House of Commons
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 11 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, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
As this is the Scottish questions immediately preceding Burns night on Wednesday 25 January, may I wish all those organising Burns suppers or other events in Scotland, across the UK, including here in this House of Commons, and around the world the very best? Robert Burns’ legacy is as relevant today as ever.
The UK Government are committed to a safe and secure transfer of the remaining welfare powers. The majority of welfare powers commenced in 2016, and the transfer of the remaining powers will be overseen by the joint ministerial working group on welfare, which will meet again next month.
Robert Courts
The Scotland Act 2016 gives the Scottish Government powers over benefits in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Government must now set out the detail of how they plan to use those powers to shape Scotland’s welfare system?
David Mundell
My hon. Friend is right about that; the power for the Scottish Parliament to create new benefits in devolved areas came into force in the autumn, and it now has the power to shape that welfare system as it chooses. Some modest measures have already been announced, but it is time that we hear more about the proposals for a new welfare system. A consultation has been held and I look forward to hearing the Scottish Government’s response to it.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The fact that the UK Government plan to close half of Glasgow’s jobcentres without even knowing the number of affected people is a dereliction of duty. Will the Secretary of State commit to having a word with his Cabinet colleagues and getting those plans dropped?
David Mundell
I do understand the concerns that have been raised about jobcentre closures in Glasgow. I have spoken directly with my colleague the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It is the Government’s determination to ensure that there will be no change to the level of service offered to the people of Glasgow. As the hon. Lady and other Glasgow Members will know, there is a public consultation for people who have to travel more than 3 miles or for more than 20 minutes, and it is open until 31 January. I encourage all those affected, and all hon. Members with constituencies affected, to take part in it.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
David Mundell
That group has played an important part in establishing the links between the DWP and the Scottish Government. I have been in regular recent contact with Angela Constance, the relevant Minister in the Scottish Government, about their latest proposals on universal credit. Inevitably, the complexity of this area means that as the transfer takes place new issues arise that need to be dealt with. The joint ministerial working group is the ideal place to do that.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the family of Canon Kenyon Wright, who, sadly, passed away last week. He was a principled man whose legacy should serve as a reminder to all of us that when we work together it is possible to deliver the impossible.
This Tory Government are currently moving disabled people from the disability living allowance to personal independence payments, and it is estimated that the people of Scotland will lose out on £190 million a year as a result. If that was not bad enough, the Government did this a year ago but they withdrew the timetable and have not issued a new one. So can the Secretary of State please inform the House, and indeed the people of Scotland, when they can expect to lose out on this £190 million a year?
David Mundell
First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman back? He was missed at our last Scottish questions, although the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) entertained the House—I think I can say that. I knew Canon Kenyon Wright and he was indeed a very principled man, with strong personal conviction. He played a very important part in the constitutional convention that led to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. As we have seen in the media, he is widely mourned.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) will know that disability benefits are to be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and the funding of those benefits was dealt with in the negotiations for the fiscal framework. It is now for the Scottish Government to come forward with their proposals for disability benefits in Scotland.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
David Mundell
My hon. Friend makes a very relevant point. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) referred to personal independence payments, to which, I know, the Scottish Government are opposed, but I have no idea what they intend to replace them with, or on what timetable.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
May I begin by joining colleagues in paying tribute to Canon Kenyon Wright? He not only played a significant role in helping to deliver devolution to Scotland but, of course, in 2014 supported a yes vote for Scottish independence.
The UK Government are planning to close half the jobcentres in Glasgow without even knowing the number of people who will be affected by such a radical change. Was the Secretary of State consulted in advance of the closures, and when did he show enough interest to find out which specific locations would face closure?
David Mundell
I have taken a very close interest in this issue and worked closely on it with my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Scottish Government. The Government and I have never suggested that the procedures followed during the process have been perfect, but we have put forward a public consultation for people who are affected and will have to travel more than 3 miles or for more than 20 minutes. I encourage everyone involved to take part in the consultation.
Angus Robertson
The devolution of powers hangs very much together with the hard Brexit plans of the current Government. The Secretary of State has said that his role is
“to ensure Scotland gets the best possible deal and that deal involves clearly being part of the single market.”
Does he still believe that, or has he changed his mind after being told what he should say by his Tory bosses in London?
David Mundell
I do not recognise the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday as a hard Brexit plan. I do not think that the 500,000 Scottish National party voters who voted for Brexit will take kindly to being referred to as right-wing Tory Brexiteers. They were independently minded people in Scotland who voted for what they thought was the right thing for Scotland. It is absolutely clear, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that we want to have access to the single market, and that is what the quote from me that the right hon. Gentleman just read out made clear. On the other hand, membership of the single market is a quite different thing, as Mike Russell and, privately, the Scottish Government accept.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say gently to colleagues that progress is far too slow; we need to hasten the pace. Some reduction in the decibel level—not least from the Chair of the International Trade Committee—would be heartily welcomed across the House.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I regularly meet Cabinet colleagues to discuss a wide range of matters. I recently met the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss a number of issues relating to the Scottish agriculture sector, and will continue to do so.
Calum Kerr
Last year, the farming Minister told us that there would be an £18 billion Brexit dividend. He said that farmers would continue to get
“as much support—or perhaps even more”
after Brexit. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be unacceptable if funding to Scottish agriculture was cut after 2020?
David Mundell
There is no suggestion that funding to Scottish agriculture will be cut, but there is the opportunity to move forward from the constraints of the common agricultural policy, which farmers throughout Scotland have often complained about. We need to seize this opportunity to reshape the support for farming to make it more effective, but to continue to sustain those areas of Scottish farming that need sustaining.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is aware that my family are extensive farmers in the Scottish borders. Does he not agree that Brexit presents the United Kingdom with a magnificent opportunity to fashion an agriculture policy that is required not by French farmers, but by British farmers, and will he assure the House that hill farmers in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom will be given proper consideration?
David Mundell
I can absolutely give that undertaking. I hope that, in conjunction with the Scottish Government, we can move forward to shape a new basis of support for Scottish agriculture, especially for those who farm in less-favoured areas. There have been multiple complaints about the operation of the common agricultural policy and its need to take into account farming practices across the continent. We now have the opportunity to have our own support mechanism and we need to work to shape it.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Almost two thirds of the UK’s agriculture exports are to the EU. After what we heard from the Prime Minister yesterday, there is an increasing possibility that we could revert to World Trade Organisation trade rules on exit from the EU. Does the Secretary of State agree with the NFU Scotland, which says that the potential for 20% tariffs as a result of WTO trade rules will be increasingly damaging for the profitability of Scottish agriculture?
David Mundell
The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that her objective is to achieve the best possible access to the single market, with the minimum of barriers and tariffs. That will be to the benefit of Scottish agriculture. Scottish farmers see the opportunity that leaving the EU provides them, and I am sure that they will seize it and that we will be able to provide the environment in which they will succeed.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
The Scottish Government will take on their first major new tax power from the Scotland Act 2016 in April, enabling them to set rates and thresholds of income tax. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury attended a Joint Exchequer Committee with the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance in November. They discussed ongoing work, and there are regular ongoing discussions.
Mr Evans
The Prime Minister says that she wants income tax rates on hard-working British people to be as low as possible. Should Nicola Sturgeon be sufficiently brave or bonkers to increase the rate of taxation on hard-working Scottish people, what economic impact would that have on Scotland?
Simon Kirby
May I thank my hon. Friend for his important question? In taking over income tax powers, the Scottish Government now need to account for how they use them, particularly if they plan to make Scotland the highest tax part of the UK.
Mark Menzies
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish National party’s plans to tax middle-income families more in Scotland for doing the same job as families in England would bode very, very badly for the Scottish economy?
Simon Kirby
The UK Government are doing everything they can to support our economy and boost jobs and growth. Where the Scottish Government now make choices that have a different impact, they will need to explain them to the people of Scotland.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Again we have heard erroneous claims that Scotland is somehow the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. In actual fact, the average cost of a band D council tax property in Scotland is lower than in England. Will the Minister now welcome the Scottish Government’s approach to council tax policy in Scotland?
Simon Kirby
What I will say is that the SNP should focus on making a success of its new powers for the benefit of the Scottish people. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Docherty-Hughes, you are a very curious denizen of the House. I had you down as a cerebral and academic type, but you are becoming increasingly hysterical—very curious behaviour.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
Simon Kirby
I may not like the Scottish Government’s plans to make Scotland a higher-tax nation, but that is up to them. What they will have to do is explain to the people of Scotland why they are having to pay more tax than their friends and families who have the same jobs south of the border.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
In a week when the chairman of the British Medical Association in Scotland has warned that the NHS in Scotland is “at breaking point”, is the Minister as surprised as I am that the so-called progressive SNP Government in Holyrood consistently refuse to use the powers afforded them to protect the NHS in Scotland?
Simon Kirby
Scotland’s new devolution settlement delivers one of the most powerful and accountable devolved Parliaments in the world, giving the Scottish Government unprecedented power to shape the future economy of Scotland.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Migrants from outside and within the UK make a significant contribution to Scotland—to its economy, of course, but also to its society and wellbeing. The Government will always welcome the brightest and the best who have come here to work.
Stuart C. McDonald
We know that about 180,000 EU nationals make a hugely valuable contribution to the Scottish economy and that Governments such as Canada’s and Australia’s successfully apply different immigration rules to different parts of their countries. Going beyond warm words, will the Secretary of State listen carefully to proposals for a different arrangement for Scotland, allowing EU citizens freedom to continue to come and live and work there, benefiting us all?
David Mundell
I will always look at evidence-based proposals; that is our commitment, for example, in relation to the Scottish Government’s paper produced just before Christmas. However, it was clear within the settlement agreed under the Smith commission that immigration would remain a reserved power.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems that Scotland will face under the SNP Government is the flight of individuals from high taxes, who will have to be replaced with further immigrants, as well as the fact that businesses will fly down to London rather than be in Scotland?
David Mundell
I find it surprising that the Scottish Government always seem to fail to acknowledge that they have very significant powers to attract people to Scotland. At the moment, about 4% of migrants who come to the United Kingdom go to Scotland. Clearly, more needs to be done to encourage people to come to Scotland, and the Scottish Government need to address that. Making Scotland the highest-taxed part of the UK is not, in my view, the way to do it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the expressions of condolence about the late Canon Kenyon Wright—a truly lovely man, for whom it was once my privilege to act as election agent, albeit unsuccessfully.
Will the Secretary of State explain to the Home Secretary the importance of non-EU nationals in making up the crews of many fishing boats, especially in the white fish sector, that operate out of Scottish ports?
David Mundell
I certainly will take that issue forward for the right hon. Gentleman. I am aware of the concerns that have been raised and I would be more than happy to meet directly with him to discuss the matter further.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The UK Government have spearheaded these deals, which will be transformative for the cities of Scotland. The city regions are engines of economic growth, so they will drive forward Scotland’s economy, which means more jobs and a secure future. That is why I am so pleased that the Government have now committed to a city deal for every one of Scotland’s seven city regions.
Iain Stewart
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor gave welcome support to city deals. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he will support the borderlands initiative as part of the programme?
David Mundell
The borderlands initiative is an innovative proposal that seeks to bring together Dumfries and Galloway Council, Scottish Borders Council, Carlisle City Council and other councils in the north of England to recognise the significant economic area that crosses the border. I am delighted to give my support to that proposal.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
As well as city deals, the Secretary of State will be aware that the Ayrshire growth deal has been submitted to the Scottish Government. In yesterday’s Treasury questions, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrongly said that it is for the Scottish Government to advance that deal. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Treasury colleagues about supporting the Ayrshire growth deal?
David Mundell
May I first welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), has secured an Adjournment debate tomorrow that will focus specifically on the Ayrshire regional growth deal? I have met the councils and I want that deal to receive support from the UK Government in the way that is most appropriate to make it happen.
Mr Speaker
At this Scotland Office questions, I am pleased to inform the House that I have just been notified that Andy Murray has won his second round match in Melbourne.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Mr Speaker, I noted that in congratulating Andy Murray, you did not display the usual exuberance that you have demonstrated in support of him and the rest of the British team at Davis cup matches.
The UK Government have taken a number of measures to support Scotland’s economy, including by committing to city deals for each of Scotland’s cities, as I just said, and providing an additional £800 million for the Scottish Government’s capital budget through to 2021. Leaving the EU opens up real opportunities for Scotland and we must always remember that the UK market is worth more than four times as much to Scotland as the EU single market.
David T. C. Davies
Adam Smith gave us the theory of modern capitalist economics and William Gladstone put it into practice. Would not those two fine Scotsmen be delighted by the opportunity that Brexit offers to ditch the socialist protectionism of the Scottish Government, and to implement the free trade and free markets that made the country such a powerhouse in the 19th century?
David Mundell
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a robust case for the benefits of leaving the European Union. Perhaps to his list of posthumous figures from Scottish history I could add David Hume, whose essay “Of the Balance of Trade” predates “The Wealth of Nations” and provides an effective rebuttal to the so-called jealous fear of free trade among merchants at the time.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
A hard Brexit outside the single market threatens to cost Scotland 80,000 jobs over a decade and to cost people an average of £2,000 in wages. What action will the Secretary of State personally take to keep Scotland in the single market, even if the rest of the UK leaves?
David Mundell
It is absolutely clear that Scotland cannot be a member of the single market if it is not a member of the EU, and the United Kingdom will not be a member of the EU. The Scottish Government accept that proposition. What is important is access to the single market and, as the Prime Minister set out yesterday, we aim to achieve the best possible access to that market.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
David Mundell
My hon. Friend may be aware that today, in relation to labour market statistics, unemployment is up in Scotland, employment is down, and economic activity is also down. I am in no doubt that the uncertainty caused by the constant reference to an independence referendum is having an impact on the Scottish economy.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
An important part of the Scottish economy is the rural economy, particularly crofting. Yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what exactly, after her careful thinking and planning, would happen to crofting after 2020. The Secretary of State for Scotland set out earlier that he thought that there would be no cuts to funding. Is it the case that we will we see no cuts at all to agricultural support in Scotland post-2020? Will he confirm what he alluded to earlier?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman has already heard me answer that question. I have set out that leaving the common agricultural policy is an opportunity. The common agricultural policy has not suited Scotland, particularly those farming in less favoured areas. We now have an opportunity to do something different—we should seize it.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I will have further such meetings later today.
Kelvin Hopkins
Thousands of babies who are born each year are damaged for life by alcohol consumed in pregnancy. Patients affected by alcohol put immense pressure on the national health service, and alcohol is a primary factor in domestic violence and attacks on women. Does the Prime Minister recognise the seriousness of the country’s alcohol problems—the damage to lives and the billions in costs to the public purse—and will she instruct her Government now to address these problems effectively and as a matter of urgency?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly say to the hon. Gentleman that I recognise the problems that alcohol causes. He particularly referenced not just problems for pregnant women, but the part that alcohol often plays in domestic violence and abuse. That was why, when I was Home Secretary, we produced an alcohol strategy and worked on the issue of alcohol. The Government continue to recognise the importance of this issue and to work on it.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, I am very pleased to join him in paying tribute to the dedication and hard work of all those who work in our national health service. Secondly, he is right to point out that if somebody misses an appointment, that is a cost to the NHS. There are a number of ways in which this is being dealt with. Some hospitals send out text messages that not only remind people of their appointment, but tell them how much it costs if they miss it.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Yesterday the Prime Minister snubbed Parliament and snubbed the Brexit Committee’s recommendation to bring forward a White Paper, while at the same time describing the referendum as
“a vote to restore…our parliamentary democracy”.
This is about our jobs, living standards and future prosperity; why will it not be scrutinised by this House?
The Prime Minister
What I did yesterday was to set out a plan for a global Britain. I set out a plan that will put the divisions of last year behind us, and that shows a vision for a stronger, fairer, more united, more outward-looking, prosperous, tolerant, independent and truly global Britain. It was a vision that will shape a stronger future and build a better Britain.
Jeremy Corbyn
Restoring parliamentary democracy while sidelining Parliament—it is not so much the Iron Lady as the Irony Lady.
Yesterday the Prime Minister finally provided some detail. May I urge her to stop her threats of a bargain basement Brexit—a low-pay tax haven on the shores of Europe? It would not necessarily damage the EU, but it would certainly damage this country, businesses, jobs and public services. She demeans herself, her office and our country’s standing by making such threats.
The Prime Minister
What I set out yesterday was a plan for a global Britain, bringing prosperity to this country and jobs to people, and spreading economic growth across the country. Yesterday we learned a little more of the right hon. Gentleman’s thinking on this issue. He said:
“She has said, ‘leave the single market,’ but at the same time says she wants to have access to the single market. I’m not quite sure how that’s going to go down in Europe. I think we have to have a deal that ensures we have access to the market.”
I’ve got a plan; he doesn’t have a clue.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister was the one who made the threat about slashing corporation tax. If we reduce corporation tax to the lowest common denominator, this country loses £120 billion in revenue. How, then, do we fund public services?
Last year the Prime Minister said that leaving the single market could make trade deals “considerably harder” and that
“while we could certainly negotiate our own trade agreements, there would be no guarantee that they would be on terms as good as those we enjoy now”,
but yesterday she offered us only vague guarantees. Does she now disagree with herself?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman might also have noticed that when I spoke in the remain campaign, I said that if we voted to leave the European Union, the sky would not fall in. Look at what has happened to our economic situation since we voted to leave the European Union.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the future of the economy. I want us to be an outward-looking nation trading around the world, and bringing prosperity and jobs into the United Kingdom. The one thing that would be bad for the economy is the answers that the right hon. Gentleman has. He wants a cap on wages, no control on immigration and to borrow an extra £500 billion. That would not lead to prosperity; it would lead to no jobs, no wages and no skills.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Chancellor said after the referendum that to lose single market access would be “catastrophic”. A few days later, the Health Secretary said:
“The first part of the plan must be clarity that we will remain in the single market”.
The Prime Minister said something about “frictionless” access to the single market and a bespoke customs union deal. Could she give us a little bit of certainty and clarity about this? Has she ruled out paying any kind of fee to achieve access to what she describes as a “frictionless” market?
The Prime Minister
Access to the single market was exactly what I was talking about yesterday in my speech. One of the key objectives is that we negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union that gives us the widest possible access for trading with, and operating within, the European Union.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about frictionless access. Actually, this was a separate point about frictionless borders in relation to the customs issue—a very important issue for us regarding the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Taoiseach and I, and all parties, are absolutely on a single page about this. We want to ensure that we have the best possible arrangement that does not lead to the borders of the past for Northern Ireland.
Jeremy Corbyn
The question was: will we have to pay for access to the market or not? The Prime Minister has not given an answer to that.
Yesterday the Prime Minister set out a wish list on immigration, referring to skills shortages and high-skill migration. Does she now disagree with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who told an employers’ conference, “Don’t worry. You can still have cheap EU labour after we leave the European Union”?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about access. Yes, the whole point is that we will negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union that is about the best possible access for British business to operate in European Union member states and for European businesses to operate here in the United Kingdom. It is about sitting down and negotiating the best possible deal for the United Kingdom. That is what I am committed to, and it is what the Government are going to deliver.
Jeremy Corbyn
My question was about how much we are going to have to pay to have access to the market—still no answer.
Yesterday the Prime Minister talked about the pressure put on public services by migration. May I just remind her—the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) referred to this earlier—that at the moment there are 55,000 EU citizens working in our national health service, helping to treat all the people of this country? There are 80,000 care workers helping our—mainly elderly—people and there are 5,000 teachers educating our children. The real pressure on public services comes from a Government who slashed billions from the social care budget, who are cutting the schools budget, and who are closing A&E departments, walk-in centres and Sure Start centres. Instead of threatening to turn Britain into an offshore tax haven, let us welcome those who contribute to our public services and fund those public services properly so that we have the fully functioning NHS that we all need and deserve.
The Prime Minister
I made it clear yesterday that we value those who have come to the United Kingdom and contribute to our economy and society. There will still be people coming to the United Kingdom from the European Union when we leave the EU. The crucial issue is that it is this Government who will be making decisions about our immigration system for people from the European Union. Yet again, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is indeed a difference between us—it is very simple. When I look at the issue of Brexit—or, indeed, at any other issue, such as the national health service or social care—I consider the issue, I set out my plan and I stick to it. It is called leadership; he should try it sometime.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Lincoln City on their victory last night. I think it was a fitting tribute to Graham Taylor that they won that match.
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I have indeed highlighted the issue of particularly white working-class boys, who are the group in society least likely to go to university. We are committed to making sure that every child gets the opportunity to fulfil their potential. That is about ensuring that apprenticeships are as accessible as possible. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the proportion of apprenticeships started by males has increased this year to almost 50%, and also that universities expect to spend more than £800 million this year on improving access and success for disadvantaged students. We want everybody to achieve their potential, whatever their background and whatever their gender.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Shortly after the Prime Minister confirmed that she wants to take the UK out of the single European market, the Scottish Parliament voted by a large cross-party majority to remain in the single European market, just as a large majority of people in Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. The Prime Minister said that Scotland is an equal partner in the United Kingdom. Does she still believe this is true or is she just stringing the people of Scotland along?
The Prime Minister
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my speech yesterday, in which I reiterated my commitment to work with the devolved Administrations to ensure their voice is heard and their interests are taken into account as we proceed along the path of negotiating our exit from the European Union. I specifically referenced the Scotland plan. I understand that the Welsh Government will be producing a plan for Wales for us to look at, too. The Scotland plan will, I believe, be considered tomorrow by the Joint Ministerial Committee on European negotiations. We will be looking at it seriously and working with the Scottish Government on the proposals they bring forward.
Angus Robertson
Scotland’s leading economic forecaster says that real wages will fall—[Interruption.] We have Tories jeering and cheering when the forecast for people’s income is that it is likely to drop by £2,000 and that 80,000 people may lose their jobs in Scotland as a result of the Prime Minister’s hard Tory Brexit plan. Does the Prime Minister believe that this is a price worth paying for her “Little Britain” Brexit?
The Prime Minister
I repeat what I said earlier: we will work to ensure we get the best possible deal in terms of access to the single market, and continue to co-operate in partnership with the remaining 27 member states of the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman once again talks about the possibility of a negative impact on Scotland if Scotland were not part of the single market. His party is dedicated to taking Scotland out of the single market by taking it out of the United Kingdom.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I am pleased to say that the Government have already taken some action on executive pay: giving shareholders the power to veto pay policies, forcing companies to disclose the pay of their board directors and introducing tough transparency measures for banks. I want to build on that, which is why we published a Green Paper on how to strengthen shareholders’ influence over executive pay and introduced greater transparency. I look forward to receiving representations from my hon. Friend on this issue.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady might recognise that the great repeal Bill will deal with a number of complex issues. At its heart will be the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. As we look at the Bill and at negotiating our way out of the European Union, we will need to look at the whole issue of reserved matters and devolved matters, but there are many aspects—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members of the Scottish National party, led by the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on the Front Bench, who is supposed to be a statesmanlike figure, should demonstrate some calm and reserve while they are being answered by the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady knows full well that if any part of proposed legislation brought before this House applies only to England, it will be subject to English votes for English laws.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on her delivery yesterday of an historic, definitive, pragmatic, outward-looking speech that saw the pound rise to its highest level in two years and the FTSE up today? Does she agree that the strong and prosperous UK she has planned would be a nightmare for the Leader of the Opposition and the EU ruling class?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. A strong and prosperous Britain is exactly what we want to build as we leave the EU. It is only a pity that the Labour party seems uninterested in doing that, but wants to do the exact opposite and bring this economy down.
The Prime Minister
I always enjoy my visits to Wales, and I hope to visit Wales in the future.
