financial sustainability. If they have the effect of allowing the scheme funder to carry on the scheme and other activities, but with the obligation to disclose, we will indeed be making good progress on the issue.
Finally, can the Minister say whether Clause 39 could be used to carve out certain schemes from the requirements of Clause 10? Do the Government have any plans to do this, and what types of schemes might be involved if they do? Although we are on Report, the scheme funder provisions remain troublesome, with many unanswered issues. We urge the Government to take this away for another go at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 11 and 12 in my name seek broadly the same objective as that of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and would enable a funder to do other things but subject to the regulator having to approve them. The fundamental issue here for the insurance industry is that the funder being a separate entity does not really work. The Bill will introduce additional cost for master trusts offered by insurers, potentially to the detriment of existing scheme members, as these schemes already operate under stringent FCA and PRA regulation.
As noble Lords will know, a number of insurers offer master trusts to members in addition to group personal pensions and alongside other business lines. Insurers currently manage risks across a number of product lines and they all operate under stringent FCA and PRA regulation. It seems to me that members of master trust schemes used for automatic enrolment should meet high solvency and reporting standards but that the Bill should not introduce additional requirements on master trusts offered by insurers where suitable protections are already in place.
The key concern is the definition of a scheme funder as set out in Clause 10, which specifies that it,
“must be constituted as a separate legal entity”,
and must not carry on any other activities. The Government have stated that the purpose of this clause is to better enable the Pensions Regulator to assess the financial sustainability of the scheme by increasing transparency of the assets, liabilities, costs and income of the master trust. I do not really see that Clause 10, by itself, meets the policy intent of providing the transparency to assess the financial sustainability of a master trust, since as a “separate legal entity” it can still transfer risk to other entities.
A key benefit of a master trust being part of a wider and well-capitalised legal entity is that the scheme can, if necessary, draw upon this capital. Members of master trust schemes offered by insurers currently benefit from this additional security. Many of the ABI’s members view this as a key selling point to employers who have chosen their master trust schemes. It is fortunate that the Bill will be moving on to the other place because I would ask the Government to continue negotiations with the insurance industry on this point, either with a view to satisfying it that the Government are right or to accepting its views. It is not entirely satisfactory if the key provider industry is not comfortable with this issue. This does not go into territory which I would personally want to put to a vote, but it needs further discussion with the industry.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and to my noble friend Lord Flight for tabling amendments which are, in their objectives, all broadly supportive of the Government’s position: that there should be transparency about a master trust’s financial position, including the financial arrangements between it and the scheme funders and the strength of those funders, in order to support the Pensions Regulator’s financial supervision.
Amendments 9, 10 and 11 would all have a similar effect: to remove the requirement that the scheme funder,
“be constituted as a separate legal entity”,
that does not carry out any activities other than master trusts. Although they are well-intentioned, these amendments raise problems of their own. Amendments 9 and 10 would have the opposite effect to transparency, because scheme funders would be unclear as to whether the manner in which they carry out their activities and are constituted is sufficiently transparent to the regulator for the purpose of its financial supervision. This is partly because the arrangements between scheme funders and master trusts will vary enormously across schemes. Amendments 9 and 10 would, by removing much of the substance of the scheme funder requirement in Clause 10, make it more difficult for the regulator to assess compliance and make its financial supervision of the scheme more challenging.
Following the exchange in Committee, we have explored this issue further, but the Government and, more importantly, the Pensions Regulator believe that ensuring transparency about the status of the financial arrangements between the master trust funder and the master trust is essential to this new regime and to the regulator’s assessment of the financial sustainability of the scheme. The requirement to be a separate legal entity achieves this objective. I do not pretend that this is not without cost to some insurance companies—a point that was raised earlier—but the alternative provided by this amendment is not equipping the regulator to make a key decision that could impact on the security of thousands of scheme members.
Amendment 12 may be technically flawed because Clause 8 relates to the financial sustainability of the scheme, not of the scheme funder. It is worth noting that the regulator can assess the financial strength of the scheme funder through its accounts, required under Clause 14, in any event. The Government believe that the most clear and straightforward way to achieve the desired level of financial transparency is through the requirement in Clause 10 for the scheme funder to be set up as a separate legal entity whose only activities relate to the master trust. This will also protect the interests of master trust scheme members. However, this does not prevent scheme funders, such as insurance companies, operating other lines of business through another vehicle.
I was asked whether a scheme funder can support more than one master trust. A scheme funder can support more than one master trust by setting up separate legal entities for each scheme. On the question of whether there is anything in the Bill to inhibit the flow of dividends from the scheme funder outwards, the Bill does not impose any direct restrictions on the flow of dividends from or to a scheme funder, so long as the scheme is financially sustainable. The noble Lord also asked whether the provision of a guarantee by a scheme funder is an activity which the clause prohibits. A scheme funder can provide a guarantee in respect of the master trust to which it is the scheme funder.
It may be that the amendments are intended to address certain underlying concerns: first, about the cost of corporate restructuring to meet the requirement to be a separate legal entity; and secondly, about double regulation, an issue that was raised in Committee. The practical and legal requirements for setting up a business entity should not of themselves be burdensome. It is quick and easy to incorporate a company in the UK, and the Government make a company’s ongoing filing requirements as simple as possible to comply with. However, we recognise that, to meet this requirement, some companies offering master trusts among other lines of business would have to undergo corporate restructuring. To address this, we are working with key stakeholders to develop a proportionate approach to regulation that minimises the burden on business without undermining the Pensions Regulator’s ability financially to supervise schemes through transparent financial structures and reporting.
Noble Lords may recall from earlier debates that the financial sustainability requirements that master trusts have to meet in order to operate have been developed to address the specific risks faced by the members of master trusts. However, if we identify an overlap between our requirements and those of other regulatory regimes, the Secretary of State has a regulation-making power in Clause 8 that can require the regulator to take those regulatory requirements into account when assessing whether a scheme is financially sustainable. We believe that power to be sufficiently flexible to prescribe, for instance, that if the scheme funder has an enforceable guarantee from a financially sound parent company, such as one that meets the PRA’s capital requirements, the regulator must take that into account when assessing whether the scheme has sufficient resources to meet the specified costs. Let me re-emphasise our commitment to proportionate regulation, striking an appropriate balance between member protection and minimising the burdens on business. We are working with key stakeholders to ensure that we understand their concerns.