Chris Bryant
That is not quite an answer to whether she will visit the Rhondda. I hope she will; I am happy to accommodate her—I can do bacon and eggs. More importantly, I could take her to see the best brass band in the world, the Cory band, or, for that matter, I could take her to the local food bank, based in the closed-down Conservative club. Since 2010, the Government have closed the local courts, tax office, Department for Work and Pensions office and driving centre, and now they intend to close all the tax offices in Wales and centralise them in Cardiff. We in the valleys feel ignored by the Government. May I beg her to change direction and start putting Government offices in the small towns, villages and valleys of this country?
The Prime Minister
The last time I looked, Cardiff was actually in Wales—the hon. Gentleman says we are taking offices out of Wales and putting them in Cardiff. The whole point of what Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is doing is to move from outdated offices to large, modern regional centres, which will make it possible to modernise its ways of working, make tax collection more efficient and actually improve its customer service.
Engagements
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s speech setting out a plan for global Britain. It clearly shows that those on the Government Benches are listening to the British people. Will she commend this approach to the council leaders now considering the Greater Manchester spatial framework consultation responses, as they need to listen to the people, give us better infrastructure and protect our green spaces?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for raising this issue. I understand that the consultation on the spatial framework closed earlier this week and that there has been huge interest among local people. I echo his comment that it is absolutely right that local leaders should take into account all the representations made.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the fact that geography of course has an impact on these matters. He talks about living in the coldest and windiest places, and obviously one interesting issue in Scotland is the opportunity for renewables there. I can tell him, however, that we are looking at making sure that energy markets in the UK are indeed working properly.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am pleased that the Prime Minister has said that she will take the necessary action on air quality to deal with the 40,000 premature deaths it causes across our country every year. I know she believes in her Government leading by example, so will she make sure that all diesel cars are removed from the Government Car Service as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that improving air quality is a priority for the Government. We are determined to cut harmful emissions and have committed money since 2011 to supporting the take-up of low-emission vehicles. The Government Car Service is working to remove diesel vehicles from its fleet. It has so far replaced a quarter of its vehicles with petrol hybrid cars, and of course its work continues to remove those diesel vehicles.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I absolutely recognise the important issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It is precisely as we move out of the European Union that the United Kingdom will be more outward looking. We will look globally. We want to ensure that we continue to play our part in the United Nations and that the UN is able to do the job that everybody wants it to do. NATO has obviously been the most important bulwark when it comes to maintaining safety and security across the European continent. That is why we are continuing to support NATO. British troops are in Estonia, and British forces are in Poland and Romania, which shows our continuing commitment to NATO. The thrust of my speech yesterday was that we want a strong strategic partnership with the European Union. We want access to the single market through a free trade agreement, but we also want to continue to work with the EU on justice and security matters. Now is not a time to co-operate less; it is a time to co-operate more.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I am delighted at the third-round FA cup replay, in which Sutton United won 3-1 against Wimbledon. However, the pressing issue—what would make us really happy—is being able to get to work on a day-to-day basis. Does the Prime Minister share my cautious optimism that a return to talks by ASLEF and Southern can provide a long-lasting solution for hard-pressed commuters?
The Prime Minister
As a former Wimbledon councillor, I am not sure that I quite share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend for the defeat of AFC Wimbledon. On the point about the train strikes, yes, I do; and I hope that those sitting around the table are going to ensure that an agreement will be reached to enable passengers to be able to get on with their lives and their jobs, and not suffer the misery that was brought about by the strike in the first place.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I might remind the hon. Lady that she and I sat on a council together where we tried to keep Wimbledon actually playing in Wimbledon, or at least in the borough of Merton rather than moving elsewhere.
On the point about GP services, GPs are part of the solution for the NHS in the future. That is why we have seen more GPs coming into the NHS and 5,000 more are being trained and will be in place by 2020. We want to ensure that GPs are open and providing services at times when the patients want to access them.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It was quite clear from the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday that she seeks to build a Brexit consensus and to bring our country back together. I thank her for that. To that end, and indeed to strengthen the Prime Minister’s negotiating hand, before article 50 is triggered, will she please at least consider publishing all those 12 objectives in a White Paper so that we can debate them here in this place on behalf of all our constituents?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely understand my right hon. Friend’s point about Parliament’s desire to be able to debate the objectives that I set out very clearly in my plan yesterday. One of the objectives and principles I set was about certainty and clarity. It continues to be the Government’s intention that we will provide clarity whenever it is possible, and we will ensure that, at appropriate times, both the public and Parliament are kept informed and are able properly to consider and scrutinise these issues.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
There is pressure on social care. I have accepted and recognised that in the House. The Government have recognised it, and have provided additional funding through the Better Care Fund and the social care precept. This year Liverpool raised £2.8 million from the precept, and it will receive more than £48 million on top of that from the improved Better Care Fund by 2019-20. However, this is not just a question of money; it is a question of ensuring that we have a sustainable social care system for the future, and that is what the Government are working on.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for what she said yesterday, and not least for her constructive tone and constructive approach to the European Union and its future? That was in marked contrast to what we have heard from others over the years, from many different quarters in the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that constructive tone will remain, as the best base for securing an agreement between us and the EU that is in our mutual interest? Will she also confirm that the default position of “no deal” will remain a default position, and that the Government will not be persuaded to make it their preferred option?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. We want to get that good deal and we expect to be able to get that good deal, and, as my right hon. Friend says, it is through good will and a positive approach on both sides of the negotiations that we will achieve it.
I am very clear about the fact that the United Kingdom wants to see a continuing, strong European Union of 27 member states. We want a strong strategic partnership with that European Union, and, of course, we want to continue to work bilaterally with individual member states. I made that point to a number of European leaders yesterday when I spoke to them after my speech. I said that we wanted to approach this in a positive and optimistic fashion, because I believe that a deal that is good for the UK will be a deal that is good for the European Union.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I recognise that many people received a poor service from Concentrix. This is not the first time that that has been highlighted in the Chamber. It was not acceptable, and I apologise for the worry and distress that was caused to people. We have been very clear about the service operated by Concentrix. HMRC will learn the lessons from that contract, and it remains committed to providing a high-quality service. It will not use a private sector supplier to undertake tax credit error and fraud checks again.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) mentioned the speech that the Prime Minister made yesterday. In that speech, she confirmed her commitment to parliamentary democracy, and I assume that she therefore accepts the long-standing convention that the Executive—the Government—are continuously accountable to the House for the policies that they are pursuing. Will she clarify whether she intends to make any further statements of policy intentions to the House, and whether she expects the House to have an opportunity to vote its approval for those policies earlier than two years from now, when the whole negotiation has been completed?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend has raised a matter that has also been raised not only by our right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), but by others as well. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union spent two hours answering questions in the House, and there will be a further debate on matters relating to exiting the European Union later today. There have been a number of such debates already, dealing with issues that are part of the objectives that we have set.
We shall have to consider the result of the decision of the Supreme Court, which may, if it goes against the Government, require legislation. There will be an opportunity in the great repeal Bill to consider a number of issues relating to exiting the EU, but as for voting on the actual deal that we have, we cannot do so until we know what it is. That is why I said yesterday that Parliament would have a vote when we knew what the deal was.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I made the very simple point yesterday that this negotiation is not just about the United Kingdom; there will be others in the European Union who will be looking to ensure that the deal we get is good for the UK and good for the EU. But I have to say to the hon. Lady that if she in any sense thinks that continued membership of the common fisheries policy is what we should be looking for, that is certainly not the case, and it is certainly one of the things people voted against.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The people of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent are again being confronted with the possible loss of emergency services in Stafford or Burton, when our acute hospitals are constantly under intense pressure. Does the Prime Minister agree with me, our hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and other local MPs that closing A&Es is no way to deal with increased real—not imagined—need?
The Prime Minister
The important issue is the level of service that is available to people in any particular local area. That is why the sustainability and transformation plans that are being considered and have been published are being taken into account and being considered at a local level, so that local clinicians and local people will be able to agree what is best in their particular area.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Just looking at the figures on what has happened in health in the hon. Gentleman’s area, I see that there are more doctors in his NHS foundation trust and significantly more nurses, but the—[Interruption.] I know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about and I am about to comment on it, but the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is shouting from a sedentary position, might have recognised that he started off talking about the NHS, which is what I am also commenting on. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not going to allow an exchange across the Dispatch Box or across the House at this point. The Prime Minister was asked a question [Interruption.] Order. I require no help from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), which is of zilch value. The Prime Minister will answer, and she will be heard with courtesy, including by the hon. Gentleman.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) asked me about pressures on the national health service. We are seeing more doctors and nurses in his Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and health funding in the hon. Gentleman’s area will be £3 billion this year, and that will be rising with a further £450 million by 2020-21.
As I have said in this House before, we are putting extra money into social care. We are giving local authorities the opportunity to raise more money and spend it on social care. But this is not just about more money; it is about ensuring best practice is spread throughout the country and it is about a long-term solution to sustainable social care for the future, an issue that has been ducked by Governments, including a Labour Government for 13 years.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
On Friday the east coast of England faced the threat of a tidal surge that endangered tens of thousands of homes and thousands of lives. A simple change in the weather meant that flooding was averted, but will the Prime Minister join me in praising the response of the emergency services in planning ahead, involving the Army, the Coastguard, the fire and ambulance services and the police, to make sure that the best possible plans were made? Will she further join me in making sure that the public know that in future these warnings should always be taken seriously?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I am happy to join him in commending the action of all those in the emergency services, in our armed forces and in local authorities who worked so hard to ensure that this problem was dealt with. As he said, a change in the weather took place, but it is crucial that when these warnings are given, people recognise that they are given for the very good reason that there is concern about the danger that could take place. The efforts that were put in protected tens of thousands of properties, and I am pleased to see that we have learned from the work done on previous flooding incidents. The work between the emergency services, local services and the armed forces was much better co-ordinated than has perhaps been the case in the past, so we have been able to learn from the flooding in the past.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
One of the objectives I set out in my speech yesterday was something I have said before about the guaranteeing of rights for EU citizens living here in the UK, but I also want to see the rights of UK citizens living in the 27 member states being guaranteed. I remain open, and I encourage others across Europe to agree with me that this is an issue we should look at as early as possible in order to give people the confidence and reassurance that the hon. Lady is looking for .
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
In supporting my right hon. Friend’s endeavours in facing the difficult challenges in social care and the national health service, may I invite her to endorse the concept and continuance of community hospitals in our market towns across the country? Those hospitals, including the Westminster Memorial hospital in Shaftesbury in my constituency, provide a vital piece of the jigsaw in our national health service.
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the Westminster Memorial hospital in Shaftesbury is providing good services for local people. The structure of local services is of course a matter for discussion at local level, and it is crucial that local clinicians and others agree that we have a safe and secure service for people and that they are provided with the NHS services that they need at the most appropriate level. I fully accept my hon. Friend’s point that we often think only about the major district general hospitals and acute hospitals when actually the NHS is made up of many different parts. We need to ensure that patients are being treated at the most appropriate level for their needs.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
How can abandoning membership of a customs union that takes 68% of Wales’s exports—including, crucially, 90% of our food and drink exports—and that supports 200,000 jobs cause anything other than “calamitous…self-harm”?
The Prime Minister
What we will be doing is negotiating a free trade agreement with the European Union to get the best possible access for trade with the EU, but we also want to be able to negotiate trade agreements with other countries around the world. A number of countries have already expressed interest in doing that with us. We want to do that to open up new export markets being delivered for businesses here in the United Kingdom, including the sort of trade in Wales that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. On the question of customs with the European Union, we want an arrangement that will involve the most frictionless borders possible.
Human Rights: Burma
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make statement on human rights in Burma.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)
Mr Speaker, I know that you care deeply about the situation in Burma and have done much to foster democratic values in that country and to promote relations between the UK and Burma. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for raising this matter. He knows Burma well and has close family connections there.
We have of course been deeply worried by the flare-up of violence in Rakhine state since an attack on police posts on 9 October by unknown assailants—presumed to be Rohingya militants. While we condemn the attack and recognise the right of security forces to carry out security operations to root out the perpetrators, we remain deeply concerned by the conduct of the army in its response. Although restrictions on media, diplomatic and humanitarian access make the facts difficult to ascertain, we have been worried by numerous reports alleging widespread human rights violations in the security response.
British Ministers have directly lobbied Burmese Ministers in response to the escalating violence. The Commonwealth Affairs Minister, my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St Johns, raised the issue with the Burmese Defence Minister when she visited Burma in November last year. Specifically, she called for the full and immediate resumption of aid and for an investigation into allegations of human rights abuses. I repeated those calls to the Construction Minister when he visited the UK, also in November. The Burmese Government have now committed to investigating the 9 October attacks, restoring human rights access and investigating allegations of human rights abuses. In practice, however, much aid is still blocked by local authorities reporting to the military, particularly in the areas where security operations are ongoing. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.
We are also worried by the recent escalation of conflict in Kachin and Shan states, which has also led to allegations of civilian casualties, the widespread displacement of civilians and human rights abuses. We have raised our concerns about the violence in north-east Burma directly with Burmese Ministers. As I said, we continue to monitor the situation closely. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will visit Burma soon and will reiterate our concerns about such issues.
Paul Scully
I thank the Minister for that response. The first question I asked in this House was about the situation faced by the Rohingya community in Rakhine state. It is incredibly frustrating to return to the subject nearly two years later, following several worrying reports from Rakhine, northern Shan and Kachin, the last two of which have reportedly involved airstrikes and heavy artillery.
Since that first question, Aung San Suu Kyi has won a remarkable election victory. Although she has a difficult task in keeping the Government together while the military still has such a huge influence, does the Minister agree that friends such as the UK should continue to raise humanitarian issues while so many suffer due to their faith?
Tomorrow, Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, an inter-governmental body of 58 member states, will meet in Kuala Lumpur to discuss the situation of the Rohingya in Rakhine state. Will the Minister join me and more than 40 Myanmar-based civil society organisations in calling today for a truly independent international investigation into that situation, whereby state-sponsored attacks on Rohingya Muslim civilians have escalated in recent months? It is difficult to get accurate information about what is really happening in Rakhine, so in order to get to the truth and beyond the false reports, will the Minister call for full access for independent observers and journalists to villages and displacement camps in Rakhine state?
I have also been informed that Yanghee Lee, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, who has been on a 12-day monitoring mission to the country, has been denied access by the Government to conflict-affected areas of Shan state. Does the Minister agree that Ms Lee should be allowed to do her job and bring such issues into the open? Finally, when the Foreign Secretary visits Burma this weekend, will he raise the situation in Rakhine, Kachin and northern Shan, and will he also raise the matter with Burmese MPs and the Speaker of the House of Representatives when the Burmese delegation visits the UK next week? Will he also raise the matter with the Government of Bangladesh to see what more can be done on a humanitarian level for displaced Rohingyas on the border between Burma and Bangladesh?
Alok Sharma
I agree with my hon. Friend, and of course, we are deeply concerned about what is happening in Rakhine state. Yes, it is difficult to get access to verify the facts but, like him, we are extremely concerned about the human rights violations that have been reported and, of course, about the security response.
My hon. Friend raised a number of questions. He asked about UK support for an international commission —I assume a UN-type commission. A UN-led commission of inquiry can be established in one of three ways: by the Secretary-General, by the Security Council or by the Human Rights Council. Establishing an inquiry in that way would require broad international support, which we assess does not exist in the current international environment.
My hon. Friend also asked about the visit of Yanghee Lee, the UN special rapporteur, which I very much welcome. I am aware that she is currently in Burma, and for many years we have supported the annual resolution of the Human Rights Council that mandates her role. We hope that the authorities in Burma will give her full and unimpeded access so that she can conduct a thorough assessment, including of Rakhine. Like my hon. Friend, I look forward to reading her report.
My hon. Friend talked about the overall peace process and particularly about the aid that we are providing. I can confirm that we are providing aid not just in Rakhine but to the refugees in Bangladesh. In our meetings I have urged the Bangladeshi Government not to return refugees to a situation in which they would face harm.
Finally, my hon. Friend made a plea in relation to the Foreign Secretary’s visit. I assure him that the Foreign Secretary will strongly put the case on humanitarian issues from a UK perspective. As far as I am aware, he intends to meet Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as the chief of the military.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on securing it.
For all of us who have campaigned for years for democracy and an end to repression in Myanmar, including many in this House, it is all the more troubling to see evidence that, for all the progress that has been made, the suppression of the majority in Myanmar has been replaced, in far too many cases, with the persecution of minorities. In particular, as the hon. Gentleman said, it was shocking to hear of the recent disappearance of two Kachin Christian leaders, who have apparently been kidnapped in northern Shan state. It is incumbent on the Government, and indeed on the international community as a whole, to press the Myanmar authorities urgently to provide information on their whereabouts and to secure their immediate freedom.
We are also deeply concerned about the continuing humanitarian crisis in Rakhine state, and particularly about the recent reports from the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that a raft of human rights violations have taken place in recent months, including cases of torture, rape and sexual assault, summary executions and the destruction of mosques and homes.
Upholding human rights should be the driving force of our foreign policy, and we therefore call on the Government to use Britain’s influence to stand up for the rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled and to raise concerns with the authorities in Myanmar as a matter of urgency, including on the persecution and poverty that many people are suffering and on the need for full humanitarian access to all affected areas.
I hope the Minister can tell us today about the representations he has made to his counterparts in Myanmar, particularly on access for the UN-appointed rapporteur, Yanghee Lee, and on how he is planning to ensure that the rights of Myanmar’s people are protected.
Alok Sharma
Having previously discussed the situation with the hon. Lady, I know that she cares very deeply about the humanitarian issues in Burma. There is consensus on these issues on both sides of the House.
The hon. Lady raises the issue of the Kachin pastors. Many Christians live in areas where there is active conflict, notably in Kachin, and we are of course deeply concerned about the disappearance of the two pastors, Dumdaw Nawng Lat and Langjaw Gam Seng. There is deep concern about their welfare. As she notes, they disappeared on Christmas eve, allegedly after taking journalists to see a recently bombed church. Like her, we urge the Government of Burma to investigate their case immediately and release them.
The hon. Lady asks about the UK Government’s lobbying. I note that the Foreign Secretary will be in Burma soon. He will, of course, make strong representations on behalf of the UK Government. Apart from the representations that I and other Foreign Office Ministers have made, our ambassador has visited north Rakhine in recent months and has lobbied five separate Burmese Ministers on the issue and urged restraint in the security response.
Finally, the hon. Lady talked about humanitarian aid. As she will know, the UK Government are doing an enormous amount to provide aid to this troubled area. We have certainly been the biggest bilateral humanitarian donor in Rakhine, and since 2012 we have provided more than £23 million in humanitarian assistance, including supporting work on sanitation and nutrition for more than 126,000 people.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
When the Foreign Secretary travels to Burma, he will no doubt wish to discuss with Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders the role of the Tatmadaw, whether it is worth our while to continue running courses for them, the efficacy of those courses and whether the Tatmadaw is continuing to block aid from going into some areas. I urge the Minister to in turn urge the Foreign Secretary to travel to Sittwe in Rakhine to see the situation on the ground for himself, talk to the Rohingya and come back to this House to update us on whether there is now real evidence that outside forces are stirring up the Rohingya in that part of Burma.
Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend is an expert, having been a Minister with responsibility for this part of the world when he was at the Foreign Office. I have already set out the key individuals whom the Foreign Secretary plans to meet, and we all look forward to his response when he returns to the House.
My right hon. Friend talks about the training we may be doing with the military in Burma, and I make it clear that any training we undertake has nothing to do with combat training; it is to do with humanitarian work and English language training. Our assessment is that building those links is a worthwhile thing to be doing.
On the Tatmadaw, my right hon. Friend knows full well that Aung San Suu Kyi has a position in the Government but that the army has a role to play. Clearly it is the army that is acting in the areas where there are humanitarian issues.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on securing this important urgent question. The Minister has expressed concern about the disappearance of the two ethnic Kachin Baptist leaders who were apparently forcibly disappeared over Christmas, and he has also called for unfettered access for the United Nations special rapporteur. Can he confirm that both those matters have already been specifically raised with the Burmese ambassador in London, and that the Foreign Secretary will raise both specific matters in his talks in Burma next week?
The Minister rather sidestepped the question on action through the UN by saying that the Government’s opinion is that there is not sufficient consensus at the present time to take forward such action. Can he go further? When the special rapporteur returns and reports to the UN, will he undertake on behalf of the Government to use every possible effort to build consensus on an urgent and independent United Nations commission as a result of the special rapporteur’s visit? Will the Government commit to trying to build that consensus, as opposed to merely remarking that it does not exist?
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the UK Government’s representations to the Burmese Government. As I noted, we have made representations at both ministerial and ambassadorial level. He talks about the representations that the Foreign Secretary will make. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary is aware of what is said in this House, as I am sure he already is. He cares very deeply about Burma, and the fact that he is going out there very soon should give the right hon. Gentleman a great deal of comfort.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the UN, and I stated the position on that: we support the UN special rapporteur. He will know that we have also been supportive of the Human Rights Council, but this is about building multilateral support for actions, and that is where we seek to work together with other partners.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Years ago, during the time of the Labour Government, I organised a debate in Westminster Hall about the persecution of the Karen people, which has been a long-standing serious situation. Those people gave us unstinting loyalty during the second world war, and they have been repaid with persecution ever since. What further steps can the Government take on that persecution, to ensure that the human rights of the Karen are protected?
Alok Sharma
Collectively in this House, we all care deeply about human rights, wherever they may be being affected. If my hon. Friend would like to write to me, I would be happy to take up that specific issue, but I make the general point that human rights absolutely matter to this House, to the Government and to the British people, and will continue to be at the forefront of everything the Foreign Office does.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Undoubtedly there is reason for concern at the military crackdown on the Rohingya Muslim minority. I understand that Aung San Suu Kyi has made it clear that she welcomes the international community’s support and efforts in seeking peace and stability, and in building better relations with communities. I hope the Foreign Secretary will focus on that during his visit. The UN special rapporteur, Yanghee Lee, is on her fifth information-gathering visit, so does the Foreign Secretary intend to speak to her?
Alok Sharma
On whether the Foreign Secretary will be speaking to the special rapporteur, I will make sure he is aware of the right hon. Lady’s request. On our ongoing dialogue, she will know that the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, which is led by Kofi Annan, was put in place last year and is due to produce a report in August. I have had a number of conversations with Kofi Annan about the work that is ongoing, so I hope she will appreciate that that is a clear example of what the British Government are doing to engage with the international community and others in Burma.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given the scale of abuse by the Tatmadaw and a particularly uncharacteristically militant form of Buddhism, does the Minister accept that the unwelcome radicalisation of the Rohingya is only a question of time, that that time is short and that this needs to be treated with the appropriate sense of urgency?
Alok Sharma
We of course bring a sense of urgency to all the work that we try to do, particularly on human rights, but this process has, sadly, been ongoing for some time. It is about continuing to work together with international partners, non-governmental organisations and others in Burma, and continuing to make those representations. As I said, the Foreign Secretary hopes to meet the chief of the army when he is in Burma, and I hope we will have an opportunity to make our points clearly to the Tatmadaw then.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I welcome the Minister’s indication about the Foreign Secretary’s visit. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear when he is in Burma that the interest of this House extends to seeing not only a continued transition in rule, but a real transformation in rights? The best way for that to begin is through a credible investigation at an international level, with reliable adherence to any robust recommendations that that investigation brings.
Alok Sharma
On the investigations, I have said that the commission established and led by Kofi Annan will, we hope, set out clearly its thoughts. It is an independent commission and we support it.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
May I impress upon the Government the need to give attention to the unfolding tragedy in Kachin, with reports last week of 4,000 internally displaced people fleeing for their lives, particularly women and children, who have been moved on before and who need to get unfettered access to humanitarian aid? May I also draw attention again to the situation of the two Baptist pastors? Ministers surely must do all they can, with the UN special rapporteur there, to get the information that the family members need and not to accept the apparent approved response, with the absence being described as “enforced disappearance”, which is contrary to all international human rights.