Noble Lords also expressed related concerns about how the requirement for a separate scheme funder in Clause 10 applies to master trust schemes that offer both money purchase and non-money purchase benefits, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, a few moments ago. Noble Lords have highlighted the interaction of that requirement with the provision in Clause 1 that the provisions are to be taken to refer to the master trust,
“only to the extent that it provides money purchase benefits”.
My noble friend and I have had productive conversations with noble Lords opposite in the past week, although not as productive as they would have liked. I expect those to continue. The team at the DWP is looking at all options that are open to us, but at this stage I regret I cannot commit to a timetable, nor can I commit to returning to the issue before Third Reading. However, noble Lords should be reassured of our very firm intention to take further action during the passage of the Bill.
I hope that the points I have made are sufficient to explain why the Government are of the view that these amendments would not be appropriate, and that the noble Lord will feel sufficiently reassured not to press them.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his response to the amendments. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that we end up with the same objectives and the same analysis about what we want to achieve, if with a slightly different way of going about it. However, I am disappointed with the response from the noble Lord, Lord Young. I am not sure whether he specifically dealt with the point about whether Clause 39 could be used to carve out some of the schemes in some of the circumstances we have particular concerns about, and, if so, which of those schemes could be the subject of that carve-out. That might be one route to partially addressing some of the problems. I do not know whether the noble Lord wants to come in.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance he has just asked for.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I was not asking for an assurance but for an answer.
Lord Young of Cookham
The regulations in Clause 39 give the flexibility the noble Lord has just asked for.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord, but would be interested in knowing how they might be used and in the Government’s intent, because potentially that gives a route to addressing some of the issues we are concerned with. I regret also that the Government are not yet in a position to answer the question about non-money purchase benefits. This has been on the table for a little while and seems to me to be a straightforward tactical issue which has one of two answers: either it can be made to work or it does not work, in which case I suggest there is quite a serious flaw in the structure of these provisions.
We understand that to help the regulator get maximum clarity on transparency, there needs to be a separate vehicle which only provides activities to the master trust, but it seems to me that the Government are not putting into the balance the consequences of going down that route. As the noble Lord himself I think acknowledged, the consequences could include a restructuring of a group, which might have costs. It certainly could include disruption of all the shared services arrangements, and again I do not think we have the answers to why the Government believe it is okay to have shared services charged into a company which is providing activities to the master trust but not in the other direction. It seems to me the same level of transparency could effectively be made available to both.
If there is any comfort in this, it is that there appears to be some ongoing dialogue with the industry. I think we can be comforted by that, but it is a great pity that the Bill leaves us with this provision, which has been seen as a bone of contention for a long time and was flagged up some time ago. Frankly, the issues is completely unresolved. I am tempted to test the opinion of the House, but it is Christmas. We are a long way from achieving clarity on this issue, but in the circumstances I do not think dividing would achieve very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
“( ) The first regulations that are made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord Freud
“( ) The first regulations that are made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord Freud
“( ) The first regulations that are made under subsection (3) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall also speak to our other amendments in this group, Amendments 20, 21 and 22. They take us back to another issue that we discussed in Committee: the substitution of a new scheme funder where a triggering event has occurred. Depending on the circumstances, one of two continuity options has to be pursued. Continuity option 1 requires the transfer out and winding up of the scheme, while option 2 involves an attempt to resolve the triggering event. At present, continuity option 1 is mandatory on the trustees where certain of the more significant triggering events are involved. These are where the Pensions Regulator issues a warning or determination notice concerning decisions to withdraw a scheme’s authorisation, or where a notification that the scheme is not authorised has been given.
In Committee we pursued an argument to the effect that the Pensions Regulator should be enabled to cause the matter to be resolved by the replacement of the scheme funder. We argued that transferring the responsibility for a master trust to a new scheme funder could provide a quick answer to a collapsing master trust, costing less and helping members because it keeps the scheme intact and avoids unnecessary investment transition costs and expenses for Members. This has been acknowledged by the Government. However, the Minister rejected our amendments, particularly on the grounds that it was the role of trustees to run and manage schemes. They have the fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of members and should not be second-guessed by the regulator in this regard.
The Minister asserted that the outcome of substituting a new scheme funder was available to the trustees under continuity option 2, subject to the full requirements of adoption including the preparation of a comprehensive implementation strategy. We accept that as far as it goes, and agree that the substitution of a new scheme funder can be a way of resolving the triggering event. However, it does not provide a route where option 1 is mandatory on the trustees. That is why our Amendment 19 would allow for a new scheme funder to be put in place under option 1, in accordance with regulations to be added to the long list included in Clause 24(4) under our Amendment 21. Amendment 22 would require the submission of an implementation strategy.
We have heard from the Government no good reason why the substitute scheme funder route should not be available for all triggering events, although the Government may argue that for triggering events one to three, matters are likely to be more serious than for a change in a scheme funder to be the way forward. Will the Minister confirm that he would routinely expect the regulation around option 2, including the substitute funder, to be considered before the regulator formally moves to withdraw authorisation?
Amendment 20 is a rerun of a debate in Committee, and on rereading Hansard we consider the matter sufficiently covered. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
I shall take the opportunity to go through the matter of transfers because there has been a lot of discussion of it and this at the heart of it. I will pick up what we did in Committee, where the amendment from my noble friend Lord Flight referred to automatic transfers. I confirm that we will look to revisit automatic transfers once the market has absorbed the recent reforms.
The next issue was that we announced in 2016 that we would ensure that the pensions industry launched the pensions dashboard, which would allow people to see in one place their retirement savings from across the industry, which they could consolidate, and the Government would support the industry in doing that.
We then moved on to touch on transfers between default funds—for example, where a trustee may wish to move members out of an old default fund into a new one because they think the old fund is not offering value for money. There, we were concerned whether members might get left behind. This would be for the trustees to consider and act on under their fiduciary duty, not for legislation.