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is a great champion of human rights, particularly those of minorities around the world. He puts his point about the pastors eloquently, and we will continue to make representations. On specific aid, I mentioned that the UK has provided £18 million in essential humanitarian and healthcare assistance, which of course has been in Kachin and the north Shan state, over the past four years.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm what discussions he and his Department have had with other Governments about getting medical assistance into the area? Will he update us on that?
Alok Sharma
On discussions with other Governments, our ambassador of course has discussions locally in Burma with counterparts. On the support we are giving, I talked about some of the numbers on the amount of money we are spending and what it is being spent on. We seek to work with NGOs and others on the ground to make sure that funds are getting through to where they are needed in these troubled areas.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will agree that the progress in seeing improved human rights has been painfully slow in Burma since the elections, which we had hoped would bring far more, given the flawed constitutional position that still exists. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit. Will the Minister update the House on what engagement we are having with regional partners to try to build the type of international consensus we need for further action through the UN?
Alok Sharma
As I have said on a number of occasions, we discuss these matters with a range of actors, including international partners. Right now, Kofi Annan’s independent commission is leading work in this area. We will continue to have a dialogue with Mr Annan and we look forward to his report.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I join the Minister in paying tribute to your interest in and work on behalf of the Burmese people over many years, Mr Speaker. We all welcome Burma moving out from the long dark years of military dictatorship, but we also hoped it would put behind it communal and religious conflict, too. Will the Minister therefore make it very clear to the Burmese authorities that their welcome re-entry into the international community will not be helped if they fail to protect minorities, particularly the Rohingya community?
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman of course makes a number of important points. On the work that is going on and what has happened since the election, he will be aware that the new Burmese Government released 300 political prisoners, began the abolition of draconian laws, initiated the peace process that I talked about and established the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, led by Kofi Annan. We have to give a huge amount of credit to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for the work she has done in leading Burma to this stage. I agree with him that we need to keep pressing on humanitarian issues and to make sure that the rights of minorities are respected. However, as he will know, the military remain heavily involved in Burmese politics and they wrote the 2008 constitution, which grants them 25% of seats in Parliament, unelected.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On having an independent UN investigation into this matter, the Minister said initially that there needs to be a consensus. Then he said he would work together with others for a consensus. Can he go a step further than the answer he gave to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and say that rather than working with others, the UK will lead the way in building that consensus, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council?
Alok Sharma
May I give a specific example of the UN work we are doing and supporting? Several UN mechanisms are already in place, including, as I said earlier, the Human Rights Council resolution, which we support. It mandates the role of the UN special rapporteur on Burma, who is currently visiting the country, and we look forward to her report. As I have said already, we call for full and unimpeded access for her so that she can carry out her work.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Given the range of access issues that UN staff and missions have had in recent times, what discussions has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had with its counterparts in the Security Council to ensure that UN staff are given full and proper access to areas of concern, wherever in the world they may be?
Alok Sharma
We discuss issues of access to humanitarian rights with counterparts in the UN, as well as on a more bilateral basis. I assure the hon. Lady that we keep these issues at the forefront of our work, and will continue to make representations of the type she is pressing for.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Parliament was rightly moved by the house arrest of a single exceptional lady, but as it has not been mentioned during this urgent question, may I mention the situation of the Rohingya people? Hundreds are being attacked and many are being murdered. Their villages are being systematically burned or destroyed. Many are being sold into slavery with the complicity of Burmese authorities—the very authorities that treat the Rohingya as a non-people. My hon. Friend the Minister has avoided the challenges of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who said that it is not sufficient for the Government to co-operate; they need to lead UN support if the reports are true. So, for the third time, will the Minister say whether, if the reports are true and the Foreign Secretary comes back from Burma validating all that has been said, the Government will take up leadership at the UN to ensure that there is broad support and a resolution to follow?
Alok Sharma
I pray forgiveness if I have given the impression that I am dodging the questions, because that has not been my intention at all. The point I have been making is that we have to work together with partners to achieve an outcome. That is what we seek to do in this particular case, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do that.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and I have been approached by constituents who want to provide help directly to Rohingya communities that need it, in both Burma and Bangladesh. The Minister has talked about access for NGOs; what routes are currently open for the delivery of help where it is needed, and what advice can he give to those who want to help people who are currently suffering such extreme problems?
Alok Sharma
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. The area we are discussing is very troubled, and the humanitarian help that is getting through has been quite limited in some parts. If he would like to meet outside of the House to discuss the specifics and who his constituents are, I would be very happy to see whether we can take the matter forward.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
In response to a written question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), the Foreign Office revealed that it had spent £300,000 and more on training the Burmese army. Would that money not be better spent on exposing and verifying human rights violations?
Alok Sharma
This question has come up before, but I can again confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence does not provide combat training. The UK is providing educational training to the Burmese military in the form of programmes delivered by the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom on the role of the military in a democracy, with leadership and England language training. We really do continue to believe that that is a useful thing to do to engage the next generation of the Burmese army.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Like other Members, I have been contacted by constituents who are deeply concerned about the treatment of the Rohingya community, which is often described as the world’s most persecuted religious minority. They struggle to understand why, after years of persecution, the brutality continues. The Minister talked about the importance of building consensus in the United Nations; will he elaborate on the barriers to consensus and what our diplomatic efforts with partners around the world can do to break them down?
Alok Sharma
Successive UK Governments have raised many long-standing humanitarian and other issues around the world, and we will of course continue to raise this one. I return to the point I made earlier: at the end of the day, this is also about engagement in Burma, particularly with the armed forces and armed services, and the Foreign Secretary hopes to meet the army chief. We can provide humanitarian support and support to the elected Government, and we can continue to have conversations, both in Burma and through our multilateral partners, to ensure that we keep this matter at the forefront, not only internationally but in Burma.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend you, Mr Speaker, for your interest in this subject and for bringing it to the forefront of our minds each and every day inside and outside the House.
The Minister will be aware that in the past few months the Burmese Government have introduced four new laws on race and religion. Those laws were made to protect but, unfortunately, instead of protecting they have built insurmountable hurdles for conversions and mixed marriages. Does the Minister agree that the disappearance of the two pastors is just the latest indication of the daily horrors faced in Burma? What representations have been made on behalf of Christians who fear uttering the very name of Jesus himself?
Alok Sharma
A few weeks ago in the House, I responded to a debate on human rights in which the hon. Gentleman made some powerful interventions. I know that he cares very deeply about minorities, and particularly the Christian community. As I have said, we continue to make the case, not only to the Burmese Government but internationally, that these matters are vital and that we must ensure there is no persecution of Christians or any other type of minority in that country. We will keep doing that. It is important that we have debates such as this in the House, because it shows the international community that the whole House cares very deeply about this matter.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Burmese Government’s commission to investigate the violation of Rohingya human rights found insufficient evidence of such violations, which I find shocking given the fact that they continue to be one of the most persecuted communities. What direct conversations has the Minister had with the Burmese Government to challenge the accuracy of that ridiculous report?
Alok Sharma
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government have also noted the interim report that has been produced by the investigation commission, which, as he intimated, indicates that no human rights abuses have taken place. That of course goes against the weight of testimony from a range of human rights sources; frankly, it is not credible. We call on the commission to demonstrate over the coming weeks the commitment made by the Burmese Government to an impartial investigation. We will of course wait to see what the final report says, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it needs to be credible for anyone to take it seriously.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
First, I will not be in the Chamber tomorrow, Mr Speaker—I know you will miss me—but I know it will be your birthday, so may I take the opportunity to wish you an early happy birthday?
Minister, since the Burmese security forces started their campaign in October, it has been established that around 65,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled the country. According to reports, the minority group has been subject to arson, rape and murder at the hands of the military. Such allegations are incredibly serious, so I ask the Minister—I believe for the fourth time—whether he will continue to call for the establishment of an independent investigation into the claims?
Alok Sharma
Mr Speaker, may I, too, wish you a happy birthday for tomorrow? [Laughter.]
Alok Sharma
I mean that most sincerely.
In response to the hon. Lady, I hope I have made it clear today that the UK is pursuing a huge number of avenues to get humanitarian aid in and make the case for minorities. We are making it clear that we care deeply about these matters, and we will keep doing that. Going back to the approach from a UN perspective, the UN is already engaged in several areas, and we will continue that work and to make the case, because we want to ensure that there is resolution in this very troubled area.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister say what discussions he has had, or will have, with the Government of Bangladesh about the refugee status of the Rohingya people who, in many cases, have fled the most obscene violence in Rakhine state?
Alok Sharma
I raised the issue of the Rohingya in Bangladesh with representatives of the Bangladesh Government before Christmas. The important point that I made was that they should not be looking to return people who are seeking refuge back into danger. On the aid that we are providing, the UK is the largest provider of food aid to the 34,000 Rohingya refugees already living in official camps in Bangladesh. Since 2014, the UK has provided nearly £8 million to address the humanitarian suffering of Rohingya refugees and the vulnerable Bangladeshi communities that host them.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the urgent question. I was meant to be in Burma this week with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. When we were briefed the other day, we were told that the visit had been delayed till May. The foundation indicated that, in addition to the two main parties, there are 92 other parties. Will the Minister consider how someone like me who has experienced the difficulties in Northern Ireland can help some of those parties to work together and to learn to respect the military so that we find a way forward? Such advice would be a great help for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
Alok Sharma
I am very happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman after this debate about the work that he is doing with the Westminster Foundation. On the discussions that we are having, it is Aung San Suu Kyi who is effectively leading the Government, and we have contact with her. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will meet her very soon on his visit to Burma. We continue to engage with all the actors, particularly through our ambassador. As I have said during this debate, the key thing is engagement with the military. At the end of the day, it is the military that is leading some of the issues over which we have some concerns, and it is vital that we continue to engage with it.
Promotion of Israeli-Palestinian Peace (United Kingdom Participation)
Wednesday 18th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Promotion of Israeli-Palestinian Peace (United Kingdom Participation) Bill 2016-17 View all Promotion of Israeli-Palestinian Peace (United Kingdom Participation) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to promote the establishment of an International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace to support coexistence projects and civil society programmes; and for connected purposes.
As the House knows, recent weeks have seen a flurry of activity on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: a UN Security Council resolution; a major speech by the US Secretary of State John Kerry; and a further peace conference in Paris last weekend.
The barriers to a two-state solution are well known. As a strong friend of Israel, I admit freely, but with great regret, that these include the expansion of settlements on the west bank. Settlement building is wrong. It threatens the viability of a future Palestinian state—the case for which is unarguable. It does immense damage to Israel’s standing in the world, and, over time, it will put at risk that which is most precious about Israel’s character: its Jewish and democratic character.
However, as Secretary of State Kerry stated clearly, this is not to say
“that the settlements are the whole or even the primary cause of this conflict.”
There is also the incitement tolerated, and, in many cases, perpetrated by the Palestinian Authority. I am talking about the payment of “salaries” to those convicted of terrorist offences, and the naming of schools, streets and sports tournaments after so-called martyrs, thereby glorifying their violence. Then there is the greatest barrier of all: the rejectionist, anti-Semitic ideology of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, which denies Israel’s very right to exist, and the terrorism that inevitably flows from it.
My Bill today is not intended to downplay the importance of those barriers, although it will help to address some of the pernicious consequences arising from them. Instead, my Bill recognises that, as the example of Northern Ireland taught us, any peace process needs a political dimension, an economic dimension and a civil society dimension. Coexistence projects that bring together Israelis and Palestinians to advance the cause of mutual understanding, reconciliation and trust represent that civil society dimension. The world has paid it too little attention, investing only around £37 million a year in people-to-people projects for Israel and Palestine—that is less than £4 for each Israeli and Palestinian person each year.
Britain exemplifies this problem. From spending a pitiful £150,000 on coexistence projects in 2015-16, the Government, despite repeated warm words to the contrary, appear to have cut this funding altogether in the current financial year. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for International Development seems keen to right that wrong.
The absence of strong constituencies for peace in Israel and Palestine is one of the results. Polling by the Israeli Democracy Institute and the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research last summer underlined the scale of the problem. Although 59% of Israelis and 51% of Palestinians still support a two-state solution, these already slim majorities are fragile, threatened by fear and distrust between the two peoples. Thus 89% of Palestinians believe Israeli Jews are untrustworthy; a feeling that is reciprocated by 68% of the latter. At the same time, 65% of Israeli Jews fear Palestinians and 45% of Palestinians fear Israeli Jews.
We should not place our hopes in the optimism of the young. After all, this is the generation that has no memory of the optimism engendered by the Oslo accords, but whose formative years have instead been marked by suicide bombings, the second intifada and perpetual conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Even if the peace process were in better health, these would hardly be the most solid foundations on which to build a lasting peace. However, we should recall that the seeds for the Good Friday agreement were sown at a similarly inauspicious moment during the height of the troubles, when the International Fund for Ireland was created. Over the past 30 years, it has invested £714 million in grassroots coexistence work in Northern Ireland. In all, more than 5,800 projects have been supported since it was established to promote economic and social advance and to encourage contact, dialogue and reconciliation between nationalists and Unionists throughout Ireland. That investment has helped to provide the popular support that has helped to sustain the Good Friday agreement over nearly two decades.
With that example in mind, my Bill requires the Government to promote the establishment of the proposed international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. This has been designed by the Alliance for Middle East Peace, a coalition of more than 90 organisations building people-to-people co-operation and coexistence. The fund aims to leverage and increase public and private contributions worldwide, funding civil society projects and joint economic development that promote coexistence, peace and reconciliation. It is envisaged that the $200 million-per-year fund—four times the current level of international support for people-to-people work in Israel and Palestine—would receive contributions of approximately 25% each from the US, Europe, the rest of the international community including the Arab world, and the private sector. The fund is not, I should emphasise, intended to receive support that otherwise would be provided directly to either the Palestinian Authority or to Israel.
We know that the coexistence projects in Israel and Palestine work. After two decades, there is now a significant body of evidence, based on academic and governmental evaluations, indicating the impact that coexistence projects can have. That impact, moreover, has been achieved in the face of considerable challenges. According to the United States Agency for International Development, those participating in people-to-people programmes report higher levels of trust, higher levels of co-operation, more “conflict resolution values”, and less aggression and loneliness. Evaluation of individual programmes underlines that impact.
Middle East Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow—MEET—is a truly inspiring project that brings together young Israelis and Palestinians to learn about technology and entrepreneurship. It found a 60% increase in the number of students who value working with someone from the “other side” after just one year on the programme. The Parents Circle Families Forum, an organisation of more than 600 Palestinian and Israeli families who have lost a family member in the conflict, found that 70% of all participants had increased trust and empathy and that 84% were motivated to participate in peacebuilding activities in their communities.
I would ask, too, whether the Department for International Development can point to anything in its current funding that has moved the conflict closer to resolution. If coexistence work is to be held to a standard that demands that it demonstrate how it helps solve the conflict, surely other strategies that have not by themselves moved the ball forward should be held to the same standard.
Support for a renewed effort to promote coexistence work is strong and growing. It crosses international boundaries and political parties. The Quartet’s most recent report recommended a focus on civil society work for the first time since its founding. The Vatican, Jewish organisations and politicians on both left and right in Israel have all raised their voices in support. On Capitol Hill, two US Congressmen—Jeff Fortenberry and Joe Crowley—have worked across party lines, introducing a Bill in support of the international fund in the best traditions of US global leadership.
In this House, 56 of my Labour colleagues signed an open letter to the Secretary of State for International Development last month endorsing the fund, and I am delighted today to have the support of Members from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. I am particularly pleased that the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, is listed as one of the supporters of the Bill.
The late Shimon Peres, one of Israel’s founding fathers and most indefatigable peacemakers, once said:
“The way to make peace is not through governments. It is through people.”
He knew that, even in the most challenging of times, we must never give up on the search for peace. By supporting my Bill, the House can underline its support for that search.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Joan Ryan, Ian Austin, Mrs Louise Ellman, Stephen Kinnock, Catherine McKinnell, Stephen Twigg, Chris Davies, Sir Eric Pickles, Will Quince, Paul Scully, Craig Tracey and Mr Alistair Carmichael present the Bill.
Joan Ryan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 24 March and to be printed (Bill 126).
Leaving the EU: Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered exiting the EU and security, law enforcement and criminal justice.
I am pleased to introduce today’s debate on security, law enforcement and criminal justice—one of a number of debates that we will be having about our exit from the European Union. It is important that Members have the opportunity to discuss and debate leaving the EU. The Prime Minister underlined the importance of Parliament’s involvement in exit negotiations in her speech yesterday. This afternoon, Members have a chance to debate an area of our relationship with the EU that is crucial, not only to our negotiations but to the continued safety of both Europe and ourselves—citizens across Europe and the United Kingdom.
This debate will focus on how we work with the EU on security, law enforcement and criminal justice now and how we will work with our EU partners in the future. Co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism was one of the Government’s core negotiating objectives. The UK is leaving the EU, but as we have been clear, we are not leaving Europe. We are committed to strong co-operation on security, law enforcement and criminal justice now and when we leave. We will work with our European partners to find solutions that promote security across Europe and beyond.
The decision of the British people to leave the European Union does not alter the duty that we and all member states share collectively to keep our citizens safe and to protect our democratic way of life and the rule of law. In the face of the common threats that we face from terrorism, cyber-attacks and hostile foreign actors, maintaining strong EU-UK security co-operation is vital to our collective success in keeping citizens safe. It is difficult to see how it would be in anyone’s interests for exit negotiations to result in a reduction in the effectiveness of security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I disagree with nothing that the Minister has said so far. We are leaders in Europe as far as co-operation on security and justice is concerned. Does the Minister agree that one of the most important aspects of the issue is information sharing? Access to ECRIS, the European criminal records information system, should be one of the key elements of our negotiations. We need to be able to reach the criminal records of those who have committed offences in the rest of Europe and to share information about those who commit offences in our country.
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s agreement with my position so far. He makes an important point. I will come specifically to the issue of data sharing. As we all understand, we live in a world of global work; people are working across borders, particularly when it comes to criminality. We need to be well equipped to deal with that.
Criminality and terrorism are increasingly transnational. International organised crime groups exploit vulnerabilities such as inadequate law enforcement and criminal justice structures. Threats that we now face, such as cybercrime, which is moving ever more quickly, or online child sexual exploitation, are by definition international in a technologically interconnected world. The UK National Crime Agency’s most recent public estimate suggests that more than 6,000 organised crime groups are seeking to operate in the United Kingdom.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Minister give me some reassurance on the issue of the European arrest warrant? Before the last election, during a debate in this House, the current Prime Minister, then Home Secretary, fought hard to get the warrant through the House in the face of some opposition from some Members. Will the Minister say whether we will secure the powers of the warrant post Brexit?
Brandon Lewis
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are at the start of negotiations. I cannot predict where we will end up. However, I will come specifically to the European arrest warrant and its implications for us in a few moments.
Criminal networks are driving migrant smuggling; Europol estimates that more than 90% of migrants travelling to the EU used facilitators—provided, in most cases, by criminal groups with an estimated turnover of €3 billion to €6 billion in 2015 alone. We are at the beginning of a complex process to agree a new relationship with the EU. This is new territory for both sides, and it is way too early to say exactly what that relationship will look like. I am sure there will be many and varied views expressed from around the Chamber today and in the months ahead, but I am also confident that nobody will argue against the importance of fighting cross-border crime and of defending security across Europe.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
To reinforce that point, will the Minister concede that what we are talking about is a system of European criminal justice co-operation? Much of this is about practical co-operation and information sharing and does not largely touch on the substantive criminal law of the states. Sometimes it extends beyond member states of the European Union. Does not that reinforce the importance of the point about practicality?
Brandon Lewis
As ever, my hon. Friend makes a really important point, and he is absolutely right. Some members of and countries involved with organisations such as Europol are not part of the European Union, highlighting that they see the importance of ensuring that we share information efficiently and proactively to fight crime. It is absolutely right that we work to protect that ability. Whatever shape our future relationship with the EU takes, I hope that we can all agree that it should not compromise the safety of people in the UK or, indeed, the rest of Europe.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that one consequence of leaving the European Union, as the Prime Minister has indicated, is that we withdraw from, as she puts it,
“the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”.
But many of these justice co-operation functions ultimately come under the jurisdiction of the European Court. I find it difficult to understand what arrangement the Government envisage to address that issue—perhaps they wish to have a separate tribunal system set up to apply the rules—because, even for states outside the EU, the ECJ’s rulings on these key areas of security co-operation are very important.
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend’s point. One piece of work we will do during the negotiations is to ensure that we get something bespoke for the United Kingdom. One temptation is to look at what other countries have done. As I mentioned earlier, there are countries who work with Europol—the United States is a good example—that are not members of the EU and have found ways to make it work. We can look at those examples, but we actually need to develop a bespoke solution for the United Kingdom.
Brandon Lewis
I just want to make a bit more progress.
The Prime Minister set out in her speech yesterday the Government’s negotiation objectives for Brexit, explaining that this Government plan to make Britain “stronger” and “fairer”, restoring “national self-determination” while becoming
“more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.”
We have a long record of playing a leading role, within Europe and globally, to support and drive co-operation to help to protect citizens and defend democratic values, and we have been leading proponents of the development of a number of the law enforcement and criminal justice measures that are now in place across the European Union. The Prime Minister reiterated yesterday that although June’s referendum was a vote to leave the EU, it was not a vote to leave Europe. We want to continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends with the European countries.
On a practical level, there has been no immediate change to how we work with the EU following the referendum, as the recent decision just before Christmas to seek to opt into the new legislation framework for Europol, the EU policing agency, demonstrates. The UK will remain a member of the EU with all the rights and obligations that membership entails until we leave. The way in which we work with the EU, of course, will have to change once we leave and we must now plan for what our new relationship will look like. The views that hon. Members express here today will be helpful in that regard, including, no doubt, that of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne).
Liam Byrne
I just want to follow up on the incredibly important question posed by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). We are the proud authors of human rights in Europe. It is a tradition that dates back to Magna Carta. Will the Minister confirm that when the Government bring forward their proposals on a British Bill of Rights, nothing in the draft for discussion will propose that we leave the European convention on human rights or the European Court of Human Rights?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to give a running commentary and to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations and work in the couple of years ahead, but I will resist. However, I will say that while we remain a member of the EU we recognise the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the measures that we have opted into. It is too early to speculate on exactly what our relationship with the European Court of Justice will be after we leave the EU. That work will be done as we go forward.
I have already spoken to several counterparts in Europe, as have the Home Secretary and many of my colleagues across Government. In my conversations with colleagues across Europe, I have been encouraged by their view that it is essential to find a way for our shared work on security to continue, but we do have questions about how that should happen in practice and we need to work through answering them. This will be complex and subject to negotiation. We are committed to finding a way forward that works for the UK and the European Union. The Home Office is working with Departments—such as that of the Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), who will be closing the debate—across Whitehall to analyse the full range of options for future co-operation.
We are liaising closely with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations as it is crucial to ensure that we find a way forward that works for all of the UK. We are drawing on the invaluable frontline experience of operational partners such as the National Crime Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service, and I am grateful for the ongoing contributions of all those organisations. The work is being drawn together with the support of our colleagues in the Department for Exiting the European Union and will form part of our wider exit negotiation strategy.
Brandon Lewis
I will make a bit of progress before I give way again.
Our current model of EU co-operation centres on a number of legal agreements or tools. Broadly speaking, the tools provide the frameworks for practical co-operation arrangements and information-sharing mechanisms, as hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned, as well as establishing minimum operating standards to support cross-border judicial and law enforcement co-operation. They include measures such as the European arrest warrant, Europol, the European criminal record information system, prisoner transfer agreements and the Schengen information system. They are designed to protect the rights of defendants and the vulnerable across borders, facilitate mutual co-operation and support practical processes for fighting cross-border crime and delivering justice.
Over the years, we have been leading proponents of the development of a number of security measures within the EU, backed by proportionate safeguards. Leaving the EU does not mean that we are walking away from that close co-operation with our nearest neighbours.
Brandon Lewis
If the right hon. Gentleman looks further into Europol’s website, he will see that there are already associate member states, such as the United States, which form a very large contingent in Europol. That is just one example, and I will mention Europol specifically in a few moments.
The EU law enforcement and criminal justice toolkit has evolved over many years in response to changes in the nature of the EU, international security threats and the increased movement of people across borders. The justice and home affairs opt-out decision in 2014 gave us the opportunity to consider the value of certain pre-2014 measures to the UK. Although that decision provides a useful reference point, it is important to be clear that the situation following the outcome of the EU referendum means that the context is now different. To state the obvious, we will no longer be a member of the EU so, unlike the 2014 decision, the question now is not whether we wish to seek to re-join certain measures as a member state. Instead, we have to consider how we should interact with the EU security, law enforcement and criminal justice toolkit from outside the EU.
We are considering the full range of possible options. We are looking at existing arrangements for third country co-operation with the EU, which can inform discussions, but it is important to be clear that we are not looking to replicate any other nation’s model. We are at a unique starting point with a strong history of working closely with the member states as partners and allies. As I mentioned, we will make a key contribution to security and justice in Europe and globally, and will seek an agreement with the EU that recognises the unique position we hold.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Further to the question of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the Prime Minister said in her speech yesterday that we will not be hanging on to “bits” of the EU. Europol is an EU agency and the European arrest warrant is an EU crime and safety measure. Is not a reasonable—in fact, the only—interpretation of the Prime Minister’s speech about not hanging on to bits of the EU that we will no longer participate in either of those?
Brandon Lewis
It is worth the right hon. Gentleman looking at the Europol website that the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) mentioned. He will see that there are associate members of Europol that are not members of the European Union, such as the United States. I also point out that Europol existed as a non-EU institution before the EU was involved with it. Therefore, it is important to recognise that we will look to develop a unique and bespoke position for the country.
Brandon Lewis
I will give way to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee in a moment.
I appreciate that some Members will question the benefit of our participation in some of the EU tools. However, as the Minister responsible for policing, I have had a chance to see the regular, real-life examples of what those tools do and why they matter, as I will outline once I have given way to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).
Yvette Cooper
The Minister will know that although several countries have operational and strategic partnerships with Europol, they do not have a say in the overall direction of Europol and, in many cases, do not have access to all its databases—the most crucial aspect. Is he ruling out trying to remain a member of Europol, and is he aiming to have access to all Europol’s databases?
Brandon Lewis
I am not ruling anything in or out; I am looking to make sure that we get the bespoke deal that is right for this country. I am not going to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations over the next couple of years. It is clear, though, that Europol is an EU agency supporting law enforcement activity, based in The Hague, to which we are a huge contributor. In fact, the current chief executive, who is an excellent lead for that organisation, is a British national.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
While my right hon. Friend does not want to prejudge negotiations, does not his decision to opt into the recent Europol directive—the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and I served on the European Committee in which he laid out his case for doing so—show that the UK is willing to be an active participant in Europol for many years to come?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I clearly outlined in the Committee, the decision to opt in was made in the context of our being a member of the European Union, and at the moment, and over the next couple of years, we are still a full member of the European Union. It is important to make sure that we take the opportunity to play a full and strong part in that. We want to continue to play a very strong role as a partner for our colleagues across Europe, and indeed globally, particularly in law enforcement.
The prime objective of Europol is to strengthen and facilitate co-operation in preventing and combating serious organised crime and terrorism, in which we have a clear interest in playing an important part. I have yet to meet a senior police officer across our country who does not value our membership of Europol. By providing a platform for members to share intelligence and information, and through a strong analysis function, it offers unparalleled opportunities to prevent serious crime and to protect EU citizens, including those here in the UK. Concretely, this means that 86,629 suspected criminals were identified on the Europol information system in 2015 alone—up by 40% on the year before. There were 1,800-plus decisions for referrals of terrorist and extremist online content between July and December 2016 alone, with 1,600-plus removals, and numerous ongoing large-scale organised crime and trafficking cases. Indeed, the UK staffs one of the largest national desks in the organisation and is one of the biggest contributors of information to Europol systems.
Another mechanism that we have at the moment is Eurojust, which supports the fight against transnational, serious organised crime by co-ordinating multinational investigations and prosecutions. It works through a co-located network of national liaison desks staffed with prosecutors and investigators from across the EU. Later this year, we will start operating the EU’s Prüm system for the exchange of DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration data, following this House’s overwhelming vote in December 2015 to join it. In 2015, we conducted a pilot of Prüm, exchanging DNA profiles with four other member states. This gave us an impressive number of hits, many against suspects who would not have been identified otherwise, and enabled the police to arrest people for a number of serious offences, including burglary and attempted rape.
Since 2015, we have taken part in the second-generation Schengen information system, which circulates law enforcement alerts around the EU in real time. This ensures that vital intelligence is shared internationally to help prevent threats from across the world. Joining has seen us arrest and extradite wanted people including drug traffickers, murderers and paedophiles whom we would not otherwise even have known about.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
The National Crime Agency has said that joint investigation teams are incredibly important to the UK. Will my right hon. Friend join the National Police Chiefs Council and the Met police in agreeing that Eurojust is hugely valuable and that co-operation agreements must be guaranteed as soon as we leave the EU?
Brandon Lewis
When I talk to the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council, they are clearly uniform in their desire to make sure that we keep as many toolkits as we can actively working for the benefit of our residents. The work that we have to do in the years ahead must reflect the fact that we have been very clear that, as the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have said, when people voted on 23 June last year they did not vote to be any less safe.
The European arrest warrant, which has already been mentioned, facilitates the extradition of individuals between participating countries to face prosecution for a crime they are accused of or to serve a prison sentence for an existing conviction. We have managed to extradite some 7,000 people as a result of that. The European criminal records information system provides a secure electronic system for the exchange of information on criminal convictions between authorities of participating countries. It ensures that UK authorities are made aware when our own nationals are convicted in any EU country. That means that we can secure criminal records information on EU nationals so that when UK courts are making sentencing decisions they can take into account previous offending behaviour abroad.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is actually making a very good case for why we ought to stay in the EU, but we are where we are. He says that the Government’s intention is, in effect, to negotiate a bespoke deal to secure all this into the future, and to achieve that within two years. What happens if we do not get that bespoke deal within the next two years?
Brandon Lewis
I have been very clear about this, as has the Prime Minister: the country has voted to leave the EU and we are leaving the EU, so all this is set in the context of working to get the bespoke deal that my right hon. Friend mentions. I have every confidence not just in the Home Secretary and the team at the Home Office, but the Prime Minister and the team at the Brexit Department, to negotiate to get the deal that is right for our country in the period ahead.
I want to touch briefly on the fight against terrorism. We are, and always have been, clear that national security remains the sole responsibility of EU member states. That principle is set out in EU law.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that of course matters relating to all the important questions he has raised regarding crime, terrorism, security and fingerprinting are not, by any means, confined to the region called the European Union but apply internationally, and that therefore, just as other countries such as the United States have their arrangements, we will have ours?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important point in that the work we have done across Europe—we have been a leading country in working to get this information—we are also continuing to do with countries around the world to make sure that we are able to do everything we can, in every context, to keep our country and our citizens safe.
For example, we work bilaterally and through the Counter Terrorism Group to combat terrorism effectively in Europe, and that work retains our local sovereignty. It includes working with European partners on information sharing, tackling foreign fighter flows, law enforcement co-operation, tackling radicalisation, and countering the narratives of terrorist groups. That group sits outside the EU, and we will therefore continue to be a member of it. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, our EU co-operation is of course just part of a wider landscape of international counter-terrorism work, which includes co-operation through relationships such as those with Interpol and the “Five Eyes” countries, and bilateral work with individual countries and NATO.
Robert Neill
I am glad that my right hon. Friend makes that point. May I make a point in relation to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)? The evidence given to the Justice Committee was very clear that although there are other means of international co-operation with countries outside the EU, the current mechanisms are much more efficient, as they very often have to be conducted on a bilateral basis rather than as part of a joined-up system. It is therefore desirable, as my right hon. Friend says, that we do all we can to stay in them.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point in that there are different agreements in different parts of the world with different partners around the world. It is important that we work to improve all those arrangements and get the benefits that we have seen from some of the work we have done and agreements we have secured across Europe more widely. Key partners in Europe have already assured us, as a Government, that they value our close co-operation on counter-terrorism matters as well.
We are very clear that effective co-operation with EU member states on security and policing in order to combat terrorism will continue to be a top UK priority. Looking ahead, our EU-level relationships will, of course, have to change, but our shared goal of assuring and enhancing the security of our citizens will not. It is important that we can find a way forward that works for the UK and the EU jointly, for mutual benefit. We will approach the negotiations from the perspective of what is best for the safety of all our citizens, and what is worst for those who seek to cause serious harm to innocent people and democratic values.
During negotiations, we will look to maintain the excellent co-operation that currently exists with our European partners. We fully recognise that the nature of our future relationship can be decided only in negotiations with member states and EU institutions. We are confident, however, that all citizens will be safer if we continue to work together and co-operate. We recognise the challenges involved in negotiating a new relationship, but we are committed to finding innovative solutions that enable us to continue to work together for the collective security of Europe and all the citizens of the United Kingdom.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
The official Opposition welcome this debate. In the run-up to the referendum in June last year and the months since, we have heard much about how our decision to leave the European Union will affect Britain’s economy. We have debated what it means for our businesses, our trading relationships, our nation’s finances and, most importantly, the personal finances of individuals and households throughout our country. That is all of deep concern to me and many other Members.
Of perhaps even greater significance is the threat to our national security that could come from our leaving the European Union and, in particular, the effect that doing so will have on the ability of our police to protect our citizens. Today, as we turn our focus to those issues, the Government need to provide stronger assurances that our nation’s security will not be compromised by our decision to leave the EU. I say gently to the Minister that while his long speech was strong on analysis and strong on detail about the institutions, we did not really hear anything about how we were going to do the things that he wants us to effect.
Some hon. Members lament the fact that in the 40-plus years since we decided to join the common market, it has become far more than simply a trading arrangement. Given the nature of the threats that we face, however, it is unsurprising that European countries have found it convenient to co-operate in other areas, including the field of justice and home affairs. Quite simply, it was in our national interest to do so, because the security threats that we face are not confined to our national borders. Whether we are fighting international terrorist networks, tracking down fugitives from justice, obtaining crucial information on the activities of suspects abroad or maintaining effective border controls, it simply makes more sense to act together. Those issues are paramount to our country and to the security of our citizens. Whatever our personal view on the EU referendum, we urgently need reassurance from the Minister that our national security and our ability to combat crime within our borders will not be compromised by the decision to leave. Many hon. Members have issues that they want to raise this afternoon.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that for us in Northern Ireland, it is especially key that we keep our relationships with Ireland and the way in which we work together, and that we improve work on counter-terrorism? Only eight out of 110 extradition requests have been granted. There is still a great deal of work to be done, and we have to build on that.
Lyn Brown
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are three main issues on which the Opposition seek answers this afternoon: our ability to participate in the common arrest warrant; our future relationship with Europol; and our access to Europe-wide crime prevention databases, including the Schengen information system.
I will come to each of those things in turn, but first there is a general point to be made. As many in the House remember, our optimal relationship with the European Union in the field of security and justice was comprehensively debated during the previous Parliament. We opted out of all provisions relating to police and criminal justice so that we could have a fresh debate about which initiatives we wanted to be part of, and then opt into them again. That initiative was negotiated with European member states by the previous Labour Government and continued by the subsequent coalition. The process consisted of two years of negotiation and debate in this House, in government and in Brussels, and it culminated in Britain deciding to opt back in to 35 specific measures that we considered to be in our national interest.
Those measures included the European arrest warrant, Europol and access to the Schengen information system—the three things that I am concerned about today. I know that our Prime Minister is also concerned about them because it was she, as Home Secretary, who put it to the House on 7 April 2014 that we should opt back into the measures. It is so nice to have confidence that there will be unanimity in the Chamber this afternoon on this oft-contentious subject. However, the opt-in happened before the referendum, and now, in this post-referendum world, the Government need to tell us how they will ensure that we still have access to those measures, which we so recently decided that we needed to keep our citizens safe.
We do not have time today to rehearse the two years of debate that led to a decision to co-operate in each of the 35 areas that we decided to opt back into, so I will focus on our main concerns. There is no doubt that the European arrest warrant is a crucial tool in the fight against crime in the UK. Introduced in 2004, it provides a mechanism whereby crime suspects who have left the country—fugitives—can be surrendered back to the UK automatically by another European member state. It means that suspects who have fled can be returned in a matter of weeks or days. Crucially, it means that suspects can be returned to the UK even if the legal basis for the crime that they are suspected of committing is different from that under the law that applies in the country to which they have fled. That is because the European arrest warrant is underpinned by the principle that European Union countries agree to respect the decisions of each other’s criminal justice systems, even if they differ.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I think that the hon. Lady has just made the point that I wanted to raise, which is that that principle means that we have to accept that justice systems across the rest of the EU are as good as ours. Does she have confidence that that is the case?
Lyn Brown
I have confidence that the European arrest warrant is far more powerful than any other extradition process anywhere in the world, and we would be stupid if we let it go.
Since the European arrest warrant was introduced in 2004, the UK has used it to bring 2,500 individuals from outside the UK to face justice. Let us not forget that it was the mechanism that ensured that Hussain Osman was brought to justice after he fled to Italy after a failed suicide bombing in London in 2005. The problem that we face is that the European arrest warrant is available exclusively to EU members. We will have to overcome considerable hurdles if we are to maintain the current arrangements and we are not in the European Union. In fact, as a recent briefing from the Centre for European Reform think-tank states, if, having left the EU, the UK wanted to get a similar deal,
“it would need to convince its partners to change their constitutions. In some cases, this would trigger a referendum.”
Do we really think that countries would hold such a referendum because we have decided to leave the EU?
Some countries outside the European Union have attempted to negotiate access to the common arrest warrant system. Norway and Iceland, for example, have concluded a surrender agreement with the EU that represents an attempt to get the same benefits, although it has not yet come into force. That agreement is weaker in two ways. First, it requires the alleged offences to be the same in both countries, thus losing the flexibility that comes from the agreement of member states to respect the decisions of each other’s criminal justice systems. Secondly, it allows countries to refuse to surrender their own nationals, which would make things tricky if a national of an EU country were to commit an offence on UK soil, for example.
On top of that—as if that were not bad enough—the agreement took 15 years to negotiate, and that was for countries in both Schengen and the European economic area, but as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, there are no plans for us to be members of either. The alternative is that we fall back on previous extradition treaties that are far more cumbersome and will, in some cases, require EU countries to change their own laws in respect of the UK.
It is hard to see how any of those options are preferable to the current arrangements. I find it particularly hard to understand how this fits with the Prime Minister’s pledge yesterday to “work together more” in response to threats to our common security. While it is not difficult for an individual who has broken the law in Britain to hop on a cheap flight to another European country, I fear that it will be very hard indeed, without the European arrest warrant, for us to get them back again. For that reason, Labour calls on the Government to ensure that the current arrangements are maintained.
I turn to our second concern. This House approved regulations confirming our opt-in to Europol only a few weeks ago, and we did that because it is vital to our national security. Europol—the European Police Office, to give it its proper title—exists to combat serious international organised crime by means of co-operation between the relevant authorities of member states, including those tasked with customs, immigration services, borders and financial policing. As we know, Europol is not able to mandate national forces to undertake investigations, but it provides information and resources that enable national investigations to take place.
In the words of the British director of Europol, Rob Wainwright, whose previous career was in UK security institutions, our decision to opt into Europol is:
“Good for Britain’s security, great for police cooperation in Europe.”
Indeed, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service confirmed on 12 December during a debate in a European Committee that Europol provides
“a vital tool in helping UK law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate investigations involving cross-border serious and organised crime”.
He also said:
“About 40% of everything that Europol does is linked to work that is either provided or requested by the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, European Committee B, 12 December 2016; c. 5-7.]
However, when pushed about whether we can maintain our membership of Europol, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, speaking in this House last year, was able to say only that the Government will seek to:
“preserve the relationship with the European Union on security matters as best we can.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 45.]
When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) asked him the same question about Europol yesterday, we got no more information about how that could be done.
Joanna Cherry
Is the hon. Lady aware that Rob Wainwright said last year that negotiating security pacts from outside the bloc of Europol, in the event of Britain leaving the EU, would be a “damage-limitation exercise”? Does she agree that what we need to hear from the Government is not a eulogy about how great Europol is—we all know that already—but an indication of how they are going to limit the damage caused by leaving the European Union and agencies such as Europol?
Lyn Brown
The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right. I agree with her that this simply is not good enough.
Although Europol has arrangements for third-party access, they raise serious questions. The Government stated in a policy paper that was published last year:
“There are a number of important differences between what Europol provides to third country operational cooperation partners with which it has agreements, and EU members”.
In particular, they highlighted the inability directly to submit data and conduct searches within the Europol databases, the need to conclude a separate bilateral arrangement to connect to Europol’s secure information exchange network application, and the inability to sit on Europol’s management board, which sets the organisation’s strategy. That tells us that Mr Wainwright is highly unlikely to stay in his post. In summary, to borrow the words of David Armond, deputy director general of the National Crime Agency, any alternative arrangement to full membership would be
“sub-optimal, not as good as what we’ve currently got”.
Frankly, that does not feel comfortable to me.
Our third concern is about access to pan-European databases, which are important for the routine work of our police forces. Let me give some examples. Access to European criminal records data—the European criminal records information system—is limited exclusively to EU member states. The common European asylum system includes a fingerprint database known as Eurodac that prevents individuals from reapplying for asylum once a claim has been rejected. We currently have access to the Schengen information system, despite not being a member of Schengen, and that contains information on lost identity documents and, importantly, wanted persons.
The Minister’s permanent secretary stated in his foreword to the Home Office’s most recent annual report that strengthening data exchanges with our European allies was essential to combating terrorism. I would be grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union, if he confirmed whether we will still have access to these databases outside the European Union and, if so, whether that access will come at a financial cost.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend is making an impressive and powerful speech on this issue. Some of us may not now need to speak, but I am sure that that will not stop us. At the moment, on ECRIS, if a German citizen is arrested in London, we are able to know within three minutes exactly what their previous convictions are. We will want an arrangement that is just as good if we are no longer to have our existing access.
Lyn Brown
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are simply not getting any guarantees from our Government that that is what they will be able to provide, or that they will even negotiate for it.
There is a more general problem about accessing the data we need to combat crime and keep us safe. Even if we, outside the EU, have access to European databases, we might not be able to use them. European data protection law is clear that no information can be handed to a third country—we will be such a country—that does not adhere to EU laws on privacy. Although our Government have said that they will apply EU data protection law at least until the point of Brexit, we do not yet know if they intend to do so afterwards. However, we certainly know what happens if our data laws do not adhere to European privacy rules: the European Court of Justice will simply invalidate any data sharing agreement, as it did on the so-called safe harbour agreement between the EU and the US. What guarantees will the Government give that the information that our police and security agencies need from European Union databases will not also be turned off when we leave?
In conclusion, we have deep concerns that it will be harder for us to protect our citizens when we leave the European Union. We need the Government to reassure us that they intend to reduce or eliminate this risk through their Brexit negotiations. It is one thing to have our prosperity under threat from the complexities of maintaining access to the single market—frankly, that is bad enough—but it is quite another if our security and the very lives of our citizens are under threat because the complexities of maintaining cross-border co-operation with our police and security services were not properly considered before leaving. To quote the Centre for European Reform again, justice and home affairs
“is not like trade, which creates winners and losers: the only losers from increased co-operation in law enforcement are the criminals themselves.”
My question to the Minister is simple: what guarantees will he give that Britain’s security will not be compromised by our leaving the European Union?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to local government, the Ayes were 299 and the Noes were 6. Of those Members representing constituencies in England, the Ayes were 280 and the Noes were 6, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
If I may say so to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), whose speech I listened to very carefully, I am for my own part completely content that these matters should be left in the very safe hands of the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who in my view knows exactly what needs to be done.
I am most grateful for this opportunity to say a few brief words following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s excellent, bold and comprehensive speech yesterday, and to set out a few thoughts on wider security and co-operation after Brexit. In the Brexit negotiations, it will be necessary for us to set out the basis of our future relationship, as is described in article 50. I believe it is in our national interest to sustain, and to carry forward into the future, the highest possible degree of joint action on justice, home affairs, security and co-operation, scientific research and innovation, and many other areas of common and important interest.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the clear and concise way in which she set out the Government’s position. I was a staunch remainer, but I absolutely accept the verdict of the referendum and the need for the Government to now get on with it. As Churchill once said, “If there is a bear in your bedroom it is not a matter for speculation”. So at the same time as these very difficult and complex negotiations on trade and all the other myriad issues take place, this is an important time for us to set out, as the Prime Minister did in her speech, a clear case for a very close partnership and a new relationship of co-operation between members of the European Union and the UK. In my view, it should be as close as any sovereign country can be in military affairs, free trade and security co-operation.
That type of work with our friends—Germany, France and other countries—is of the first importance. In my view, our initiatives would be widely welcomed in Europe, running in parallel with the rather more complex and tricky negotiations on the article 50 transaction. That is where Britain can bring something positive, useful and of proven worth to the table. Thus, in my judgment, we should aim to maintain our excellent co-operation on security and enhance it further, including during the discussion of the new settlement. On many issues, we will continue to have an important interest in shaping EU policies after we leave, but clearly the United Kingdom is an important influence on the European security agenda. Our influence will remain considerable given our position as NATO’s most capable and willing European power. The recent deployments of Typhoon aircraft to Romania, army personnel to eastern Poland and, most importantly, a full armoured infantry battalion of 800 men to Estonia all serve to underline our profound commitment.
Inevitably, once the UK exits the EU it will become harder for us to translate that undoubted and important commitment into political influence. It is thus even more imperative that our partners and friends understand that we intend to continue the closest possible relationships in those areas, to our mutual interest. As the Prime Minister rightly said yesterday, she wants Britain to be the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, and a country that reaches out beyond the borders of Europe too. It is my fervent hope that our European friends will understand that it is our strongest wish that we play from the outside what role we can in making sure the EU succeeds.
Danny Kinahan
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to put all the pressure we can on President Trump to make sure that NATO stays in place and that we build on our security around that? There is a real fear that he may not want that, in which case the pressures will change.
Sir Nicholas Soames
I very strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is very important. I have high hopes that the Prime Minister, when she visits President Trump, will make those points clearly. I hope President Trump will say something in his inauguration speech that will clarify what he meant by “obsolete” in relation to NATO. I am not offended by that. I was discussing it with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and I do not think that President Trump meant it as an insult. It is true that there is much about NATO that is highly unsatisfactory and obsolete, not least because many countries do not pay their fair whack. It is very slow to transform and is not equipped for the new asymmetric hybrid versions of warfare that we will have to contend with, or as advanced as Russia, as has been seen in its unbelievably bad behaviour in Crimea.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend gets back to his main oration, I would like to draw attention to the context in which President Trump was reported. He said that NATO is extremely important to him. He seems to be using the word “obsolete” in the sense that NATO needs to be not abolished but modernised to face new threats. We should not read too much into the nuances of the individual words he speaks, because nuance does not seem to be his style.