Then we had issues about bulk transfers in place at the moment, which require an employer connection and an actuarial certificate. There, I confirm again that we would have a call for evidence to consider the potential changes to DC to DC transfers. The last point that we visited was about the transfer from a master trust which is failing. Again, I confirm that where a scheme is acting under option 1 following a triggering event, the Bill applies, not the current provision under legislation relating to bulk transfer without member consent.
I think that sets a useful context for consideration of the amendments. Amendment 20 makes two additions to what will be covered by the regulations that must be made under Clause 24. Clause 24 sets out the detail of continuity option 1 and the requirements. In this situation, the clause requires that the trustee must identify one or more master trusts to which members’ rights must be transferred. The regulation-making power set out a number of matters connected with how this process should work. The intent is for members to be able to continue to save with as little disruption as possible and to protect the rights that they have accrued.
The regulator is aware of the need for schemes to be available that have been authorised into which members can be transferred. Experience to date has shown that there are good-quality schemes in the market. From our discussions with both master trusts and pension industry bodies, we are aware that they are keen to demonstrate the reliability of master trusts and for members to have confidence in them as a vehicle for pension saving, and there are therefore likely to be some available to take in transfers. For many master trusts, making themselves available to take a transfer would offer the opportunity to take in a number of members that they have not had to actively source—clearly, they get the benefits of scale.
Employers and members also have reassurance provided by NEST. Although a master trust could not itself do a direct bulk transfer to NEST—as the employer must first establish a connection with NEST—an employer could chose to sign up to NEST and move its workers across. NEST is required to admit any employer and any worker enrolled by the employer to meet its automatic enrolment duties.
The master trust industry has expressed an interest in developing its own panel of providers to assist with addressing situations where a master trust fails. Although we cannot guarantee that there will be a large number of master trusts looking to take on members of any failed master trust, we are confident that there is adequate provision within the market overall.
The second part of Amendment 20 would require that regulations made under Clause 24 set out what would happen to any non-money purchase benefits where a master trust which has mixed benefits was going to transfer the money-purchase benefits out of the scheme and cease to operate in respect of those benefits. We do not believe that that is necessary. We have been careful to design the master trust authorisation to target the risks to money-purchase benefits in these structures.
Therefore, if authorisation is withdrawn from a master trust which offers mixed benefits, it will be required to stop operating in relation to the money-purchase benefits only. It may still continue to operate in respect of the non-money purchase benefits if it is compliant with the relevant requirements of the non-money purchase benefit regime.
Where the scheme as a whole is winding up, existing provisions governing how non-money purchase benefits are to be discharged will apply to those benefits. That is clearly an issue of avoiding duplication.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the regulator can decide to encourage the scheme to substitute the scheme funder where this is appropriate, and before it moves to withdraw authorisation. The flexibility is there. Adding on the requirement that one option must be looked at before the other would probably reduce flexibility.
Amendments 19, 21 and 22 seek to make provision that continuity option 1 also allows for the substitution of a new scheme funder. Clause 23 sets out the two continuity options that must be pursued by trustees when a master trust has a triggering event. Unless authorisation has been withdrawn or refused, trustees will have a choice as to which continuity option they pursue. Clause 24 describes continuity option 1. Continuity option 2, under Clause 25, is when a master trust resolves its triggering event itself. The legislation does not specify how the event can be resolved, which is deliberate. It means that it encompasses a wide range of options, including the substitution of a new scheme funder. The trustees have the freedom to choose how best to resolve the event their scheme has had.
Clause 26 sets out the duty on the trustees to submit an implementation strategy to the regulator. Our aim is that members continue to save in a pension. Under continuity option 1, the situation is such that to protect members’ rights it is necessary that the scheme transfer these rights out and wind up. The event that led to continuity option 1 will often not be about the scheme funder, so a new scheme funder would not rectify the issue. If the Pensions Regulator has had to withdraw authorisation, a new scheme funder will not be the right response. It is likely the regulator will have ensured the trustees considered this at an earlier stage. Under continuity option 2 the aim is that the triggering event is resolved.
The amendments seek to provide that continuity option 1 also covers the substitution of a new scheme funder, which seems to be a misunderstanding of what is provided in the Bill and would cut across how the two options are intended to work. Where the trustees have the choice about which to pursue, they can try to resolve it. Identifying a new scheme funder is just one of the ways to get that resolution. We do not want to limit schemes’ options which is why we did not list particular solutions. The substitution of a new scheme funder already comes within continuity option 2 and its process.
We agree that where a master trust has experienced a triggering event, a new scheme funder could be identified, and could be the most appropriate resolution of a triggering event. This should be an option open to the trustees. That is why we have made the provision for continuity option 2. Continuity option 1 is solely about transfer out and wind up. The amendments would cut across the way in which the options and indeed, the regime as a whole, works in the Bill. With these explanations I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting the context and picking up on some of our previous debate on transfers. The purpose of the amendment was to test whether it is possible to have a replacement of a scheme funder when you are in the triggering circumstances that take you into continuity option 1. As it stands, if you are in continuity 1 processes, you have to follow the route of transfer and wind-up; you cannot have a replacement scheme funder. The purpose of the probe is to try to understand why that is. One route to deal with it is that, before getting to a triggering event, 1, 2 or 3, the regulator will have a process with trustees and there can be a nudge which takes us into continuity 2. I understand that, but I think the Minister has confirmed that if it is just straight continuity then that is it, you have no hope of having a replacement scheme funder. I am still a little unclear as to why that would be so.
I think the noble Lord said that substituting new scheme funders would not generally be appropriate given the state of the scheme, so it has to be addressed by these other arrangements. But that does not mean that there would not be arrangements where that could be entirely appropriate. So I think that there is still a bit of a gap in the Bill. However, having said that, I think that we have given it a good airing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
“Fraud compensation
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify sections 182 to 187 of the Pensions Act 2004 (fraud compensation) as they apply in relation to—(a) Master Trust schemes;(b) schemes to which some or all of the provisions of this Part apply by virtue of section 39.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.”
Lord Freud
“(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential upon any provision of this Part.(3) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke any provision of—(a) an Act passed before or in the same session as this Act;(b) subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978) made before the passing of this Act.(4) Regulations under this section that contain provision mentioned in subsection (3)(a) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.(5) Otherwise, regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.”