Sir Nicholas Soames
My right hon. Friend is spot-on, and I am sure these matters will play out. If one looks at the wonderful success of the security architecture designed by those wise men and women after the last great war, one sees how well it has served the world in peace, and in good times and bad times. This does not seem to me a sensible time to do anything other than support it.
With the threats to our common security becoming even more serious and in many ways more insidious, our response surely cannot be to co-operate with one another less, but must be to work together more. As the Prime Minister said in her speech yesterday:
“I am proud of the role Britain has played and will continue to play in promoting Europe’s security. Britain has led Europe on the measures needed to keep our continent secure—whether it is implementing sanctions against Russia following its action in Crimea, working for peace and stability in the Balkans”—
an extraordinarily important piece of work right now—
“or securing Europe’s external border. We will continue to work closely with our European allies in foreign and defence policy even as we leave the EU itself.”
I hope the Minister will agree that it is important that we demonstrate, even during the inevitable heat of the negotiations, our absolute determination to be good partners, allies and friends to Europe, and the fact that we are, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so rightly said, leaving the European Union but most emphatically not leaving Europe.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames). I am sure we could find much on which we disagree, but his experience and erudition in these matters shines through. I also compliment the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on her very fine speech. There was much in it that we agree about.
This debate takes place against the background of the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, which of course was made not to this House but to an invited audience. Although we had an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union yesterday, this House has yet to debate the plan for leaving the European Union. It is of the utmost importance that we are debating today the implications of Brexit for security, law enforcement and criminal justice, but it is even more important that we are soon allowed to debate the overall plan for Brexit, which was finally laid before us yesterday.
Scotland did not vote for the direction of travel set out in the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday. We do not believe that that is in our national interest. We believe that decisions in relation to the European Union are being driven not by the rational best interests of the whole of the UK, but by the obsessions of the hard right of the Tory party. We strongly believe that the best way to build a prosperous, equal, safe and secure UK is to be a full member of the EU, or, failing that, to be a member of the single market and to co-operate widely on such matters as security, law enforcement and criminal justice. That is why the Scottish Government put a plan to the whole UK before Christmas suggesting a compromise whereby the whole UK might stay in the single market and continue to co-operate on matters such as those under discussion today. It seems clear from what the Prime Minister said yesterday that she is not interested in that option, so our fall-back position is to ask the British Government to consider allowing Scotland to stay in the single market and to continue to co-operate on those matters.
The UK Government should not try to lull people into a false sense of security in thinking that continued co-operation on these matters will be easy in the event of a hard Brexit. That is not just my opinion; it was the opinion of the House of Lords European Union Committee, which published a report on Brexit and the future of UK-EU security and police co-operation. It noted that the
“UK and the EU-27 share a strong mutual interest in sustaining police and security cooperation after”
Brexit, but warned against that understanding of “mutual self-interest” leading
“to a false sense of optimism about how the negotiations”
in this area might proceed. That raises questions already alluded to about the extent to which the UK could continue to benefit from the same level of co-operation outside the EU. It has already been pointed out in relation to Europol that associate members do not have access to the same data sharing information.
Data sharing is central to this debate. In practice, there will be limits to how closely the UK and the EU27 can work together if we in the UK are no longer accountable or subject to the oversight and adjudication of the same supranational EU institutions, including—and perhaps most importantly—the EU Court of Justice. We saw just before Christmas that the Court of Justice took rather a dim view of the provisions for data collection and retention in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, as many of us warned would occur when the Act was going through the House. If the UK does not comply with EU law on data sharing and privacy protection, our former partners will not be able to share information with us under the laws by which they are bound.
This is not just about the protection of civil liberties; it is crucial to security and law enforcement. Much is made in the general debate about leaving the EU of the opportunities for the UK beyond Europe. It is sometimes suggested that we should focus more on our security arrangements with, perhaps, the “Five Eyes” countries, including the United States, and it is true that some countries, such as the USA, have set precedents for bilateral agreements on the transfer of data, but those do not offer the quick fix that some suggest. Those agreements have taken many years to negotiate and, in some cases, are not enforced. Why withdraw from a system we have so painstakingly contributed to for years, in order to seek something else that is far from guaranteed? As a matter of security, we cannot afford an operational break in our access to EU cross-border tools, because they are part of the day-to-day work of the police force. We have only to look at the figures and stats produced by the Home Office and the Scottish Government to see how important Europol and the European arrest warrant are.
It is sometimes also suggested that our partnerships with other countries, such as our “Five Eyes” partners, will somehow replace or supersede what we have in place with the EU, but that will not work either, because the “Five Eyes” partnership, important though it is, does not cover all aspects of our security. For example, it does not cover all aspects of day-to-day policing. In fact, the National Crime Agency has said that one concern for it and its “Five Eyes” partners is the impact that the absence of the UK from Europol will have on the other “Five Eyes” countries’ relationships, because they often use the UK as a proxy for getting work done at Europol when the UK is working with it. Such difficulties are the reality of the situation, and it is not just the SNP or the Labour party highlighting them; as we have heard, they have been highlighted by the NCA, Rob Wainwright and the House of Lords Select Committee that has looked into these matters in some detail.
The need to meet EU data protection standards so that we can exchange data for law enforcement purposes means that if the UK leaves the EU, the UK will need to subject itself to data protection laws that it will have no role in shaping. Is that what Government Members really want? I realise that they have concerns about how laws are made in the EU, and it is pretty obvious that they do not like the Court of Justice very much, but if we, as a Union of nations, want to continue to operate with our EU partners on security and law enforcement, data sharing will be key. As I said, we will have to subject ourselves to data sharing rules made by the other 27 member states into which we will have no input. If we insist on going our separate way, as we have done with the Investigatory Powers Act, and going beyond what EU law sanctions, the other 27 member states will not want to share information with us, because, as I said earlier, it would breach their own laws on data sharing and data protection.
Those are very real concerns. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for West Ham, we heard a very good speech from the Minister earlier about the advantages to the UK of Europol and other EU institutions, but we did not hear how he proposes to preserve those advantages in the event of the hard Brexit we heard about in some detail for the first time yesterday. We need to hear this afternoon not the UK Government’s wish list but the mechanics of how they intend to continue the level of security protection and law enforcement information sharing that we currently enjoy with the other 27 member states, if they are intent on the task the Prime Minister set out yesterday. We have heard nothing so far, except that they want a bespoke deal. We shall wait with bated breath to hear more about that when the Minister sums up.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). She is a distinguished, practical lawyer, and I agree with her on some of the practical issues that arise, to which I shall return in a moment.
I endorse the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) in relation to our mutual situation—we both fought to remain in the EU, but, having lost, we both accept the verdict of the people. I also endorse his comments commending the Prime Minister for her realistic, practical and determined approach to this issue and on the importance of our NATO relationships. He is much more of an expert on those than I, but I endorse what he said, although I add one thing: we must not only strengthen our NATO relationships but maintain the best possible relationships with our colleagues who happen to be members of both the EU and NATO, not least our nearest neighbour, France, the other great military power of Europe. It is a nuclear power, a significant military power and a member of the UN Security Council. I am sure the Minister, being the diligent Minister he is, will gently remind his ministerial colleagues that we have a long history with France and were actually on the same side in the second world war.
That said, let me return to the specific issue of law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation. That has concerned me during my years at the criminal Bar and is also an issue on which the Justice Committee took evidence only in the last week or so—and we shall publish our report soon.
Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, I do not expect the Minister to reveal the mechanism by which we achieve our objectives, because we are at the beginning of a process. The Prime Minister was right to set out the plan, and I expect there will be a lot more detail that we will have to think about. In my short contribution I want to flag up some of the issues that I hope the Minister and his colleagues will bear in mind when we look at the negotiations and how we put the plan into reality.
The Minister of State at the Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), started by talking about the importance of the European arrest warrant. That is recognised by the Prime Minister. She is right that we must do all that is necessary to remain within the European arrest warrant, which involves some compromises. As for the purity of any break, I personally would be prepared to make some compromises, as I would in relation to other matters, to achieve the practical objective of keeping our country safe. They are critical. As I said to the Minister of State, many of these issues are not about our domestically determined criminal law being overweened or supervened by some international system. These are matters of practical co-operation, tracking down suspects and arresting them, the exchange of information and the enforcement of court judgments to everybody’s mutual advantage.
All member states of the European Union have varying degrees of approach to their criminal justice systems. Ours is particularly different because of our common law system, of which we are immensely proud, but that does not mean—I hope people would never suspect that it does—that the systems of other European member states should automatically be regarded as inferior to ours. Some of us in this country are occasionally a bit too sniffy about the quality of the justice systems of other European member states. I have no hesitation whatever in commending the integrity of the justice systems of France, Germany, Italy and many others, as I would in respect of Scotland, Ireland or Northern Ireland, for that matter.
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend is making some good points, but would he concur, given that we are fellow members of the Council of Europe, that some of the prison systems that he and I have probably both visited simply do not come up to British standards? I would mention Greece in particular.
Robert Neill
I thought that that issue might be raised, and I was going to say that that does not alter the importance of criminal justice co-operation and, secondly, that where this has been relevant as a criticism of the arrest warrant in the past—in the Symeou case, for example—that is essentially history. What is not often sufficiently recognised are the very important amendments made to the European arrest warrant in 2014. We heard evidence from both the criminal lawyers society and the Criminal Bar Association, who strongly concurred that the amendments of 2014 had removed the risks that had put the unfortunate Mr Symeou in his position.
Keith Vaz
It is a great pleasure to serve under the hon. Gentleman’s chairmanship of the Justice Committee. The point made in the intervention by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), which is a cause of concern to me, is that sometimes countries in the EU issue their European arrest warrant for very minor offences. One example is an individual who had a warrant issued against him because he had stolen a bicycle. It is important that individual countries focus on the reasons why they take out their arrest warrants. I have always regarded it as very serious when a European arrest warrant is issued; it is not appropriate for the minor offences that some countries use it for.
Robert Neill
I accept that that is a significant issue, but the two amendments achieved two things. First, they removed any risk of extradition before commencement of proceedings; and, secondly, they introduced in the UK a proportionality filter. It would be better if all other countries that use the European arrest warrant had a proportionality filter, too. From the evidence we heard from Professor Wilson of the Northumbria University’s centre for evidence and criminal justice studies, it seems that even Poland, which has resisted a proportionality filter in the past, is now moving in that direction. The situation is improving there.
The fact that we have those two important safeguards is significant, and it is also important that the European arrest warrant system is a court-driven system, which is subject to judicial supervision rather than being an executive act of extradition. That is why it would be undesirable for us to lose the advantage of the European arrest warrant and have to fall back to the 1957 extradition convention, which was a purely administrative act, carried out through diplomatic channels, without the protection of court intervention or review. It was also much more cumbersome.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
It is indeed a privilege, as mentioned by others, to serve on the Justice Committee under the hon. Gentleman’s chairmanship; he is making a fine speech. Will he respond to some of the comments made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)? Notwithstanding her clear desire to stay within the European arrest warrant, there will be difficulties as a result of different data-sharing regimes in the European Union and the UK. How is it possible to reconcile the two, following the UK’s leaving the EU?
Robert Neill
It is certainly clear from the available evidence that the Government will need to take that necessity on board. We will have adhere to European standards of data protection for other member states to be able to share the information with us, according to their law. We may also want to share information with other third-party countries, so both we and they will have to be prepared to adhere to international standards. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) rightly said, that might involve some form of international adjudicative process to deal with disputes between member states. I am not going to tie anyone down on how best to solve that, but there are serious issues that we will have to bear in mind from day one of our negotiations.
Equally, when we talk about involvement with some of the other agencies—we referred to ECRIS, the European criminal records information system, to Prüm and to a number of other valuable tools—we need to recognise that there is a financial cost to the development of the databases. I would certainly encourage the Government not to be afraid to continue to make a financial contribution to the development and maintenance of them. That would be a small price to pay in view of the advantage of protection for the British public. I think there is common ground on the objective of the European arrest warrant. I just wanted to raise some of the practical issues that we will have to grasp if we are to succeed in achieving our continued full access to it as a non-EU member state.
I want to refer to other matters of concern—co-operation between the courts, which involves our continued membership or association with Eurojust. There is a precedent for non-member states continuing to co-operate with Eurojust. Norway has a co-operation agreement and has liaison prosecutors based at Eurojust. If we leave the EU as it stands, we would have to move from being national college members, but we could have a Norwegian-style status. Perhaps we should be bold and try to argue that we should remain as national college members on some sort of basis if the constitution permits it. That would be preferable.
Joanna Cherry
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about Norway, but is he aware that the Prime Minister, in her former role as Home Secretary, was very disparaging about the abilities of Norway and Switzerland, outside the EU bloc, because they do not have access to all the tools and have to come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, without having the same input into the law-making process?
Robert Neill
Prior to the referendum, neither the hon. and learned Lady, the Prime Minister nor I would have wished to be in the conundrum in which we now find ourselves. However, I accept the verdict of the British people, so we must find a practical means of achieving the objective that we want. It would be better to find something that is beyond Norway. That is why I have suggested starting as a negotiating point with the idea that we should be national college members rather than associates of Eurojust. If we are ambitious, we lose nothing from pressing for that from the beginning.
In April last year, the Prime Minister as Home Secretary referred to the whole of the European criminal record system—financial intelligence units, the prisoner transfer unit, Schengen Information System II, joint investigation teams and Prüm—in the context of seeing them as practical measures that promote effective co-operation between different European law enforcement organisations. If we are not part of them, Britain will be less safe. As Francis FitzGibbon, the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, told the Select Committee, that would be a pretty good starting point for bringing this whole area to greater prominence, and a pretty good starting point, I would suggest to the Minister, for our negotiation objectives. Witnesses to the Justice Committee repeatedly said that this is part of a mutually reinforcing system of justice co-operation.
We may concentrate on the arrest warrant, but the information exchanges, the ability to enforce court judgments and the ability, for example, to seek a European information order to obtain evidence from abroad are all part of the same process. That is why it is critical for us to set our objectives at the highest possible level when it comes to seeking our continued engagement with these matters.
This is an important debate because it concerns an immensely important topic. Those of us who now want to move on constructively from what, according to any view, has been a bruising experience for this country will want to do so on the basis of an ambition to protect the country, while also recognising that both our judicial system and our police force are immensely highly regarded, not just in Europe but internationally. We have something to bring to the table as well. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board in a bold and ambitious negotiation, and I wish him and his colleagues well.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). I agreed with many of the points that he made about the importance of continued European co-operation. Like him, I voted for article 50 to be triggered by the end of March, because although, like him, I wanted us to remain in the European Union, I believed that we should respect the referendum result, and that means getting on with the detailed and hard work of establishing how we can get the best possible deal for Britain outside the EU.
I also agree with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) that we should be cautious about assuming that it will be easy for us to get the detail right, particularly in respect of the important law enforcement issues. If we do not have the right kind of legal basis for the co-operation that we want to see, we shall simply not be able to use the information or intelligence that we have to lock up those who have committed crimes and to keep people safe.
I hope that there is considerable consensus about the objectives that we should have—not just consensus across the House about our objectives in co-operating to keep Britain safe, but consensus across Europe, where co-operation between Britain and other European countries has saved people’s lives and protected us from terror threats and serious crime. The Prime Minister was right to say yesterday:
“With the threats to our common security becoming more serious, our response cannot be to cooperate with one another less, but to work together more.”
So far, however, we have heard very little from the Home Secretary, and, although I have the great respect for the Policing Minister, I am disappointed that she has not come to the House today.
Given the seriousness of these issues, and given that the Prime Minister highlighted the importance of parliamentary sovereignty, I think that we need to hear more from the Home Secretary in Parliament. We will be calling on her to come before the Home Affairs Committee to provide further detail. It is also disappointing that the Policing Minister has now departed, which means that no Home Office Minister is present for a debate on an issue that will have huge repercussions for our security operations for many decades to come. Obviously, the work on security will form part of the Government’s wider plan for securing the best possible Brexit deal and Brexit settlement.
Yesterday the Prime Minister talked particularly about trade. She pledged to secure tariff-free trade, and a better overall deal for British jobs that was outside the single market and the customs union. As the Government will know, there is considerable concern about whether ditching a long-established trade and customs deal will really deliver a better deal for jobs, employment protection and environmental standards here in Britain, and Ministers will need to provide a great deal more evidence to show that they can actually deliver a better deal for our manufacturing and services, as well as for the social and economic standards that matter so much.
Ministers will also need to say more about the Government’s approach to immigration. I am one of those who have believed for some time that we need to change the arrangements for free movement, and I think there are particular concerns about unrestricted low-skilled migration. We shall need to engage in a sensible debate about how to get the best deal for Britain on both jobs and immigration, so that we benefit from international talent and from economic trade as well.
There is some confusion and there are some questions as a result of mixed messages received from the Government. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified the position, as he represents the Department for Exiting the European Union. Some are suggesting that immigration will not form part of the discussions and negotiations about trade and that those issues will be kept separate in the negotiations, while others say that debate about future immigration rules will be dealt with alongside the trade negotiations. It is important for us to understand whether the negotiations about the customs union and the single market are stand-alone trade negotiations, or whether there will be a wider debate on options relating to both immigration and trade.
Keith Vaz
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all the excellent work that she is doing as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. Does she know whether we are to have a debate on leaving the EU and immigration and Home Office policy, especially with regard to the rights of EU citizens to stay here, or whether we are supposed to discuss all those matters during today’s debate about Home Office and justice matters?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said, and commend him for his many years of fantastic work on the Home Affairs Committee. I do not know what the plans are for further debates about immigration. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us, because it will clearly be one of the central issues to be discussed. If it is included in the debate, that will affect the kind of deal or agreement that we secure, so it is important for us to have some clarity about what those plans are.
James Berry
The right hon. Lady will be well aware that there are a number of different options for immigration from EU member states. I am sure she will not miss this opportunity to advertise the Home Affairs Committee’s “big conversation”. The Committee is travelling around the country to discuss the issue. It is also encouraging Members to contribute, and to urge their constituents to do so as well.
Yvette Cooper
I am glad that a fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee has reminded me to say that people across the country need to become involved and have their say about what the right immigration options should be for Britain. We know that immigration is important for our future, but we also know that it needs to be controlled and managed in a way that is fair, and people have different views on how that should happen. My view is that there is rather more consensus than people may think, given the polarised debates on immigration that sometimes take place. We do indeed believe that all Members of Parliament should have their say as part of the process. We shall be holding regional hearings and evidence sessions around the country, and also urging Members to consult their constituents on what they want to happen as part of the future arrangements.
The Policing Minister set out a very broad-brush approach to security. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), the shadow Policing Minister, gave a forensic response, posing a thorough and detailed set of questions that were not really addressed in the Policing Minister’s initial outline of the position. He rightly talked about the value of our relationships and the importance of joint working, but we need much more reassurance from the Government that they are taking three crucial issues—Europol, the European arrest warrant and the databases—immensely seriously, because they will have huge implications for our security if we do not get this right.
There is no precedent for a non-EU member to be a member of Europol, but I should be grateful for confirmation from the Minister that there is also nothing in the treaties that would rule that out. If we are looking for a bespoke arrangement, perhaps he could confirm that there is nothing to prevent us from asking to continue our existing Europol membership, given the crucial role that Britain has played in shaping Europol in the first place, and in raising the standards of policing and cross-border policing in other countries across Europe to meet the standards that we have here in the United Kingdom.
As the Minister will know, the UK uses Europol more than almost any other country in the EU. We provide more intelligence, and play a leading role as well. Operation Golf, involving the Met and Europol, rescued 28 children who were being exploited by a Romanian-organised criminal gang network. Operation Rescue investigated the world’s largest online child abuse network and led to 12 arrests in the UK, safeguarding 230 children. That kind of work between British police forces and Europol is immensely important. I therefore urge the Government to pursue full membership of Europol, or at least something that looks, sounds and smells like it, so that it delivers exactly the kind of security arrangements we have at the moment.
We also need something that looks, feels, sounds and smells, and pretty much is the European arrest warrant, instead of reinventing something from scratch or having to renegotiate, as other countries including Norway and Iceland have done. It has taken them many years to do so, and the length of time involved in renegotiating those extradition agreements, whether with the rest of the EU or with individual countries, can cause huge delays and considerable legal uncertainty.
The Government are well aware of the importance of the European arrest warrant. Indeed, it was part of our discussion of justice and home affairs concerns over the past few years. I hope we will continue to make sure that we can respond to the up to 1,000 EAWs each year, which involve us being able to deport to other countries their suspected criminals, who would otherwise be able to find greater sanctuary here.
The most challenging area of all was raised by the police who gave testimony and evidence to the Select Committee: access to information and databases, and to that shared information across Europe. The temporary deputy assistant commissioner of the National Police Chiefs’ Council said:
“If we are curtailed in our ability to access intelligence systems that our overseas partners have put in place, we may risk people hurting children or committing harm because we cannot put that picture together. My response to you is yes, it increases the risk.”
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham gave a thorough account of the databases and the challenges they face, including the European criminal records information system, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) referred; the second generation Schengen information system; the passenger name record directive; and the Europol information system. On that latter system, some of Europol’s co-operation partners can store and query the data in the centre, but cannot have direct access, which is what is so important.
If we are outside the EU and trying to set up a new bespoke arrangement, the European Commission will be forced to make an adequacy assessment. So once we trigger article 50 and are setting the new arrangements from outside the EU, we will expect an adequacy assessment by the European Commission under its current legal arrangements. However, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West pointed out, there are some challenges with getting that data adequacy assessment in place. While that ought to be solvable given our shared objectives and security and intelligence co-operation, it another reason why it takes time to get this issue right and why we cannot simply assume that, because we have the same shared objectives, it will all be solved and it will all just come out in the wash.
If our objectives are to stay in Europol and the EAW and to keep access to those crucial databases, it would be helpful if the Government said that, rather than simply make broad-brush statements that we want to continue with co-operation around security. That would give greater certainty to our police and law enforcement officers about what they should be focusing on and planning for. The Minister will know that, if we are not able to do that, it will be important to have transitional arrangements in place. Frankly, if we do not have that, people’s lives will be at risk.
Let me leave the Minister with a final thought about the way in which the negotiations take place. I have raised my concern about the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers not being present, and because there is shared agreement on the objectives both in the House and across Europe, I am concerned that this matter will be treated as a lower priority in the negotiations. It is not as controversial an issue as some others, which we will all row about. It will not therefore be one of the main things on which the Prime Minister will continually keep her attention. However, it must be taken immensely seriously, otherwise it will just slip between people’s fingers and we will end up with the details not being ready in time and it therefore not being sorted out.
My other concern is that this issue must not be used as a bargaining chip in the wider negotiations. There will be all kinds of rows, debates and trade-offs across Europe around trade, immigration rules and so forth, but we should not have trade-offs around security. It would be better if issues around security co-operation could be treated as a separate part of the negotiations, and could be dealt with as rapidly as possible to get some early security and show that the Government are giving the matter sufficient attention. Our Select Committee will hold further evidence sessions, and I am sure other Select Committees and Members will also be scrutinising this subject in detail.
Britain voted to leave the EU, but nobody voted to make Britain less safe. I know the Government will take safety and security seriously, but they need to be taken sufficiently seriously to make sure that we do not inadvertently get a gap in our security arrangements which ends up putting lives at risk. In the end, we are talking here about terror, security and cross-border crime, so this is about any Government’s first duty: to keep their citizens safe.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit, especially as I agreed with pretty much everything she said.
Security did not feature especially prominently during the referendum campaign. I understand why that was: a lot of what we have been talking about is very complex and does not fit easily into a brief soundbite, and much of our security co-operation is not done through our membership of the EU. Our security against military threats from other countries is protected by our membership of NATO, other alliances and bilateral relationships. Our security in terms of terrorist threats is largely dealt with on a bilateral basis, country to country between intelligence agencies, as well as through multilateral agreements such as the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and the USA.