Baroness Drake
Baroness Drake
My Lords, there are four key references to administration charges in this Bill: Clauses 12 and 27, the continuity and implementation strategies for addressing how members’ interests will be protected in a triggering event; Clause 33, the prohibition on increasing members’ charges during a triggering event period; and Clause 40, the statutory override power of any term of a relevant contract on administration charges.
The power of the Secretary of State and the regulator to demand information on, and intervene on, the level of administrative charges, is a key part of the armoury in this Bill for protecting members’ pots. Clause 38 gives a definition of administration charges: that it,
“has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014”.
That schedule relates to the power of the Secretary of State to prohibit or cap administrative charges, as illustrated by the 0.75% cap on charges, excluding transaction costs, on workplace pension scheme default investment funds. But there appears no explicit reference to transaction costs in the definition of administrative charges in paragraph 1 of Schedule 18 to the 2014 Act, and no explicit reference to transaction costs in Clause 38.
The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that any reference to administration charges in this Bill can include transaction costs, so ensuring that the Secretary of State and the Pensions Regulator have the fullest powers of intervention needed to fully protect members’ charges in master trusts. The transaction costs are an important determinant of the net return into the saver’s pot.
In recent weeks, including since this Bill was introduced into the House, three reports have been published. One addressed disclosure of transaction costs and two provided sustained evidence of continuing dysfunction and weak competition in the pensions and asset management industry. On 5 October 2016, the FCA published a consultation paper proposing rules to improve the disclosure of transaction costs in workplace pensions. Given the potential for multiple parties to be involved in managing pension investments and for transaction costs to be incurred at different levels, the FCA considers it essential that any rules of disclosure,
“enable the flow of information to the governance bodies of those schemes”.
It proposes that all those managing investments should report administration charges and transaction costs to pension schemes and intends to publish its rules in the second quarter of 2017.
On 13 December, the DWP and FCA published their joint review of industry progress in remedying poor-value workplace pensions, following the 2013 OFT report that revealed that more than 333,000 members of workplace pension schemes were still suffering annual management charges in excess of 1%. The review also found that most providers had not fully reviewed the impact of transaction costs in their value-for-money assessments and had no immediate plans for such a fuller review. Providers using in-house investment management services were singled out for particular criticism.
In November, the FCA published its Asset Management Market Study interim report, which provided a hard-hitting critique of the “sustained, high profits” that the industry has earned from savers and pension funds over the years—fund management firms, which three in four British households rely upon to manage their pensions.
The remedies proposed by the FCA include requiring investment managers to adopt an all-inclusive single charge for everything; an up-front estimate of transaction costs; and raising the fiduciary bar for the general obligation to treat customers fairly to a new requirement to act in the best interests of investors. The report also contains a withering critique of “active management”. A recent article in the FT pulled together all the adjectives deployed by the FCA:
“Underperforming, overpaid, too profitable, too expensive, too opaque, too unaccountable and too conflicted”.
The report is quite extraordinary. It compares the net return on a £20,000 investment over 20 years to show the impact of charges. Assuming the same return before charges, in a typical low-cost, passive fund, an investor would earn £9,455 more on a £20,000 investment than an investor in a typical active fund. This figure rises to £14,439 once transaction costs have been taken into account. In an exquisite example of laconic drafting, the FCA reports:
“We find that there is no clear relationship between price and performance—the most expensive funds do not appear to perform better than other funds before or after costs”.
The report makes it clear that seemingly small differences in fees and transaction costs can lead to significant losses for investors over time but finds that more than half of ordinary investors are still unaware that they were paying fund charges, let alone what they are.
I hope that the Government will force a pace on transparency and act to control unfair fees and transaction costs incurred by people who are saving, often through their workplace pensions, and an increasing number through these master trusts. But insofar as the Bill addresses the authorisation, supervision and resolution regime for master trusts, this amendment makes it clear that any reference to administration charges in any provision in the Bill can include transaction charges, so ensuring that the Secretary of State and the Pensions Regulator have the fullest powers of intervention needed to protect members’ savings in master trusts, particularly during triggering event periods. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the effect of Amendment 25 would be to widen the definition of administration charges for the purposes of Part 1 of the Bill, so that it is capable of including transaction costs. It may be helpful if I explain that we considered the inclusion of transaction costs when developing this policy. We concluded that the provision that has been made in the Bill under Clause 33, including prohibiting an increase in administration charge levels after a triggering event, was sufficient to minimise the risks faced by savers in master trust schemes.
The term “administration charges” may prompt Peers to believe that the prohibition in Clause 33 applies to only a narrow range of costs and charges faced by members. This is not so. Among the charges intended to be caught by the administration charge definition are fees on set-up, entry, exit, and regular and ad hoc fees paid not only to administrators but also many fees paid to governance bodies, regulators, asset managers, investment consultants, lawyers, accountants, auditors, valuers, bankers, custody banks, platform providers and shareholder service providers.
In the majority of cases, trustees do not currently have access to information about transaction costs. Including them within the scope of the prohibition under Clause 33, therefore, would place many trustees in a difficult position. I can assure noble Lords that we acknowledge the need for improved transparency and understanding by trustees about the transaction costs which the members of their schemes will bear.
Noble Lords will remember that, during the passage of the Pensions Act 2014, my department accepted a legal duty to make regulations requiring that transaction costs would be given to members of occupational pension schemes and be published. The Financial Conduct Authority took similar duties with regard to workplace personal pensions at the same time. Again, I acknowledge and thank my noble friend Lord Lawson for his input into the process of developing that part of the Act. I appreciate that some Peers may be disappointed that we have not yet discharged that duty, but in mitigation I should explain that there has never been a single agreed definition of transaction costs nor a way of calculating them. We have made progress in defining transaction costs, but until recently we made less progress on a way of calculating them. This is because many transaction costs are not explicit costs which appear on a scheme’s balance sheet but implicit “frictional” costs from trading, which need to be calculated. The wide variety of approaches to calculating transaction costs are not simply disputes about the odd one-hundredth of a percent but quite significant differences in methodology, which can result in transaction costs differing by a factor of five.
We clearly need to ensure that trustees of occupational schemes and the independent governance committees of workplace personal pension providers have complete, consistent and standardised cost and charges information before they can report it to members; at this point, they do not. The key stepping stone to putting this information into the hands of trustees and independent governance committees was laid down when the Financial Conduct Authority published in October of this year a consultation on proposals requiring asset managers to disclose information about transaction costs to trustees, and a detailed methodology for calculating those costs. Following the outcome of the FCA’s consultation, we currently plan to consult on the publication and onward disclosure of costs and charges to members in 2017. In conclusion on this point, I can assure Peers that we remain wholly committed to discharging this duty in the course of this Parliament. We want pension scheme members to have sight of all costs and charges, regardless of how they are incurred, and to give members the confidence that there are no other hidden costs and charges.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made us aware of the interim findings of the FCA’s Asset Management Market Study, published last month, which found weak competition in the market and proposed remedies through the introduction of an all-in charge and standardised disclosures to all investors. These are timely findings, because noble Lords may also be aware that the Government announced this month that they would be examining the level of the 0.75% charge cap on administration charges in the default funds of schemes used for automatic enrolment and whether some or all transaction costs should be covered by the cap. This work will be undertaken in 2017 as part of the review of automatic enrolment. It will involve comprehensive engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, including asset managers, which will be important given the potentially complex nature of transaction costs. The outcome of the 2017 exercise will help to determine whether there is a need to amend the definition of administration charges in Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014, and at that point we will consider whether we should also cover transaction costs in the master trust legislation.
I reassure noble Lords that in practice we do not believe that transaction costs are a loophole that will be exploited to drive up charges to the detriment of members. Noble Lords will be aware that the vast majority of defined contribution pension schemes, including master trusts, are invested via investment platforms in pooled funds in which the trustees of the scheme will be just one among many investors. Given this pooled and intermediated nature of pension fund investments, it is highly unlikely that a triggering event experienced by just one of the investors in the fund would drive up the ongoing transaction costs from remaining invested in the fund. Taking these points into account, it does not appear necessary to bring transaction costs into the charge prohibition measure in the Bill.
Before I conclude, I ought to acknowledge that this is the last time I will stand before your Lordships on a Bill as a DWP Minister, although it is not quite my last appearance in the role, because we will have some fun on Wednesday discussing universal credit—I hope we will. On Third Reading in the new year, and when the Bill potentially returns to the House for further consideration after it has been looked at by the Commons, I will be leaving your Lordships in the very capable hands of my noble friend Lord Young—the junior member of the Freud/“Jung” combo. I thank him for all the support and time he has given me, and I am sure that noble Lords will continue to afford him the same courtesy and patience that has been displayed thus far.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity from these Benches to place on record our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for the engagement that we have had on pensions Bills and other Bills over many years. That engagement has always focused on data and evidence. We might have disagreed about their interpretation from time to time but the debates have always been robust. The noble Lord has been assiduous in engaging with Members across the piece, making sure that their points and concerns have been addressed and not just brushed aside.
We will have the chance to say something to the Bill team on another occasion—I hope some of us will still be here at Third Reading—and we will have another debate on Wednesday. However, we wish the noble Lord well in his retirement. I am not sure whether it will be his retirement, as I am sure he will go off to do something intellectual. We look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Young, in the future, but from the Labour Benches we express our best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Freud.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I wish to associate myself and our Benches with the comments that have already been made. We have always found the noble Lord, Lord Freud, extremely accommodating towards us as far as he has able to be so, and I will have something further to say when we come to universal credit. I have taken over this role only fairly recently but I thank the noble Lord for all the help he has given us during the passage of this Bill.
Baroness Drake
I thank the Minister for his reply. It is helpful to have his wider statement on the record because this issue of transaction costs is still very controversial. I hope that the FCA’s report increases the Government’s sense of urgency regarding the need to address this issue and to introduce regulation—notwithstanding problems with definition—with master trust regulation benefiting from that as well.
Perhaps I, too, may take the opportunity to make a personal comment because I think this is the last time that I will be talking to the Minister in his current role, although he may not be talking to me at all following the vote. When he was at the Dispatch Box, I always felt that if I had a good argument, argued it well and had a good evidential base, I had a fighting chance that, first, he would listen and, secondly, that he would see whether it was possible to accommodate my concerns. He often made me do my homework and made me work hard on occasions, but that was a fair exchange. However, if I had a good point and good evidence, I knew I would get a fair hearing. That is important in this House. It incentivises one to pursue the argument and the case because one knows that one will get a fair hearing. The Minister is a wonderful example of someone who will listen and consider the arguments.
He has always been friendly, courteous and considerate in giving access to his civil servants and information—very often so that I can improve my knowledge base and not ask awkward questions; on other occasions to fuel my knowledge base to allow me to ask awkward questions. Either way, I was grateful for that.
I hope he takes some rest and has fun—he has worked very hard and deserves some fun—and that we see him back soon, bringing his intellectual skills to the House. I thank him for the statement on charges. I shall still push on transaction charges because millions of people get a rough deal but do not know they are getting a rough deal, which is even worse. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Serious Disturbance at HM Prison Birmingham
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the serious disturbance at Her Majesty’s Prison Birmingham on Friday. I want to begin by paying tribute to the bravery and dedication of the prison officers who resolved this difficult situation. I also want to give thanks to West Midlands Police, who supported the Prison Service throughout the day, and to the ambulance crews and the fire service who also provided assistance.
This was a serious disturbance. I have ordered a full investigation and have appointed Sarah Payne—adviser to the independent Chief Inspector of Probation and former director of the Welsh Prison Service—to lead this work.
I do not want to pre-judge the outcome of the investigation. As we currently understand it, at 9.15 am on Friday at Her Majesty’s Prison Birmingham, six prisoners in N Wing climbed on to netting. When staff intervened, one of them had their keys snatched. At that point, staff withdrew for their own safety. Prisoners then gained control of the wing, and subsequently of P Wing.
G4S immediately deployed two Tornado teams. At 11:20, Gold Command was opened, and a further seven additional Tornado teams were dispatched to the prison. At 1.30 pm, prisoners gained access to two more wings. Gold Command made the decision that further reinforcements were needed and dispatched an additional four Tornado teams to the prison. At 2.35 pm, the police and Prison Service secured the perimeter of all four wings, which remained secure throughout the day. Shortly after 3 pm, there were reports of an injured prisoner. Paramedics and staff tried to intervene but were prevented from doing so by prisoners.