Those relationships are entirely separate from our membership of the EU and are in no way compromised by this country’s decision to leave. To that extent, I never subscribed to the claims of some on my side of the referendum campaign—the remain side—that we would suddenly become a very dangerous place in the event of a vote to leave, or indeed to the ridiculous hyperbole that ISIS would be delighted by a leave vote. Indeed, Mark Rowley, the assistant commissioner for specialist operations at the Met police and the UK’s most senior counter-terrorism officer, reported that there has actually been an increase in co-operation between European member states’ police and intelligence agencies since the vote to leave the EU. This ad-hoc co-operation was no doubt due to, and necessitated by, intelligence shortcomings before some of the recent terrorist atrocities in Europe.
To focus on the military and high-level intelligence co-operation and counter-terrorism that takes place outside the EU architecture is to ignore the many policing and criminal justice measures inside the EU structures, which make the police’s practical work of keeping us safe easier and more efficient. I have spoken to a number of police officers—in my previous work as a barrister, I acted for and against the police regularly—and I know many police officers, both locally and outside my own area. Some voted to leave and some voted to remain, but all share a clear desire for our existing EU police and criminal justice co-operation to stay the same, or to be replicated as closely as possible.
Just last night I was speaking to the president of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, Gavin Thomas, at an event at which a number of Members were present. He cited the example of how access to European Union DNA databases has allowed checks that previously took days or weeks to be performed within 15 minutes. He is a full supporter, as are the leads of many other police staff associations and senior police officers, of maintaining our current policing and criminal justice relationships with the EU.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Is he aware that similar evidence exists in relation to the Schengen information system? The National Crime Agency has stated:
“Loss of access to SIS II would seriously inhibit the UK’s ability to identify and arrest people who pose a threat to public safety and security”.
James Berry
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I do not think that a single senior police officer or police organisation takes a view counter to the one he has just outlined.
Beyond the police—apart from some concerns about the European arrest warrant, which I do not share—I do not detect any desire among members of the public for any rowing back on our policing and criminal justice co-operation with the EU. I do not detect any such appetite within this place either. Certainly since I have been here, the only pushback—particularly on these Benches—has been on the requirement to submit to the oversight of the European Court of Justice. I will come back to that matter shortly, but to take it out of the equation for the moment, I doubt that there will be a voice of dissent in this place relating to the panoply of policing and justice co-operations we currently enjoy. Time does not permit me to go through each and every one of them, so I shall focus on just four.
Europol exists to assist law enforcement agencies in member states to tackle cross-border crime. It focuses on gathering, analysing and disseminating information, rather than on conducting actual investigations. The UK has 12 liaison officers at Europol’s headquarters in The Hague, which I was able to visit with colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee last year, including the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). It is a very impressive operation indeed. It is important to note that Europol also has representatives from non-EU countries such as Norway and the US. We had a long conversation with representatives from the US and the Department of Homeland Security, who have a significant presence there. It was not immediately clear from that conversation that they were significantly worse off for not being a member of the EU. However, they certainly do not have the automatic right of access of EU member states to the Europol information system. There is a specific provision for them to have access on a case-by-case, supervised basis.
We were also able to meet online counter-radicalisation officers from the European Cybercrime Centre, an initiative very much championed by our Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary. The Europol information system is a central database with information on suspected criminals and objects associated with crime, such as vehicles. If a vehicle is suspected of being connected to a crime in Kingston, for example, British police officers can search the EIS to find out whether there is any information on that vehicle, or people associated with it, anywhere in the EU. In 2015, the UK sent and received 37,000 alerts through Europol channels, half of which related to high-priority threats such as child sex exploitation and firearms. As crime and criminals respect state borders less and less, the role of Europol in supporting cross-border co-operation will only increase and become more vital. It must be retained, with British involvement.
I shall move on to the Prüm convention. Like the EIS, Prüm allows and facilitates member states to search each other’s databases for fingerprints, DNA profiles and vehicle registration details. The UK has not yet fully implemented Prüm, although I believe that it will do so later this year, but we ran a pilot for DNA profile exchange in 2015. As I mentioned, I heard from a senior police officer yesterday that that has allowed checks that would previously have taken hours or days to be performed in 15 minutes.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is the Chamber’s resident expert on Prüm. Does he agree that it is important that we continue to implement the terms of the agreement, irrespective of our decision to come out of the European Union, because it provides important data sharing on DNA and fingerprints? Does he agree that, having made the decision, we should continue with that process pending the negotiations?
James Berry
Pending the negotiations, we should continue down the path of integration in all these policing and criminal justice measures. We have already done that in respect of Europol in a decision that was approved by the House last month.
I shall move on to another important measure: the passenger name records directive. This was explained to members of the Committee at Copenhagen airport. It is a common system for collecting and processing data held by airlines, including names, travel dates, itineraries, seat numbers, baggage and means of payment. These data are vital in tracking criminal and terrorist movements to prevent and detect crime. It is important to note that the EU has bilateral data sharing arrangements for passenger name records with the US, Australia and Canada. It is also negotiating an arrangement with Mexico, so there is no good reason why a non-EU country cannot participate in what is clearly a system that has mutual benefits.
The European arrest warrant has had a transformative effect on the ability of the police and prosecuting authorities to get those who need to face justice in the UK—whether relating to a prosecution or a prison sentence—back to the UK to do so. It bypasses the fiendishly complicated extradition rules that apply with respect to some other countries, because countries that are part of the European arrest warrant arrangements cannot refuse to extradite their own citizens, and there are legally mandated time limits during which extraditions have to take place. In 2015-16, 2,102 individuals were arrested in the UK and deported on European arrest warrants. Those were people we plainly did not want in this country. We have been able to repatriate more than 2,500 individuals from EU countries since we have been a member of the European arrest warrant system, including some well-known terrorists, serious criminals and paedophiles. There is a list of high-profile cases, but I will not go into it now. I agree with the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) that this is the most effective extradition system in the world, and it would be madness if we were in a situation in which we had to leave it.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am not an expert on this subject, but there is concern that, under the European arrest warrant, UK citizens could find themselves extradited to other EU countries in which the justice system falls far short of what we would regard as adequate. Does my hon. Friend have any concerns about that?
James Berry
I am sure we will hear my right hon. Friend’s expertise in the defence field in a few moments. The starting point of the European arrest warrant system is that any country in it has a legal system that will give a British citizen a fair hearing, just as citizens of that country would have a fair hearing here. That is the starting assumption, and that was why the House approved our membership of the system. I accept that some people hold the view that my right hon. Friend describes—I mentioned that fact earlier—but, on balance, the majority of people in the House and in the country think that being a member of the European arrest warrant keeps us safer.
Robert Neill
Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to know that that was the view of the Criminal Solicitors Association, whose members largely represent defendants, and of the Criminal Bar Association. They agree that, on balance, membership of the European arrest warrant system is an advantage because it is a court-led system that involves judicial overview, unlike the classic extradition system, which is an Executive process.
James Berry
I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention.
There are many other measures that I could mention: ECRIS; the Schengen II information system; the system for providing enforcement alerts, including for those wanted on European arrest warrants, which includes more than 70 million live alerts; and the European image archiving system, which is a database of genuine and counterfeit ID documents and travel stamps. In all those fields, I agree with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, that we should be aiming for full membership, or the closest possible approximation to it.
Turning to the UK’s position since the general election, the Government have put us in a good position to take forward policing and justice co-operation with the EU. First, in December 2015, we decided to opt into Prüm II. Secondly, in December 2016, we decided to opt into new regulations governing Europol, and I was pleased to sit on the European Committee that unanimously approved that decision. Thirdly, the Prime Minister set out yesterday how a global Britain will continue to co-operate with its European partners in the fight against the common threats of crime and terrorism. She made it clear that she wanted our future relationship with the EU to include practical arrangements on matters of law enforcement and the sharing of intelligence material with our EU allies. That came as no surprise because she personally led several such initiatives during her many years in the Home Office.
Clearly it is up to the European Union and others to decide whether to allow the UK to remain part of the policing and criminal justice architecture that we are debating today, but the case for the EU and EU member states to do so is clear. It is probably clearer in this area than in any other area of EU co-operation, not only because it affects the security of each citizen of every EU member state, but because the UK is at the forefront of each and every one of these criminal justice measures. For example, 40% of contributions to Europol’s shared intelligence come from the UK—we are behind only Germany—and the UK is the main contributor of intelligence in several of the most important areas. It would not be in the interests of any EU member state, or the EU as whole, to shut itself off from access to that vital intelligence in pursuit of some lofty EU principle or ideal—this is a matter of practicality. If the tables were turned and another country that contributed 40% of Europol’s intelligence—this intelligence helps British police officers to fight crime—were leaving the EU, I would be the first to call on our Government to do everything possible to maintain access to that intelligence and to preserve our co-operation with that country. Without wishing to labour the point, it would be an act of self-defeating nihilism for the EU to seek to shut the UK out of policing and criminal justice co-operation measures.
How could we co-operate outside the EU? We could either be allowed to remain a member of such measures, which would require EU legislation to be rewritten, or we could be given informal or bespoke access, which the US already has with Europol. Once any legal hurdles are overcome, the two main sticking points will be money and judicial oversight. As for money, I am clear that we should pay to play. If we are to benefit from Europol, for example, which has an office and staff in The Hague, there can be no question but that we should expect to pay. On judicial oversight, I understand that oversight of the European Court of Justice is a sticking point for many Members and for many members of the public who voted to leave, but that must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, looking at each measure on which there is co-operation. When we enter multilateral agreements with other countries on issues such as extradition, there is often an international court that arbitrates, such as the International Criminal Court.
I do not believe that we immediately became less safe because we decided to leave the EU. The measures we are discussing are hugely beneficial to law enforcement. The police and the public want us to continue with them, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister agrees. The litmus test for me on this and all other EU co-operation is simple: if we were not currently a member of the EU, is this is something in which would we be looking to get involved because it would benefit British people? For all the measures we are debating today, the answer is a resounding yes.
There will undoubtedly be legal hurdles to overcome, but it is clear beyond peradventure that our side is willing. I hope that the EU will respond in kind and that the starting point for any negotiations will be not whether we should do it, but how we should do it. Some Members have demanded guarantees and more information, but given the consensus in this area, it falls on everyone in this House, particularly those with expertise and legal training, to contribute on the question of how we assist the Government to ensure that we maintain this vital co-operation in policing and criminal justice for the benefit of all our constituents in Britain, and of citizens in Europe as a whole.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
This is a very important debate and, as it comes the day after the Prime Minister’s very important speech, I want to begin by reflecting briefly on what we learned yesterday about the Government’s objectives in the forthcoming negotiations. It is now clear that Ministers will seek transitional arrangements and that Parliament will have a vote at the end of the process, both of which the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union called for in our report. I should observe that it was published on Saturday and that the Prime Minister adopted these proposals three days later on Tuesday—somewhat faster than the normal Government response to Select Committee recommendations. With that standard having been set, the members of the Committee who are in the Chamber today hope that it will continue.
The most significant of the announcements was that we will be out of the single market and partly out of and partly in the customs union. In such decisions—this is the link to today’s debate—lies our future economic success and security. However, despite the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, it is in trade and our relationship with the customs union that the greatest uncertainty still exists. Why do I say that? The Government have made it clear that, one way or another, they want to secure continued tariff and barrier-free access for UK businesses to European markets—they could not have been clearer about that. It is an objective that the Select Committee supports and one that was also supported by the vast majority of businesses that gave evidence to us.
However, there is no guarantee that this will be achieved. There is no guarantee that the EU will be prepared to give us what it may well regard as the best of both worlds: free trade with Europe and the right to set our own common external tariff and to negotiate new trade deals. The Government may therefore be confronted down the line with a rather uncomfortable choice between remaining in the customs union and once again seeing tariffs and bureaucratic obstacles rising between British businesses and their largest market. What would be the consequences? One way to answer that question would be to look at the Government’s workings. In oral evidence to the Exiting the EU Committee, the Secretary of State said that the Department was
“in the midst of carrying out 57 sets of analyses, each of which has implications for individual parts of 85 per cent of the economy.”
In our report, we acknowledged that the Government were looking at different options for market access and said:
“In the interests of transparency, these should be published alongside the Government’s plan in so far as it does not compromise the Government’s negotiating hand.”
Now that we have the plan—the Prime Minister’s speech from yesterday—will the Minister assure the House that those economic assessments will be published, so that the Select Committee, Parliament and the public can see for themselves the basis on which the Government reached their view both on leaving the single market and on changing our future relationship with the customs union?
I turn to the broader issues of security and foreign policy. We live in an age in which our very interdependence makes us more vulnerable to crime, terrorism and threats to peace and security. However, that same interdependence is the best means we have to deal with those threats. During the referendum campaign I did not come across a single person who said, “Well, I’m voting leave because I really object to the United Kingdom and its European neighbours co-operating on policing, justice, security, foreign policy and the fight against terrorism.” Continued co-operation in all those areas is therefore not about trying to hold on to bits of membership as we leave. On the contrary, it is about ensuring that we continue working together in our shared national interests at a time of—let us face it—great instability and great uncertainty. We only have to look around the world. The middle east is still reeling from the Arab spring and the consequences of people seeking more security, more of a say and better governance, and from the response of those who were or still are in control. That response was, in many cases, very violent and brutal—think of Syria, think of Libya and think of the resulting flow of refugees, including those who have come to the shores of Europe.
The conflict that has dominated global politics for 50 years, Israel-Palestine, remains unresolved. In passing, I welcome the Government’s support for UN Security Council resolution 2334, which rightly has some strong things to say about the threat from Israeli settlements to the prospects for a two-state solution. We all want a safe and secure Israel living alongside a Palestinian state. Given the number of countries, including European countries, that sent Ministers to the conference in Paris last Sunday to discuss a way forward, the Foreign Secretary should have been there instead of appearing to undermine the conference by not attending.
Across Europe, of course, we face a shared threat from Islamist terrorism, as the people of Germany and Turkey have tragically experienced in recent weeks, and as the families of those who were murdered in Sousse, Tunisia are now reliving as the inquest takes place. We know that North Korea is trying to develop long-range nuclear missiles, and we know that China is seeking to establish a presence on rocky outcrops in the South China sea in its disputes over territorial waters. We know that Russia, resurgent, is seeking respect in the world—“uvazheniye” is the word in Russian—although seizing Crimea, invading Ukraine, bombing civilians and hospitals in Aleppo and engaging in cyber-attacks is a slightly strange way of going about getting it.
In the United States of America, we will witness on Friday the inauguration of a new President who, to say the least—notwithstanding what the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said in his intervention—appears to be sceptical about the international rules-based system and the institutions, such as the EU, NATO, the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations, that we created precisely to give the world greater security. I was astonished to hear him describe Angela Merkel’s decision to provide shelter to 1 million refugees as a
“catastrophic mistake…taking all of these illegals”,
as if he were completely unaware of America being a country built on providing a welcome to those seeking shelter. That is best expressed in these famous words:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”—
words forever associated with the Statue of Liberty.
Like the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), I do not regard NATO as an outdated institution, although of course there are things that could be reformed. Nor, incidentally, do Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, because they see NATO, as well as their membership of the European Union, as absolutely fundamental to their future security.
All the things that I have described affect Europe, and they all mean that co-operation in Europe—we are leaving the institutions of the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe—is in our shared interest. That is why it is essential that we find a way in the forthcoming negotiations to continue working closely with our neighbours on foreign policy, security and defence, which I know the Government support. But there are some practical questions. We will no longer be attending the Foreign Affairs Council, so how exactly will that continued co-operation work? Will the Government press for what I have called a common foreign policy area—a new structure to bring together EU and non-EU member states to discuss shared concerns about foreign policy?
We already have the special deal that allowed us to opt into certain arrangements on policing and security co-operation, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee—and others have asked what exactly will happen after we leave. That point was put forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown).
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told the House that one of the Government’s main aims during exit negotiations will be
“to keep our justice and security arrangements at least as strong as they are.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 55.]
That was a very specific pledge to the House, and the question is, how are we going to achieve it? As we have heard in this debate, replicating what we have at the moment represents a significant challenge. We have heard about the practical benefits of the Schengen information system, because it is really important to know who is wanted, who is a suspected foreign fighter and who is missing. How will we ensure that we continue to receive that information after we have left? We have heard about the Prüm decisions, and being able quickly to search DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration databases is really important in combating cross-border crime and terrorism. We have also heard how being part of Europol gives us access to its databases and expertise. I could give many other examples, and the challenge for the Government will be to replicate those things once we have left.
We have heard about the issue of data sharing. As I understand it, some of the current instruments make no provision at all for sharing information with third countries, with the European criminal records information system being one such example. Others expressly prohibit the transfer of data to third parties, with the Schengen information system being an example. Existing models of third country co-operation with Europol do not allow direct access to Europol’s extensive information systems. As I understand it, the Home Office has carried out a review of EU law enforcement and security co-operation measures, and it would be helpful if the Minister told us what conclusions it reached, particularly on the options available to the Government to secure the continued participation that every Member who has spoken in the debate thus far wishes to achieve.
Will the Minister also tell us whether the Government’s negotiating objectives specifically include retaining access to those data and that information? Will he confirm the extent to which the UK’s data protection laws will need broadly to replicate EU laws if information sharing is to be able to continue to the same or a similar extent once we leave? That point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), asked how we will negotiate agreements without accepting a degree of oversight from some court, be it the ECJ or another court. Will the Minister confirm that in this area, as in others, the Government will seek transitional arrangements to make sure that there is no interruption to the flow of information?
The process on which our country is about to embark will inevitably involve uncertainty until such time as matters are resolved by agreement, but if the Government are to honour their pledge to keep our justice and security arrangements at least as strong as they are now—that is a very high test—the security and safety of our communities is one area in which we simply cannot afford there to be any uncertainty whatever. We also cannot afford an outcome in which there is no deal at all. The Prime Minister said yesterday that
“no deal…is better than a bad deal”.
In the case of security, no deal is and would be a bad deal, and we simply cannot afford to allow that to happen.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and may I commend him on his work, the early start his Committee has made and its first report? I read that report with interest on Saturday, and it certainly showed that the Committee has hit the ground running. I hope it made some impact in relation to yesterday’s speech, too.
I am going to keep my remarks short, as I am not an expert on security issues—ask me about the NHS and I would be absolutely fine. However, this is a big issue of great importance to my constituency. There have been a number of instances where intelligence reports have been put out in the newspapers and this has caused a lot of concern to my constituents, so it is important that I speak in today’s debate.
I shall focus on two particular issues. I could, of course, discuss many others, some of which have already been mentioned—for example, Eurodac, Europol, the European arrest warrant, the Schengen information system and the European criminal records information system—but I shall just pick up on a couple that relate to cross-border security and the sharing of intelligence, subjects that have been covered by several hon. Friends and other Members so far.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister outlined earlier, the maintenance of the UK’s current strong security co-operation with the EU will obviously feature heavily in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations, as was outlined yesterday. Nevertheless, there should be absolutely no doubt that many of the tools and institutions that currently underpin security and police co-operation are vital for the safety of our nation. That is ever more true, given the current security concerns.
I welcomed the Prime Minister’s commitment in her speech yesterday that the Government will continue to co-operate with our European partners in important areas such as crime and terrorism. I particularly welcomed her saying:
“With the threats to our common security becoming more serious, our response cannot be to co-operate with one another less, but to work together more.”
I agree that there is a good opportunity for us not only to maintain the current co-operation but to extend it. We should not give up on the opportunities provided by this significant debate—one that we have not necessarily had for a long time.
We all face the challenges of cross-border crime and deadly terrorist threats, which certainly do not respect borders. As the Prime Minister outlined so clearly yesterday, with the threats to our common security becoming more serious, our response needs to be enhanced. The political arrangements on matters of law enforcement and the sharing of intelligence materials with our EU allies has never been more important, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier.
Before Members ask why on earth I am mentioning the European convention on human rights and the protection it gives to individuals in our criminal justice system, I should say that I raise it because I still think that while we are having these debates a lot of people in the country either confuse the convention and the European Union and think one is interchangeable with the other, or worry that the debates we are having about the ECJ and our exit from the EU will at some point have an impact on the convention.
If Madam Deputy Speaker will indulge me for a second, I still think that our leaving the EU will make it much easier for us to bring ourselves out of the European convention on human rights. Although it is a topic for another day, I have no doubt that it will be debated for a serious amount of time, in both this place and the other place. I am concerned that our potential withdrawal will limit the rights on which those in the criminal justice system could rely, so such debates are crucial. When he responds to the debate, will the Minister assure me that the Government will put the protection of human rights at the forefront of their agenda, when governing both inside and outside the EU?
There is considerable consensus among UK law enforcement agencies on the tools and capabilities that we must retain if we are to keep the British people safe. One of those tools is the European arrest warrant, which was mentioned earlier. The EAW facilitates the extradition of individuals between EU member states to face prosecution for a crime of which they are accused or to serve a prison sentence for an existing conviction. Since 2004, through the EAW the UK has extradited more than 7,000 individuals accused or convicted of a criminal offence to other member states, and brought 675 suspected, convicted or wanted individuals to Britain to face justice—that is no small number. Ultimately, we need to think about that number and how many different individuals in society have been affected over the years.
The European arrest warrant has been used to get terror suspects out of the country and to bring terrorists back here to face justice. An important example is when in 2005 Hussain Osman, who tried to blow up the London underground on 21/7, was extradited from Italy in just 56 days. Before the warrant existed, it took 10 long years to extradite Rachid Ramda, another terrorist, from Britain to France. It is crucial that we replicate it or ensure that something similar continues in its place, because I do not want to see us return to the days when it took years to extradite citizens.
Sir William Cash
On the issue of the European arrest warrant, which was debated extensively in previous Parliaments, may I mention that there are a number of instances in which British citizens have been subjected to complete failures of justice under that system? I will leave it at that, but that is a point that my hon. Friend needs to take on board.
Ben Howlett
I thank my hon. Friend for intervening. The Prime Minister said yesterday in her speech that this is about not just maintaining our current system, but enhancing the system that we have. If that means having debates on the European arrest warrant to ensure that the system works to stop exactly what he mentions, then that is what we should do, and this is the prime opportunity to do so.
I turn now to cross-border intelligence sharing, which has been instrumental to the safety of our nation. In particular, I am talking about the mechanisms, data gathering and analysis executed by Europol—the agency that supports the law enforcement agencies of the EU member states by providing a forum within which member states can co-operate and share information. Will the Minister assure me that we will continue to have access to Europol after our departure from the European Union? There is no doubt that every hon. Member will be saying that over the next few hours.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that UK intelligence agencies, including individuals working in my constituency in Cheltenham, protect not just British lives, but European lives as well? As part of any future arrangement, we want to ensure that they continue to do the vital work both within our shores and beyond.
Ben Howlett
My hon. Friend is a great champion of the security services, particularly those that are in his constituency, and of his constituents who work at places such as GCHQ. Those agencies protect people not just in the European Union, but in the wider world with associate members. That must be at the fore of the Government’s thinking. This is about not just British domestic interest, but international interest at the same time.
There is no doubt that the UK’s participation in criminal and policing capabilities and intelligence sharing, such as the European arrest warrant and Europol, have resulted in a safer United Kingdom. The UK has always taken a lead in European security matters, managing the relationship between the European Union and the United States and taking the lead in producing EU policies on counter-radicalisations. The EU action plan on terrorism was drafted during a UK presidency. May I press on the Minister the importance of this continued co-operation long after we exit the European Union?