During the afternoon, a robust plan was prepared to take back control of the wings, minimising the risk to staff and prisoners. It is important that in this type of situation the right resources are in place before acting.
At 8.35 pm, 10 Tornado teams of highly trained officers swept through the wings. Shortly after 10 pm, the teams had secured all four wings. The prisoner who had previously been reported injured was treated by paramedics and taken to hospital, along with two other prisoners.
Throughout the day, the Prisons Minister and I chaired regular cross-government calls to make necessary preparations and ensure that the Prison Service had all the support it needed. I want to thank the Tornado teams, prison officers and emergency services for their exemplary work.
As I have said before, levels of violence are too high. We also have very concerning levels of self-harm and deaths in custody. That is why we are reforming our prisons to be safe and purposeful places and taking swift action to deal with drugs, drones and phones. It is important to remember that these problems have developed over a number of years and it will take time and concerted effort to turn the situation around. While these reforms take hold, we are continually working to reduce risk and ensure stability across the prison estate.
The Prison Service is leading Gold Command to collect intelligence, deploy resources and in particular manage the movement of prisoners. This includes managing two incidents at Hull yesterday morning which were quickly dealt with by staff. To date we have moved 380 prisoners out of Birmingham and we are continuing to assess the level of damage on the wings. The Prisons Minister chairs daily meetings with the chief executive and senior members of the Prison Service to monitor prisons for risk factors that might indicate potential violence and unrest. Where necessary, we are providing governors with immediate and targeted support ranging from extra staff and resources through to the transfer of difficult prisoners and speeding up repairs or replacements to facilities.
As we manage the current difficult situation, we are implementing our reform programme which will reduce violence and cut the £15 billion cost of reoffending, as laid out in the White Paper. In September, we rolled out tests for dangerous psychoactive drugs in prison, the first country to do so. We are rolling out new technology starting with three prisons to prevent mobile phone use. We are recruiting for a new £3 million national intelligence unit to crack down on gang crime. We are increasing staffing levels by 2,500 officers and taking steps to train and retain our valued staff. These include a new apprenticeship programme, a graduate entry scheme, fast-track promotions and retention payments; we are putting an extra £100 million into this.
We are modernising the estate with a £1.3 billion investment programme. We are also empowering governors to manage their regimes locally to get people off drugs, give them the skills they need and get them into work. Importantly, for the first time ever, in the prison and courts reform Bill next year we will be making clear that the purpose of prisons is about not just housing prisoners, but also reforming them. Together, these reforms are the right way to address the issues in our prisons so that they become purposeful places where offenders get off drugs and get the education and skills they need to find work and turn their back on crime for good.
The issues in our prisons are long-standing and are not going to be completely solved in weeks or even months. We are working to ensure that our prisons are stable while we deliver our reforms. Of course this is a major task. I am committed to this and so is the Prison Service, and I know that governors and prison officers are as well. The next few months will be difficult, but I am confident that we can turn this situation around and turn our prisons into places of safety and reform. That is my absolute priority as Secretary of State. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, another week, another crisis for our underfunded, understaffed Prison Service, this time of a magnitude unmatched since the Strangeways riots 26 years ago. They prompted the seminal Woolf report. Last week I suggested that we needed another Woolf Report and I repeat the suggestion today. Thankfully, we still have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, among us, although I am unsure whether he would be willing to undertake the task, especially if there is to be no commitment by the Government to implement any recommendations which might emerge.
As matters stand, we have an unprecedented level of violence, self-harm and drug abuse, and several riots or near-riots occurring in what should be and must be quintessential places of safety. We are told that the Secretary of State was warned two months ago of the risk of a riot at Birmingham. Was she, and if so what action if any was taken to forestall trouble? For that matter what is the Government’s response to the charge of Nick Hardwick, the former Chief Inspector of Prisons and now chair of the Parole Board, that:
“Successive ministers cannot say they weren’t warned about this”,
adding that he had been sounding warnings for several years?
Birmingham, a once renowned establishment, has been made a dangerous laughing-stock by the vacuous ineptitude of G4S, fully illustrated by the removal of a third of the prison population back to a state-controlled establishment away from the indiscipline and naive ideology of G4S and its hopelessly over-promoted and inexperienced management structures. These are not my words, but those of Michael Kelly, a retired senior manager who worked at Birmingham for nearly 30 years.
Last week I commended the Secretary of State for her presentation of a White Paper on prison reform, but voiced regret over her stubborn failure to acknowledge that at the heart of the problem lies the fact that we have far too many people in prison and too many of those are jailed for too long. We need to reduce our prison numbers—the fourth highest, in proportion of population, in Europe. This should include reviewing the length of sentences.
Several Members, across the House, have tried to pursue this issue. My noble friend Lady Smith, for example, tabled two Written Questions on 22 November, respectively on drug use and violence, and on the ratio of staff to prisoners. She should have had an answer by 7 December. She has not. There are seven other MoJ Questions beyond their reply date. Nor can the adequacy of any reply be taken for granted. I asked about the number of prisoners on remand and how many of them ultimately did not receive custodial sentences, only to be told that the information was not available and would be too expensive to collect. There remains, of course, the oft-challenged failure of the Government to deal with the vexed question of IPP prisoners held long after the tariff for their sentence has been exceeded. Both these groups contribute to the overcrowding which places such enormous pressure on prisoners.
There is widespread scepticism about the Government’s plan to recruit extra staff. Some 2,500 are promised, but this would still leave the workforce down 4,500 from what it was just a few years ago. In addition, it is estimated that some 5,000 more will have to be recruited to replace officers retiring or securing jobs outside the service—numbers which may well be enhanced by recent events.
Pay for the men and women willing to work in this challenging environment clearly needs to be reviewed. New starters can expect to earn all of £20,544 and qualified officers £21,166. G4S, I understand, recruits on a weekly basis from the jobcentre. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State’s call for officers to be recruited might be compared to the captain of the “Titanic” telegraphing the ship’s owners for additional crew members after the iceberg has struck.
We need to reduce prison numbers. This means looking at sentencing policy with a view to reducing the length of sentences, and investing in well-run probation services—where there are also signs of growing pressures—and health, especially mental health, services. We need the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Justice to exercise greater oversight of the system, listen to the advice of the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Parole Board and cease to rely so heavily on providers such G4S, with a reputation as providers of everything and masters of next to nothing.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement I ask him to recognise that, but for the skill, courage and day-to-day resourcefulness of prison officers and governors across the prison system, there would have been even more serious and violent incidents than have occurred. The prison system is holding far more prisoners than it is resourced to manage. As a result, rehabilitation programmes are disrupted or not in place at all. To make matters worse, when there are riots those prisoners who want to do their time peaceably, take the courses and train for a job are prevented from doing so and therefore more likely to reoffend when released.
I put two questions to the noble and learned Lord. First, will he say whether G4S had fallen short of its contracted staff numbers at Birmingham? Then, on the wider question, when will Ministers accept and cease to deny that there are offenders in prisons who could be better dealt with by tough community sentences? Unless we use the expensive resources required for prison places more sensibly, as most other European countries do, and unless we address sentence inflation we will build up even more potential for future violence in prisons. Getting the numbers down is not a quick solution to the immediate crisis, but if Ministers do not begin to deal with it now the problems in our prisons and outcomes on release will just get worse.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords. I begin by responding to some of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Staff in all our prisons, whether public or private, work hard to keep prisoners safe and to address the causes of reoffending. Our recently published data show no obvious differences in performance levels between public and private prisons. There are of course issues across the entire prison estate, seen in both public and private sector, and there is no question but that these are attributable to a mix of factors, including the increased use of psychoactive substances, the increased availability of mobile phones within prisons, the increased level of gang violence within prisons, as well as issues about retention of staff and numbers of staff, all of which we are seeking to address and have addressed already by virtue of the White Paper. So far as G4S is concerned, we robustly monitor the performance of all contractors providing services to the Ministry of Justice, and privately managed prisons are subject to the same rigorous external inspections as those in the public sector by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons.
With regard to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, as to the precise number of staff at Birmingham, I do not have those numbers to hand but I am quite happy to write to him and will place a copy of that letter in the Library once I have the relevant information.
On sentencing, since 2010, the prison population has remained relatively stable and static, at about 85,000. There has been a marked decrease in the number of those serving short sentences, by 1,500, but there has been an increase in the number of those serving longer sentences, especially for sexual offences and offences involving violence. Public safety must be at the forefront of our minds when we address these issues.
We are seeking to increase staffing levels across the entire prison estate and are investing in the prison estate itself—a £1.3 billion programme is under way. In February next year, Her Majesty’s Prison Berwyn will open in Wrexham. It will be the second-largest prison in Europe and will ensure that we have enough capacity within the prison estate to address overcrowding.
So far as an investigation is concerned, as I indicated previously, there is already a proposal that an inquiry should be undertaken by Sarah Payne, adviser to the independent Chief Inspector of Probation. We will await the outcome of that investigation before we decide what further steps should be taken.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, while those who have been involved in the disturbances must clearly be punished appropriately, does my noble and learned friend accept that what has happened demonstrates the evils associated with overcrowding and the lack of purposeful activity? Does he agree that we must take urgent steps to reduce the prison population? In the short term, I suggest an urgent review of all the IPP prisoners who have served their tariff. I also suggest that he consider executive release for those short-term prisoners who have served a substantial part of their predicted period in custody.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to my noble friend. With regard to those serving IPP sentences, further considerable progress is being made. For the first time, during 2015, more than 500 IPP prisoners were released, compared with only 200 or 300 in previous years. In 2015-16, 38% of IPP oral hearings completed by the Parole Board resulted in a release decision. For the first time, the number of IPP prisoners has fallen below 4,000, and we are continuing to increase our efforts with regard to those prisoners. So far as the prison population is concerned, there are from time to time strains; there are from time to time pressures on prison capacity. However, as I have said, steps are already being taken in the form of the opening of new prison estate in the new year, which will relieve any such pressure. On sentencing policy, there are no further steps at this stage that I can comment on, but clearly we have in consideration the question of how the prison population is maintained. So far as work is concerned, increased efforts have been made to provide useful, constructive work for those within the prison estate, not only so that they can work during their period of sentence but so that they have an opportunity to move into work as they move through the gate of the prison at the end of their sentence. However, we must remember that something like half the prison population enter prison with unacceptable levels of numeracy and literacy. There are formidable challenges ahead. We are prepared to meet them—and intend to.
Viscount Slim (CB)
My Lords, I should declare that some years ago, after the comparatively easy escape by Blake and the subsequent Mountbatten report, I was instructed, with a small team, to speak to prison governors to see if we could make it a little harder to escape from prison. I was most impressed with the prison governors. We had a two-day seminar with every prison governor in Britain. I will not go into the details because we are time-limited, but two possibilities came out of that which had not been considered—and I believe have been forgotten since.
First, there is a helicopter snatch from a prison. Making a prison a no-fly zone will ease that rather than make it a no-go. Noble Lords may remember a very successful helicopter snatch from the Isle of Wight prison. However, the thing that perturbed us most was the possibility of a break-in to break out a top terrorist or top criminal. That had not really been considered at that time. With our enemy within and the way things go now, that ought to be resuscitated and looked at. You need more than a Tornado team to deal with it. You are dealing with armed intervention and explosives. There are devious and clandestine ways but a prison distraction such as we have just seen is ideal for such an operation.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. It would appear that his conversations had some effect because 2015-16 saw the lowest number of absconds from prisons—105—since records began. With respect, the more immediate issue is not helicopters but drones. We have taken steps to introduce further penalties to limit the use of drones in and around prisons. Indeed, noble Lords may be aware of the recent conviction of an individual for the use of a drone to take material into prison. That resulted in a sentence of imprisonment for 14 months—not helping the issue of overcrowding, I accept, but nevertheless bringing home to people the risks associated with the use of drones in and around prisons.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will recall my noble friend Lord Beecham’s reference to the cuts in prison staffing. The Minister in this House, answering a Question from me, said that the way the Government calculated the need for prison officers had changed as per a letter saying what factors were taken into account. Is it drugs or violence—what is it? The Minister has not furnished the House with the justification for the government cuts in the staffing ratio.