Like other hon. Members, I must highlight the need for as much clarity as possible on this issue. My constituents and the British public put security and law enforcement very high up the agenda, so I am very pleased that the Government have enabled this debate to take place today. People are rightly concerned that we should be giving them more confidence that, whatever relationship we have with the European Union in the future, we maintain the highest level of security.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett). I rise to speak in this debate and to make my final contribution in this House before I leave to take up the post of director of the Victoria & Albert museum, the world’s greatest museum of art, design and performance. It has been a profound privilege to represent Stoke-on-Trent Central in this Chamber for six and a half years, and I wish to place on record my thanks to Mr Speaker, the Clerks of the House, the doorkeepers and, perhaps above all, the Library staff, who I fear will now face quite a drop in demand for their services.
It perhaps seems particularly perverse to leave the House now—let me apologise to the political parties and to the people of Stoke-on-Trent for inflicting a by-election on them—just as this place is about to enjoy the largest return of powers since the Act in Restraint of Appeals, not least in terms of security, law enforcement and criminal justice.
As power and sovereignty are returned to the UK Parliament, the question for us today and into the future is whether we will see a Britannia unchained that will forge a new Elizabethan era of free trade, cultural exchange and innovation. Or is it the case, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has suggested, that we live in a world that is so interconnected in economy, security and political power that we have, in leaving the European Union, exposed ourselves to international headwinds that will batter rather than benefit us? At this stage, we have no answer to that.
The Prime Minister’s speech left no doubt about the strategic direction in which the Government are heading, but let me say that I welcome the tone of it: the need to end division and heal some of the anger surrounding our decision to exit the European Union is a vital task of political leadership. The saddest and bleakest moment of my time in this Parliament was hearing the news of the murder—the political assassination—of my friend Jo Cox: the brilliant, gifted and beautiful Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen. It remains a devastating loss for the Labour movement and humanitarian affairs. We should not forget that her killing took place amid some of the ugliest and most divisive rhetoric in the lead-up to the referendum. I pay tribute today to the enormous dignity and resilience of her widower Brendan Cox and her close family.
Amid the Brexit debate, I continue, before I am perhaps seduced by a Crown office, to represent a constituency that voted 70:30 to leave the European Union. Week in and week out, I campaigned with colleagues for us to remain in the EU. I remember some days not meeting anyone in the potteries who wished to stay inside the EU. Like many Members in the House, I accept the result, but the division of opinion between the official Labour party position and many of our heartland voters has served only to highlight some of the deep-seated challenges that centre-left parties are facing. From Greece to the Netherlands, Sweden and France, the combination of austerity, globalisation and EU policy has hammered social democratic politics.
The challenge that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party faces is not unique to him. All parties are coalitions, but what Brexit has done is exacerbate the divergence of priorities between, say, the Labour voters of Cambridge and those in Redcar, Grimsby or Stoke-on-Trent. Keeping a metropolitan and post-industrial coalition together is no easy task.
In Stoke-on-Trent, my voters wanted to leave the European Union for three reasons: sovereignty and a return of national powers to this Parliament; a reaction against globalisation and a political economy that they thought had shut down the mines and steel industry and eliminated 80% of jobs in the potteries; and immigration. The concern about immigration was not racism. It was about the effects of large-scale migration on public services and wage levels in an already low-wage city.
I often put the case that the EU was a bulwark against the ripcords of globalisation, and vital for policing and national security. I said that 50% of our pottery exports went to the EU, that EU investment had assisted regeneration in north Staffordshire and that our great universities of Staffordshire and Keele both benefited from EU funding. It made no difference. Now we need a Brexit that delivers for Stoke-on-Trent and other communities feeling left behind by globalisation and rapid socioeconomic change.
Again, the question is still out: will presaging judicial and immigration control be detrimental to economic growth? Is that the society we want: probably poorer, but more equal—Sparta, rather than Rome? I continue to have great concerns about leaving the single market and the effects on British business and prosperity, but as we leave the European Union, there is also a moment for progressive reform.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has made the case for a Marshall plan for parts of the midlands and the north to equip them for contemporary challenges. The House could think creatively about industrial strategy, freed of state aid rules, revolutionising our skills and training with a new focus on vocational education and building a new internationalism. The tension on the Government Benches is, as I read it, between a national popular politics—a post-liberal vision of Government action and redistribution—and a vision of Britain as a low-tax more deregulated state in the Singapore-Hong Kong model. It will be interesting to see how those approaches play themselves out.
I will watch developments from my new post at the Victoria & Albert. The museum is European in heritage; Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg was instrumental in its foundation as he felt that Britain needed to follow the German model of design, education and technical skills. Where have we heard that before? The V&A’s heritage is also proudly global, with a collection drawn from across the empire and the wider world. Its current lead exhibition, which explores the life and legacy of John Lockwood Kipling, a sculptor and potter from Burslem in Stoke-on-Trent who went to Bombay but missed north Staffordshire so much that he named his son Rudyard after a local beauty spot just north of Stoke, speaks to exactly that mix of European and imperial influences.
The V&A, along with other national museums, now stands at the hub of our creative industries sector. If we are concerned, as we are in this debate, with security, we should reflect on the need for economic security. The UK’s creative industries are now worth some £85 billion a year to the UK economy. The creative industries sector is the fastest growing sector of the UK economy with the capacity to deliver further jobs and growth, and it is a major component in soft power. Museums are sources of inspiration, innovation, creativity and synergy. The UK’s museums are global leaders in their fields and great drivers of British culture and identity right around the world. At the V&A, curators have introduced the brilliance of David Bowie’s designs and Alexander McQueen’s fashion right around the world.
When it comes to Brexit, the V&A and other museums will continue to build their connections in China, India, the Gulf and elsewhere, but their success is also a European success. The story of British art and design is also a story of European culture and our place within it. More than that, so many who work in our cultural sector are EU citizens. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of the urgent need for a reciprocal arrangement with the EU on its nationals working in the UK and on British citizens currently employed in the EU. Similarly, trade negotiations with the EU will need to recognise the importance of the digital sector to the British economy.
There is a broader Brexit issue for our leading cultural institutions. It seems to me that when there is this growing sense of disparity between the winners and losers of globalisation, museums and other cultural institutions need to help to lessen the division. In an age when art, design, the humanities and culture are so important for our competitiveness and quality of life, we cannot have London detaching itself from the rest of the UK. This is a chance to think more creatively about education provision, as art and design are under real pressure in our schools. We need to build stronger connections between national and regional museums, and wider support for our creative industries. In short, Brexit demands a stronger connection between South Kensington and Stoke-on-Trent. I will try, as director of the V&A, to do just that.
The father of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central, Tony Benn, famously said that he was
“leaving parliament in order to spend more time on politics”.
I am not quite doing that, but I do think that museums have a responsibility, as places of learning, discourse and inquiry, to interrogate, in a non-partisan way, the big challenges of the day. I hope to do just that and I hope to see many hon. Members there.
Finally, let me place on record my thanks to my personal staff. Within this palace, there work thousands of people writing, researching, prepping and advising, and for five long years, Mr Alan Lockey and Ms Carrie Martin have helped me in my job enormously. I put on record my debt to the people of Stoke-on-Trent for sending me here—the greatest privilege of my life—and I thank the Speaker for his indulgence in my speech this afternoon.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). He is pretty well my next-door neighbour and we talk regularly. We were even on a Radio 4 programme that he organised only a week ago on Asa Briggs and all the matters to which he referred. I regard him not only as an hon. Member, but as a good friend. The valedictory comments that he just made were rather reminiscent of a maiden speech. I simply wanted to put on record that he has performed a great service to this House and to his constituents before I get into the more substantial questions before us.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for giving way. Does he agree that my hon. Friend the soon to be departed Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has, since 2010, been a truly class act in north Staffordshire and the potteries, not least in his efforts to save the Wedgwood collection for the nation?
Sir William Cash
Absolutely. We are indebted to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for that. We have all taken an active part in trying to do what we can regarding the museum, and it is marvellous not only that that collection is still there, but that it is now in secure hands under the aegis of the director of the V&A himself. I do not know whether he has taken up his contract yet, but he is getting close to it. I thank him very much for everything he has done in that context, and for our area and region.
The hon. Gentleman questioned whether, under Brexit, there would be a “Britannia unchanged”. I can assure him that there will be a “Britannia unchained”. That, to me, is the most important question of all, to which I have devoted the best part of 30 years of my political life. I believe very strongly that we will benefit enormously from this. It has been a long journey, and a very interesting historical journey, as people will discover one day when they get the full measure of what has actually taken place. It will benefit not only my constituents, 65% of whom voted leave, but the 70% of leave voters in Stoke-on-Trent Central.
The hon. Gentleman referred to sovereignty as one of the main issues before his constituents. That is connected with the question of trust which, as I said yesterday on a programme on Sky after the Prime Minister’s speech, is at the heart of the issue not only in this country, but across the whole of the European continent, which happens to be, largely speaking, within the European Union. This vote is not against Europe but against the European Union—that is what the discontent is about. There is a lack of trust between the member states, and between the citizens and the institutions and elites within the member states who have implemented these arrangements, which simply have not worked. They have generated monumental degrees of unemployment—up to 60% in some countries, including Greece and Spain. The problems that come from an over-dominating Germany have had a detrimental effect on stability in terms of the progress and evolution of the European Union. The situation has recreated the very insecurity and instability that people wanted to deal with in the aftermath of the second world war, in which my own father was killed fighting against the Waffen-SS Panzer division in 1944, winning the Military Cross, of which I am very proud.
I voted yes in 1975. I wanted to see a situation that could work but, unfortunately, the manner in which this has developed has become dysfunctional. In the discussion on the statement yesterday, I noticed that a sense of realism was bearing down on many Members because we know that we have to make this work. This is not anti-European. It is not anti-European to be pro-democracy. I know that there are some good and honest remainers who are still worried about the outcome, but I say to them, “Have confidence. Have trust in the people”—as Lord Randolph Churchill said in the 19th century. This is not a 19th-century problem, however; it is a 21st-century problem. This is not Euroscepticism in a negative sense; it is about trying to ensure that we have proper democracy, and that when we get on to the great repeal Bill, we will be able to achieve the reaffirmation of Westminster’s jurisdiction.
What does that actually mean? It means that we will be implementing in this Chamber the decisions taken by the electors in general elections, for which the people of this country fought and died. That is a crucial issue for the future of Europe as well; it does not just apply to us, but we were the first to have the opportunity to do something about it, because we had the referendum, for which some of us fought for a very long time.
At a conference at the European Parliament the other day, we discussed matters of security, terrorism and all the rest. In front of about 300 chairmen of various parliamentary committees from all over the European Union, the chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok—I have parried and fought with him for the best part of 20 years in various forums of the European Union—accused the United Kingdom of cowardice in holding a referendum. I replied that holding the referendum was an act of courage, not an act of cowardice, because we have seized the opportunity to defend the necessity of having a proper democratic system in the United Kingdom, and we will now be able to implement it.
With respect to this business of justice and home affairs, and all that goes with it, my European Scrutiny Committee held an inquiry in April or May last year—before the referendum—into the manner in which decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers. I am prepared to bet that there are people in this Chamber who do not know that virtually no votes are taken in the Council of Ministers. As a result of the European Communities Act 1972, decisions taken by the Council of Ministers—quite often stitched up behind closed doors—come straight down to this Chamber and we are under an obligation to implement them. Such decisions are often on matters such as those we are discussing, and they are of direct relevance to the whole question of security, terrorism and crime.
If people do not know that that is how the system functions, I strongly advise them to speak to me privately, when I can provide them with further information—I will not go into it in the Chamber today, but it is vital to democracy. Such decisions are not taken on a democratic basis, as people have imagined, and that is a reason in itself for our getting out of the European Union. I was absolutely delighted by what the Prime Minister said yesterday. As I said during our proceedings on the statement, her speech was “principled, reasonable and statesmanlike.”
Justice and home affairs was intended to be intergovernmental. It was never meant to be governed by majority voting and all the rest; it was meant to be a separate pillar. I say to the hon. Gentlemen and Ladies of Labour that they, under Tony Blair, collapsed the pillar so that the matter became part of treaties subject to the European Court of Justice. That was never the original intention.
In this debate, we are engaging in an element of déjà vu, but we are also giving ourselves the opportunity to indicate the extent to which we will move forward after Brexit into a different environment in which decisions on all these incredibly important matters will be dealt with by this House on the basis of votes cast by the voters of the United Kingdom and nobody else.
I drafted the repeal Bill in May last year and submitted it to various people. As a result of a process that I do not need to go into in detail, it was accepted in principle by the Government. I have no doubt that the wording will be slightly changed—or somewhat changed—but that does not matter. I set out five principles, which I will not go into now, other than to say that they meant that we would withdraw from the European Union and transpose all legislation currently within the framework of the EU’s jurisdiction into our own Westminster jurisdiction, and that thereafter we would deal with it as we went forward.
I apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was here for the opening speeches, but with my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) and others, I have been cross-examining my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who was the Minister for Europe and is now the Leader of the House. We had important questions to put to him, and we got some interesting answers.
The repeal Bill will require careful attention. As a result of the Bill, we will be able to reintroduce a proper democratic system into this House. We will have to accept some things as a matter of policy, and we heard some of them in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s brilliant speech yesterday, but we cannot absorb the European Court of Justice. The issue of the Court is raised in debates on this subject matter probably as much as it is on any other subject matter within the framework of the European Union.
The Prime Minister’s speech yesterday made it clear that the UK will continue to co-operate with its European partners in important areas such as crime and terrorism once we leave the EU. She said that, faced with common security threats,
“our response cannot be to co-operate with one another less, but to work together more”—
subject, of course, to the question of the European Court of Justice—and to ensure that the UK’s future relationship with the EU includes
“practical arrangements on matters of law enforcement and the sharing of intelligence material with our EU allies.”
She went on to make it clear that
“we will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”.
As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I and my colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome—my wife is from his constituency, so I should be able to remember its name—continue to see a raft of EU initiatives in the sensitive area of law enforcement and security co-operation. The Government tell us that while the UK remains a member of the EU, all rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force, which is true, and that they will
“continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation.”
I say quite explicitly, however—I put this to the Leader of the House this afternoon—that during the period in which we are engaged in the negotiations, it is absolutely essential that we have proper explanatory memorandums on matters relating to security and terrorism and to justice and home affairs, because we must examine such matters properly and form a judgment about the extent to which we will actually implement them. When, on a matter requiring unanimity, we are in a position to vote against it, we must do so, and when a matter is subject to qualified majority voting, we must insist on a vote, rather than allow an agreement to be stitched up behind closed doors.
As my Committee recommended, we must at the same time give reasons for what we are doing, to increase transparency and accountability. Some of these matters to do with the question of terrorism and all that goes with it are so important to our security that if we do not believe that what the EU is proposing is in our national interest, we must take a stand. In my opinion, there is an absolute requirement on the Government to make sure that the reasons for that are put on the record.
Although the generalisation that we want to achieve a degree of co-operation is important, if we do not like things that are proposed—things that are not in the UK’s interest and that we would never contemplate accepting post-Brexit—we must not allow them to go through by consensus in un-smoke-filled rooms. Indeed, if we had had our wits about us, we would never have accepted such things in the first place. The European scrutiny process therefore needs to be considered, and my Committee is looking into it very closely.
As the House will recall, the coalition Government decided that it was in the UK’s national interest to rejoin 35 EU police and criminal justice measures that were adopted before the Lisbon treaty took effect and were subject to the UK’s 2014 block opt-out decision. They included Europol, Eurojust, the European arrest warrant, joint investigation teams, important data sharing instruments—EuroDac and so on—the Schengen information system, the European criminal records information system and the so-called Swedish initiative, which provides a simplified mechanism for the exchange of law enforcement information and intelligence. Since then—the Prime Minister was then the Home Secretary— the Government have rejoined the Prüm measures, which provide for the rapid automated exchange of information on DNA profiles, fingerprinting and vehicle registration data. The United Kingdom also participates in the European investigation order, which will take effect in May this year, and many other criminal justice measures.
On the new EU justice and home affairs proposals, there appears to be inadequate recognition in the explanatory memorandums that the context in which the UK will continue
“to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation”
has changed profoundly because of Brexit. To quote the Prime Minister, the UK is leaving the European Union. The Government cannot continue with business as usual within COREPER and UKRep. I trust that Sir Tim Barrow will, as the new UK representative, carry on in a way that will be entirely consistent with what is required in relation to COREPER and UKRep. We cannot continue with business as usual in the handling of sensitive EU justice and home affairs proposals in COREPER, the Council and the trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament. Given that the UK is under no obligation to participate in most new EU justice and home affairs proposals, the Government must explain on the record in each case how a decision to opt in would be in the national interest and consistent with taking back control of our laws, as the Prime Minister said, and ending the jurisdiction of the European Court.
Since last June’s referendum, the European Scrutiny Committee has pressed the Government to clarify how the measures in question will be affected by the UK’s decision to leave the EU and how they envisage managing security and law enforcement co-operation post-Brexit. Under the repeal Bill and otherwise, there will need to be significant adjustments to how that is handled. What sort of relationship do the Government intend to establish with Europol and Eurojust? Will they seek an agreement to enable the UK to continue to apply a new arrangement regarding the European arrest warrant? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be out of the jurisdiction of the European Court and yet have all the laws interpreted by the judges in the European Court in Luxembourg. That just cannot happen, and that has to be taken on board.
What assessment have the Government made of the operational value of EU data sharing instruments? Would access to those instruments require the UK to comply with EU data protection laws in practice, even if it was no longer under a legal obligation to do so? Answers to those questions are absolutely fundamental, because otherwise we will not be able to implement the commitment to
“take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”.
As I said in an intervention, we also have to take into account the fact that justice, home affairs, terrorism and security—all the problems that have accumulated in the 21st century—are not exclusive to the European Union. They apply across the whole world. The fact that the European Union exists and has developed a body and a framework of law does not give it any absolute value. This House and its predecessors have been legislating for 400 years or more. We do not need to be told how to do this. Yes, we want to co-operate with other countries, but for heaven’s sake let us take on board the fact that we can work out what is in the interests of our own citizens in accordance with the decisions they take in general elections. We will bring in our own immigration Bill, not have one imposed on us through deals done behind closed doors, and it will do exactly what the British people want, because they will have voted for it.
We are talking about important matters arising from the decision taken by the British people, and I pay tribute to them; I do not, however, pay tribute to the campaigns. I thought that the “Project Fear” campaign was a disgrace, and I said so in the House at the time. I do not think there was any treaty change, either, although the Prime Minister kept on telling us there was—I challenged him on that and even put the matter to Mr Speaker. That was around the middle of June, and the Prime Minister was gone by the end of the month. The bottom line, however, is that neither side of the campaign covered itself in glory, and there were things I deeply regretted.
For that reason, I did my own campaign in my own area, and I am glad to say that in the area in which my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central are situated, we notched up votes of between 65% and 72% in favour of leaving. He was quite right: it was about sovereignty and the very matters I am talking about. It was about whether we could run our own country in our own fashion through our representation in this House. It was as fundamental as that. Everything else pales into insignificance compared with democracy, if it is properly conducted. It is absolutely sure that the current EU is undemocratic, and it is as well that we are getting out of it.
Our Committee has issued a press release regarding another matter that I doubt has been mentioned so far—whether UK nationals will need authorisation to travel to the Schengen area post-Brexit. The UK is not entitled to contribute to the proposal being drawn up, as it is not a Schengen country, but the Government will have to monitor the negotiations closely. In that regard, my Committee has some questions. What are the main differences between the model proposed by the Commission for visa-free entry to the Schengen area and the full Schengen visa regime? Do the Government intend to seek visa-free access to the Schengen area for UK nationals post-Brexit? Do they intend to press for an exemption from the new travel authorisation for UK nationals, or will they seek instead to minimise the cost and complexity of the application process? If they cannot secure an exemption, would they wish to introduce a reciprocal travel authorisation system for EU nationals travelling to the UK after Brexit? All those matters are in the press release that was presented to the media this afternoon, and I sincerely trust that they will give it the attention it deserves.
This is a vital debate on the best example of a policy area that impinges directly on citizens. Elsewhere in the EU massive resistance to EU proposals is building up among citizens, but we have had our referendum and the people have decided that we should get out. That is what we are doing. Let us get on with implementing that decision.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
First, I would like to pay a personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). He grew up in the best constituency in the world and went to school in the best constituency in the world, Hampstead and Kilburn. I also thank him for sending me a long handwritten letter after my maiden speech, which was much appreciated by a newbie.
I am in danger of breaking the rules again, so I will come to the debate at hand. The problem with being so low down the pecking order is that everything has already been said and articulated very well by others, but I thought I would speak about the worries of my constituents, 75% of whom voted to remain in the EU. As such, they voted in support of continued security co-operation with our European partners, as indeed they did on many of the other matters raised in today’s important debate. As Londoners, the strength of feeling over the upcoming renegotiations on security protection should come as no surprise. London residents are obviously not alone in their experience of the devastation inflicted by terrorism, but they are particularly clear-minded when it comes to the value of EU-wide security arrangements in bringing people to justice.
The hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) has already referenced a time when the European arrest warrant played a crucial role in allowing the police to do their jobs, help keep Londoners safe and bring offenders to justice. He cited the famous example of 2005, when the failed bomber, Hussain Osman, was brought to justice in just a few weeks because of our access to the European arrest warrant.
Other agencies and conventions, such as Europol, which has been mentioned several times this afternoon, and the European Criminal Records Information System help to combat crime across borders through international co-operation and the sharing of forensic data. For a global city such as London, where my constituency is, abandoning European security co-operation could compromise our effectiveness in confronting a number of issues beyond terrorism, including human trafficking, intellectual property crime, money laundering and mobile organised crime groups.
I believe that my friend, the Mayor of London, was absolutely right to demand that London has a seat around the table, alongside the devolved nations, in ensuring that continental security apparatus is kept intact. It was extremely disappointing to see no direct reference to London’s additional law enforcement needs in the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday.
The Government’s decision in December to opt into new Europol regulations was a welcome one, and in principle, would appear to back up the Prime Minister’s words on maintaining a continental approach when gathering criminal intelligence and producing threat assessments. Londoners—not just in my constituency, but everywhere—will want to know whether the Europol regulations we have adopted will outlast the EU negotiations, and whether the Government will develop alternative frameworks of co-operation on policing and security matters, including on the matters I have outlined. Only when we have such answers will my constituents be reassured that their security needs and those of fellow Londoners are being considered with the utmost care by this Government.
Beyond continued co-operation and information sharing with our European partners, it is clear that Brexit will pose financial challenges to the economy. One area that we shall scrutinise is, of course, the money spent on policing, particularly the current spend. In arranging any post-Brexit settlement, the Home Office must fully recognise London’s position as a major global capital. It is no surprise to know that this city incurs extra security costs in trying to keep the large population safe when policing major events and in protecting our most famous landmarks, such as this Parliament in which we sit today. At present, these extra needs cost £300 million a year, but London receives funding from the Government only for barely half this amount. So in addressing our post-Brexit security and law enforcement needs, making sure that the capital has the money to protect itself will be of the utmost importance. We want answers from the Minister on this issue.
I have a few other questions that I want the Minister to answer. Will he ensure that the Home Office gives the Met the full amount it needs through the national and international capital cities grant? There is currently a more than £100 million shortfall, which threatens the police’s ability to protect Londoners. Will the Minister make it clear where our future lies in respect of our relationship with Europol? This will be vital for accessing criminal records information systems, yet we know the EU’s deputy chairman has already made it clear to Denmark that it
“should not be under any illusions”
about its ability to negotiate a parallel agreement to membership.