This is not to do with the number of prisons being reduced, as the Minister said then. It is the staffing. It is no good and it will ring hollow to the loyal, hard-working prison officers when Ministers “support” them but are also responsible for cutting the staff who can deal with young prisoners, many of whom are semi-literate and ill educated. If people are shut in their cells for a long time, it is not surprising that their education does not improve. This is a scandal of the Government’s making; all the professional advice warned the Government that it was looming. We do not want more reports—we want action.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that is precisely what this Government are providing. Let us not look back but look forward. We are looking forward to providing, more or less immediately, 400 additional prison officers, many hundreds of whom have already been recruited. We are looking forward to providing another 2,500 prison officers. As I say, let us look forward to what we are seeking to achieve, not look back to what has been.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the House would be interested, if my noble and learned friend can tell us, in whether drugs played a significant part in what went on in Birmingham, although it may be that that will have to await the inquiry. However, can my noble and learned friend confirm that drugs are not only a problem because they tend to create aggression in prisoners, but because they also create an atmosphere where money is owed by one prisoner to another and gangs are set up, the combination of which is quite toxic? I note that the Statement said that the Government are rolling out tests for dangerous psychoactive drugs in prison. Will the Minister please assist us and tell us how that rolling out is going and what the Government hope it will achieve?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to my noble friend. It is too early to say whether drugs played a direct part in the incident at Her Majesty’s Prison Birmingham. No doubt that will be the subject of inquiry during the course of the investigation, which I have already referred to. However, the development of a prevalence of psychoactive substances in prisons has been a major factor in engendering violence for the two reasons that my noble friend indicated. First, the use of these drugs engenders behavioural changes that lead to violent conduct, and, secondly, the competition for control of these drugs leads to further intimidation and violence within the prison estate—there is no question of that. We have struggled to address the issue of psychoactive substances but we have now reached the point at which we have developed blood tests that are effective in identifying their use. That has been a considerable challenge, and we are now essentially a world leader in that field. Those tests will be rolled out to control the use of psychoactive substances. It is believed that that will assist in reducing the level of violence within our prison estate.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that food, occupation and washing facilities are very important? Are these at a decent level in all our prisons? How many other incidents have there been across the country in the past year in various prisons? A few months ago, I visited HMP Moorland near Doncaster, and found it very run-down and rather dirty. Morale in prisons is so important. Does the Minister agree that well-trained prison officers can spot things before they happen, and that therefore there should be many more?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Baroness. Of course well-trained prison officers have the ability to identify problems that are developing, which those of lesser experience will not be able to do. Eighty per cent of the present cohort of prison officers have five years’ experience or more in their job. We are not only working hard to recruit new prison officers but we are working very hard on a programme for the retention of prison officers, because, as the noble Baroness indicated, experience is as important as numbers.
I am not in a position to comment on individual prisons on a case-by-case basis. However, clearly, what lies behind our intention to invest £1.3 billion in the prison estate is the desire to ensure that there are decent conditions available for prisoners during their sentence. I accept that there was an incident at Moorland. There was an incident at Bedford and there have been others during the year. Those clearly place strain on the prison estate, prison officers and staff in general. However, we are responding positively to those concerns. One of our principal aims is to ensure that rehabilitation and the opportunity for work and education are principal goals in the context of prison policy.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the answers that we have had to the questions raised. As the House knows, the Strangeways inquiry resulted in my giving a report and since that time, I have followed up what has been happening in prisons, not least because of my involvement with the Prison Reform Trust. Does the Minister agree that it has to be recognised that overcrowding is a cancer that can destroy all the best endeavours in prisons? I am afraid that any answer given to the problems which does not take that into account, notwithstanding what was said about building more prisons, will not really root out the problem because the sort of things which the Minister has talked about are so much more difficult. Finally, does he agree that it is a particularly difficult time in prisons when they go through a process of reform? That was true just before Strangeways and we are, I hope, going through a period of reform now. Are Ministers conscious of that?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. We are of course conscious of the demands placed upon the prison estate and prison staff at a time of change. It will be demanding as we go forward with the development of the new prison estate. Clearly overcrowding, not on its own but as part of that terrible mix of issues, can lead to difficulty, danger and violence in our prisons. That is why we are concerned to address the issue of overcrowding as swiftly as we possibly can.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, when the Minister made his last Statement I asked him how bad things have to become in our prisons before we look to the Armed Forces to help. Given the seriousness of the current situation and how critical it is, should we now consider the use in some shape or form of either elements of the Reserve Forces or recently retired members of the Armed Forces or police to help in manning the situation in our prisons? If we lock prisoners up for 23 hours a day and treat them like animals, it is no wonder if we get the sort of situation that tragically happened in the last 48 hours.
Lord Keen of Elie
There is no requirement at this time to call upon outside bodies to assist with the maintenance of order within our prisons. That has been dealt with not only by prison staff in general but by the specialist Tornado groups that were called in and resolved the issue at Birmingham. However, in this context, as part of our recruitment programme we are looking to recruit former members of the Armed Forces who have particular training, service and expertise in areas that can come to bear upon the control of prison populations.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, could the inquiry look carefully at the role of G4S and other private contractors? There are many of us who feel that the incarceration of our fellow citizens should be the responsibility of the state and should never be contracted out. As this has occurred in such a prison, can this form a central point of the inquiry?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to my noble friend. As I indicated earlier, all recent published data show that there are no obvious differences in performance levels between public and private prisons. We therefore consider that we should continue with our endeavour of ensuring that the prison estate can be controlled and provided across both the public and private sectors.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that our courts could send fewer people to prison without there being unacceptable risk to the public? Has the time not come to review whether further judicial guidelines should be issued with a view to bringing this situation to an end?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, there are very detailed sentencing guidelines now available throughout the magistrates’ courts, which deal with about 90% of all crime, the Crown Courts and the highest courts with regard to disposal. They are constantly reviewed and considered in order to try to ensure that we can minimise the extent of detention as a punishment. Clearly, the hierarchy begins with the forms of disposal that would prevent detention, whether they are a financial penalty or some punishment within the community. That continues to be our policy.