Finally, there is the question that everyone has asked over and over again. What will be our future relationship with the European arrest warrant? In November, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that up to 150 essential extraditions would not have been possible without the European arrest warrant system and our relationship with it, and the former director general of MI6 has warned that losing abilities such as that provided by the arrest warrant would make the UK “less safe”.
I hope that the Minister will make it clear how we can continue to protect our citizens and to protect London, where my constituency is. I urge him to address these practical security questions: that might even earn the Government some good will from those who will be sitting on the other side of the negotiating table. As I am sure the Minister will recognise, the No. 1 priority of any Government is to ensure the security of their civilians, but it is not entirely clear to me at present how this Government intend to do that.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I think that, in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks, it was recognised that something had to be done to speed up extradition processes and reduce the amount of bureaucracy involved. That, in addition to the fact that some career criminals seemed to be using countries such as Spain—the so-called Costa del Crime—as a permanent home, meant that I was happy to give the then Government the benefit of the doubt. I have always supported the principle of a European arrest warrant, and we have heard many important speeches in support of it today. However, although I do not disagree with the principle of what has been said, it cannot be denied that there are cases that have given rise to concern.
The European extradition warrant makes the assumption that standards of justice are the same in all EU countries, that standards in prisons are the same, and that bail conditions will be the same as well. In short, it assumes that human rights are respected in exactly the same way throughout the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chairman of the Justice Committee, said that he had no doubt that standards of justice in Germany and France were exactly the same as they are in the UK, and I do not really have any doubt about that either, but I do have concerns about the overall standards of justice in other parts of the European Union.
Some of the cases that concern me have already been mentioned briefly. There was the case of Andrew Symeou, who spent nearly a year in prison, having been denied bail, because he was not a Greek resident. In other words, he was extradited because he was a European, but was unable to get bail because he was not actually Greek. He served time in some pretty awful places. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I are members of the Council of Europe. I do not know what visits my hon. Friend has made, but I have certainly seen a Greek detention centre, and, having served as a special constable, I would say that the conditions were illegal under any European rules and regulations.
We were shown a room that was probably not much more than a quarter of the size of the Chamber. It contained 30 or 40 people who were being held in those conditions for up to a year for various immigration infractions, and who, as far as I could tell, were given very little time out. That was totally unacceptable. It would have been unacceptable to hold anyone in conditions like that for 48 hours in a UK police station. It comes to something when people are actually begging to be sent to a Greek prison because their existing conditions are so bad.
There was the case of Gary Mann, who was tried for and convicted of an affray-type offence within 48 hours of being arrested. He had not, in fact, been involved. He was released, but there was subsequently a demand for him to return to Portugal to serve a two-year sentence. He was not given access to facilities that we take for granted, such as translation facilities, which are extremely important.
There have been other such cases. There was, for instance, the case of Edmond Arapi, about which I read on the Fair Trials International website and of which I had not been aware before. Apparently he was convicted of murder in his absence, despite the fact that at the time the murder in question took place he was working, or studying, in the United Kingdom. There were numerous witnesses to say that he had been in the UK on the day and nowhere near the country in which the murder was supposed to have taken place, yet he went through years of hell because of the strong possibility that he would be extradited to Italy to serve, I think, a 19-year sentence.
It could at least be said that, in those instances, the motivation was to reduce crime and to deal with straightforward criminality, even if we think that the standards applied were simply not good enough. Other cases are now beginning to emerge that have a more worrying motivation, and I want to pay particular attention to what the Romanian Government are doing at the moment. They have indicated that they may serve an arrest warrant against an award-winning Sky journalist, Stuart Ramsay, and his team, who put together a documentary about gun-running in Romania which the Romanian Government did not like. I do not know whether the claims made were accurate, but he is an award-winning Sky journalist and I have no reason to doubt them. If Governments do not like journalists’ stories about them, they have the right to rebut them, but it is simply unacceptable for Governments to start issuing arrest and judicial proceedings against journalists who have upset them. That would never be acceptable in this country.
There is another ongoing case that I find particularly worrying: the extradition warrant served against Alexander Adamescu, also by the Romanian Government. He is becoming a bit of a cause célèbre at present. His father runs a newspaper in Romania which has been highly critical of the Romanian Government. The Romanian Prime Minister at the time said he was corrupt and had him arrested, and he was found guilty in a short space of time. There are all sorts of reasons why one might question the court case but it is not really for me to do so here. The point is that when his son, who is a UK resident and an aspiring playwright, filed charges against the Romanian Government, he was served with an EAW and was arrested on the streets of London on his way to speak to the Frontline Club about the importance of journalistic freedoms. There was also an attempt to kidnap his wife by masked men, which still has not properly been dealt with, and nobody has been found.
These are very worrying cases as they give rise to the concern that, rather than trying to have people arrested to resolve criminality, some Governments—on the basis of those two cases the Romanian Government are one that worries me—seem to be using the EAW to send out a message that anyone who questions them or tries to hold them to account will run the risk of being taken off the streets of the country in which they are resident, arrested and sent back to Romania or elsewhere for trial.
Sir William Cash
There is another problem that the European Scrutiny Committee has looked at in the past, when we had the Fair Trials team in to give us evidence: some of the judges are politically appointed.
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend makes an important point.
I have listened with great interest to what has been said in this debate. I was of course a supporter of Brexit, but that in no way means I oppose the EAW or the principles behind it.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the EAW has benefited some of our constituents? Four days before Christmas a father in my constituency was reunited with his son who had been abducted and taken to Poland. He was recovered on the issuing of an EAW.
David T. C. Davies
I do not deny that for one moment; the EAW has led to some very important results for us, where we have had terrorists and other serious criminals either extradited out of or back to the UK. As my hon. Friend knows, I served as a special constable for eight or nine years, so there is no question but that I will always support any Government in wanting to bring about stricter measures against criminality. But the issue here is that there is a price to be paid, and we pay it in the human rights of citizens in our own country. If we are prepared to allow countries which apply a lower standard of justice, of fairness in court, or of access to bail to extradite our citizens or residents of this country in order to keep the bureaucracy running smoothly, everyone who is living in this country is paying a price in terms of their human rights in order to reduce bureaucracy and improve an extradition procedure. We need to think very carefully about that price.
Brexit offers us an opportunity. I have no problem with the countries my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned—Germany or France—or indeed many other European countries, but if it becomes the case that some countries are not giving people bail, are holding them in pre-trial detention for an unacceptable length of time, or are using the EAW as a means to silence criticism of them through the press, it is absolutely right that we use Brexit as an opportunity to renegotiate the whole system, and to work with countries that apply our systems of justice but to state with the utmost respect that we are unwilling to sacrifice the human rights of people such as Alexander Adamescu in order to maintain membership of the EAW. I hope that a Justice Minister will meet me to discuss this case on a subsequent occasion.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), even if I do not always agree with everything he has to say. I should also like to extend my best wishes to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) as he starts a new chapter in his career. I am pleased to take part in this important debate, in which there is an unusually wide degree of consensus, although not unanimity.
Participation in EU schemes brings value, and the Government should be doing all they can to keep the UK as closely involved in them as possible. If Brexit is to happen, we on these Benches believe that it is utterly essential that we do everything open to us in the negotiations to preserve our involvement to the maximum degree achievable. However, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, success in that ambition cannot be taken for granted. As the Minister said, it is in the interests of the other EU member states that the UK is involved, and it is undoubtedly true that the UK contribution to these institutions is significant and very much valued. Indeed, it is no doubt a matter of huge regret that a member state that has been hugely influential in shaping initiatives such as the European arrest warrant, Europol, passenger names records and so on has now put its ongoing participation in these schemes at risk. However, nobody should be complacent in thinking that securing meaningful ongoing participation will be straightforward, because all the evidence shows that there are significant political and legal hurdles to overcome. That point was well made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), in her opening speech.
Justice and home affairs are areas of shared competence, so agreements on participation may well need approval from the EU institutions and individual member states. In some of those states, that could involve parliamentary ratification or even a referendum. All of that will be made more complex still if the Government are going to set out clear red lines that could make those hurdles even more difficult to overcome. That includes the Prime Minister’s obsession with escaping any aspect of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) was right to make that point at the start of the debate.
Let me turn to a couple of the schemes and institutions in which it is vital we seek to preserve a role for the UK. The introduction of the European arrest warrant has resulted in a step change in how quickly suspects and criminals can be repatriated to face justice. Other Members have already made this point, and I will not repeat all the benefits of the system that have already been highlighted. Last May, the then Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee that if we were not in the European Union, we would almost certainly not have access to the European arrest warrant. On the basis of evidence submitted to the Committee so far, that seems almost certain to be correct. This would create one of the biggest headaches for the Government. The then Home Secretary also noted the length of time it had taken for Norway and Iceland to negotiate access to something not even as comprehensive as the European arrest warrant system. Sixteen years on from the start of negotiations, an agreement is not yet in force. She also noted that such deals often contain massive loopholes that the European arrest warrant does not. For example, some states will simply not extradite their own nationals, and will insist on any trial taking place in their own courts.
Do the Government accept that it will not be possible to negotiate a single deal for one procedure with the European Union as a whole, or are they going to make an attempt to do so? Or are they resigned to negotiating 27 different agreements, as Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has suggested will be required? In the likely event that work on either of those options cannot be completed within two years, will the Government be seeking a transitional arrangement? Otherwise, as the Chair of the Justice Committee suggested, we will revert to the 1957 Council of Europe Convention on Extradition. In those days, it took an average of 18 months to extradite someone; now, under the European arrest warrant, it takes 15 days in uncontested cases or 45 days if contested. Police officers everywhere will be interested to know what planning will be done so that law enforcement agencies can cope with a more expensive and complicated procedure.
The Home Affairs Committee visited Europol last year—we have already heard about some of the other benefits of that institution—and all its members were impressed by the work that has been done under the leadership of Rob Wainwright. On that visit, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) highlighted, we noted the presence of US liaison officers. Indeed, 14 third countries have negotiated operational partnerships with Europol. Although some such arrangement could probably be agreed within two years, that status is just not as good as what the UK currently enjoys as a full member. Before the referendum, Mr Wainwright warned that the UK would become
“a second-tier member of our club”
if it left the EU and that, like Iceland and Norway, it would be denied direct access to Europol data and, of course, would not have direct influence on the overall direction of the agency, which has proved so beneficial in recent years. Those are not trivial matters and could mean that a request for information on missing or wanted persons takes days rather than hours, which could be crucial for those involved. That is why the NCA’s David Armond has called on the Government to seek something more than the operational partnership enjoyed by other states.
There could be problems with our relationship with Europol, in particular the all-important access to data, if the Government move away from EU data protection standards, as other hon. Members have mentioned. We have heard that the ECJ has struck down the EU-US safe harbour agreement on similar grounds. Under the new Europol directive, we will also need to seek approval from the European Parliament, which has refused to back an EU-US terrorist financing tracking programme for similar reasons. While it is good that the Minister said that the Government are not settling for an operational partnership and are looking for some form of bespoke agreement, we need more detail about exactly what is envisaged. Will the Government ensure that data protection standards here do not jeopardise our relationship with Europol? What if that involves some influence from the ECJ?
While the UK enjoys only partial access to the Schengen information system, the evidence to the Select Committee so far has been that it has been a game changer for police. It facilitates real-time information sharing and alerts, and the police national computer is linked into the system. Access for non-EU and non-Schengen countries is limited, with countries such as Australia having to ask an institution such as Europol to search on its behalf. Norway and Iceland have agreements to access the database, but they are required to make payments without any say on policy development and, significantly, they must implement ECJ decisions or face losing access. The SNP would have no hesitation in saying that such commitments are absolutely worth it if we can secure similar access, but do the Government believe the same? Does the Prime Minister’s obsession with the ECJ take precedence?
Similar issues arise with Prüm, to which Schengen membership, financial contributions and ECJ jurisdiction have secured Iceland and Norway access. According to David Armond, the Interpol agreement that we would have to fall back on if and when we were excluded from Prüm would be time-consuming, bureaucratic and far less effective. Similar problems also arise with ECRIS, the European police college, the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security, Eurojust, and the passenger name record, and the Government’s efforts at securing access and membership must be scrutinised. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to work with devolved criminal justice organisations and Governments. Although justice is devolved, the devolved Governments will sadly not be directly at the table when the negotiations happen.
In conclusion, if anything illustrates the idea that the European Union can be about empowering states, rather than ceding state powers, it is surely the field of policing and security. If we fight serious and organised crime and terrorism on our own, we are not so much taking back control for the police and other services involved in that fight as risking tying one arm behind our back. We all benefit and are more powerful by co-operating and sharing sovereignty at that level. It is essential that the Government prioritise security, not obsessions about the ECJ or EU data protection rules, and I hope they will assure us today all that their priorities are in that order.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). I note the degree of consensus from the Government Benches—although it is perhaps not the same as the degree of enthusiasm for the vote last summer—and I found a certain solace in point 11 of the Government’s plan and the commitment to continue co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism. However, those are just words at the moment and the Government must demonstrate with action how the evident need for international co-operation will be realised.
I add my voice to the many better qualified than me who detailed the aspects of co-operation that best serve the citizens of the United Kingdom. I understand that there are 133 EU measures in place on co-operation, and we have a fair amount of work on our hands to co-ordinate and work in concord.
There are a few issues of particular relevance to Wales and the western seaboard. As we well know, the common travel area allows Irish and UK citizens to travel between the two countries without showing a passport. We welcome the announcement that that is to remain, but I will explain why, from the point of view of Wales and of the security of Wales, the border warrants consideration.
Key Welsh ports such as Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke Dock deal with thousands of passengers and huge amounts of freight coming from Ireland each and every day. Milford Haven is a major port for fuel arriving by sea, and Holyhead is second only to Dover in terms of passenger numbers, with 1.9 million passengers in 2015. In the present circumstances, will the security status of the port of Holyhead be revisited? Plaid Cymru’s police and crime commissioners, Arfon Jones and Dafydd Llywelyn, have warned that, were the border to become more tangible, it is likely that there would be a rise in criminality in Holyhead in the form of cross-border smuggling, and even the possibility of terrorist violence focused on physical manifestations of the border. That possibility must be avoided at all costs.
David Anderson QC, the outgoing independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, highlighted in his December 2016 report that ports on the western front could be the “soft underbelly” of this island’s security. With more than 1,680 miles of coast and relatively small police forces covering vast rural areas, the practical difficulties of policing Wales’s coastline are enormous. Ports and police services in Wales are already facing immense pressure, as public service cuts have seen their capacity slashed—this is, of course, a domestic issue as much as an international issue—and there are concerns that posts may be lost at Welsh ports if the cuts continue. As we are aware, the Border Force is already struggling to fill the gaps.
A senior police officer has warned me that
“people will be coming in and we’ll be missing them.”
There are real concerns that the still-unresolved police funding formula and the high priority accorded to urban adversity will disproportionately affect rural police forces such as Dyfed–Powys and North Wales. I urge the Policing Minister to consider the risks of over-simplifying the number of funding indicators if it is evident that they fail to take account of the variation in policing needs and policing environments across forces.
I specifically request a meeting with the Policing Minister to discuss concerns about the future funding of North Wales police in light of what we are discussing today. From stopping the smuggling of goods and people to stopping outright acts of terrorism, if the Government are serious about ensuring the continued security of this country in a time of great uncertainty, they must recognise and address the unique issues faced by Welsh police services. Brexit must not mean more cuts and more uncertainty for the forces that work day in and day out to protect us.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) observed, one of the disadvantages of taking part so late in a debate is that many of the things that I might have wanted to say have already been covered. The other disadvantage, of course, is that there are fewer people left to hear me.
I principally want to make the case for differential arrangements in Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The areas that we are discussing exemplify why that ought to be the case. Policing and law enforcement in Scotland have long been quite separate from that in England and Wales in their structure, administration, budget and legislative framework. The police’s mandate from the criminal justice system predates devolution. Devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament transferred legislative responsibility to a Parliament elected in Scotland, but that process did not set up a separate arrangement for policing and did not establish a separate criminal justice system. No one has suggested that those matters should change post-Brexit, but I hope the Minister will acknowledge that position, and discuss how the arrangements will be different in Scotland and what processes need to happen to make that a reality.
I also want to talk about the general political context in which this debate takes place, as well as some of the criteria that inform public opinion and political dialogue in Scotland. Members of this House, including those who do not represent Scotland, will know only too well that the politics of Scotland is largely influenced by the legacy of the 2014 independence referendum. I do not want to go into that in any detail, but two aspects of that discussion, which ended in September 2014, are relevant to today’s debate.
The first of those relates to the relationship that people in Scotland were to have with the European Union. We were told during that debate not only that the prospectus for an independent Scotland was a bad one, because Scotland’s position within the EU could not be guaranteed, but that if people in Scotland wished to retain their European passports, the best way to do so was to vote to stay within the United Kingdom. Only that, we were told, would guarantee that people would be able to maintain their existing relationship with other European nations. The second thing that was said was about the concept of respect. We were told that if people voted to renew the Union between Scotland, and England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that would be a matter not of opinions and views being subsumed into a much larger neighbour, but of a partnership in which the views of the people of Scotland would be respected and treated equally, albeit in an asymmetric power relationship.
What has just happened with Brexit severely tests both those propositions and the assurances given in that debate. We have yet to see what type of United Kingdom emerges in a post-Brexit world, but clearly many fear a dystopian future in which this country turns its back on the rest of the world, and becomes insular, isolated and riven by sectarian and ethnic division. That may not come to pass—I very much hope that it does not—but clearly the United Kingdom of the future is going to be manifestly different from the one on the ballot paper on 18 September 2014.
The other thing to say is about respect, which is another notion that will be sorely tested. Public opinion, as expressed on 23 June 2016, on the matter of relationships with other European nations is manifestly and palpably different in Scotland from that in England and Wales. That presents all of us with something of a dilemma. Given the muted tones and more thoughtful nature of today’s debate compared with some of the exchanges in recent weeks’ Brexit debates, I hope that we might be able to confront these paradoxes and decide that together we should try to do something positive about them.
That was what the Scottish Government attempted to do in “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, the paper that they published before Christmas. I commend it to any Member who has not read it as it sets out a prospectus for a differential relationship that Scotland would have in a post-Brexit world. It suggests that Scotland should be given the authority and competence to be an associate member of the European economic area, because attitudes in Scotland are different from those in England and Wales, particularly on the freedom of movement of people across borders.
I want to make it absolutely clear—I encourage people to recognise this—that the Scottish Government’s document and the position that they are now campaigning for are not seeking to say that Scotland should be an independent country, or that any part of the UK should remain part of the EU. In that sense, they respect both the 2014 decision and the 2016 decision. They try to square the circle with regard to how opinion north of the border is manifestly different from that in the south. I therefore commend the document to Members; we should explore it.
Joanna Cherry
Will my hon. Friend confirm that polling released this afternoon shows widespread support in Scotland for the Scottish Government’s plan to stay in the single market? Indeed, in the early days after the EU referendum, both the Secretary of State for Scotland and Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland, were demanding that Scotland should remain part of the single market.
Tommy Sheppard
Indeed. Members will think that we prepared that exchange, but we did not. It is worth quoting the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said in June last year, just after the Brexit vote:
“My role is to ensure Scotland gets the best possible deal and that deal involves clearly being part of the single market.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland. Of course, he might have changed his mind in the months since then.
The Scottish Government’s document suggests that there are three levels of legislation that should be looked at when considering how we manage Brexit within these islands. I hope that no one would suggest that a constitutional decision of such magnitude as to withdraw this country from its main international association can be done without having any effect on the constitutional arrangements within the county—it is obvious that that will be the case. There will have to be, either as part of the great repeal Bill or in a Scottish Bill, some provision to give new powers to the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Government believe that those powers fall into three areas. First, there are some areas in which the Scottish Government already have competence that are going to be repatriated straight from Brussels. We should make sure that they go straight to Holyrood without stopping at Westminster on the way. Secondly, there are areas of additional legislative competence that should be given to the Scottish Government when they are devolved from Brussels, particularly in the field of employment legislation and, indeed, some immigration matters. Thirdly, if we can persuade the United Kingdom Government to consent to and support the idea of arrangements in Scotland being different, but still consistent with leaving the EU, we will need a legislative competence Bill that allows the Scottish Government to form future relationships.
The matters we are discussing in this debate very much fall into the first category I described, albeit perhaps with the exception of security. Criminal justice and law enforcement are areas in which the Scottish Government already have competence, so the repatriation of powers should see that competence expanded.
Will the Minister tell us what dialogue is taking place between Ministers of the Crown here at Westminster and their Scottish counterparts about how the arrangements I have referred to should be made? They will involve matters of great detail that require great expertise, so it would seem rather ridiculous simply to say that this is all a matter for the Department for Exiting the European Union. We need to explore in some detail criminal justice and law enforcement, and how the relationship for the special aspects of Police Scotland in terms of the security system will work following Brexit. That should not be left to the Brexit Department; it should properly be a matter for the Home Department. When he responds, I hope the Minister will set out not only that the Government intend to have that dialogue, but suggestions about how it might take place.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Prime Minister made it clear in her speech yesterday that one of her objectives in exiting the European Union would be to release the United Kingdom from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. During yesterday’s proceedings on the statement made by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, an issue arose of how cross-border trade disputes are to be settled if the UK refuses to be bound by the rulings of the ECJ. The Secretary of State did not give a comprehensive answer to how such disputes will be arbitrated once the UK is outside the EU, which raises the possibility that he does not yet know.
It gives me enormous concern that the Department for Exiting the European Union does not yet have a clear idea of how the role of the ECJ will be replaced once we leave the EU. Although it might be possible to cobble together a mutually acceptable compromise for trade deals, as the Secretary of State airily declared yesterday, the ECJ has a far greater role to play in our national life than just being the arbiter of trade deals.
As members of the EU, we benefit from a range of different schemes for sharing data and resources across borders, including the Schengen information system, the European arrest warrant, Europol and the European criminal records information system, among many others. We collaborate with our European neighbours on matters relating to family law, asylum and the freezing of assets.
The Prime Minister argued passionately in favour of those measures as Home Secretary, and when leading the Government’s case for opting into 35 justice and home affairs measures in 2014. In this very House, she argued that without such measures we would
“risk harmful individuals walking free and escaping justice, and would seriously harm the capability of our law enforcement agencies to keep the public safe.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 1229.]
Our membership of the European Union gives us an automatic right to the co-operation of our EU neighbours in all those measures. Once we exit the European Union, we will lose that automatic right. As we have seen with the single market, the Prime Minister and her Cabinet are failing to support measures that they have spent their whole careers championing as fundamental to our security and public life.
It is entirely possible that we can negotiate a new agreement to maintain access to data and resources. The UK has been instrumental in setting up many of the cross-border police and crime systems that the EU has adopted, and our contribution will be missed when we leave. It is to be hoped that this will provide a powerful negotiating tool when we come to strike a new deal. However, so much of that cross-border co-operation and data sharing depends on all parties accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ. There are several reasons for that. First, the EU can only act in compliance with the charter of fundamental rights. The ECJ is the ultimate arbiter of that, so it is impossible for the EU to sign an agreement with the UK that conflicts either with the charter or with ECJ case law.
Secondly, any agreement needs to be policed. If the UK acted in ways that breached the terms of this agreement, it would be open to an EU citizen to take a case to the ECJ and have the EU’s decision concluding the agreement annulled. Thirdly, the developing jurisprudence of the ECJ is binding on EU member states. If the UK failed to keep pace with legal developments on the continent, or diverged from EU law on any significant matter, a gap would open up. The international deals that the EU signs with third countries tend to include a mechanism for discussing legal divergence, including the ability to allow the agreement to be terminated if the differences cannot be reconciled. The UK would therefore have to stick closely to the rulings of the ECJ to avoid the agreement being annulled.
One of the most valuable contributions that membership of the European Union makes to the UK’s continuing security is the sharing of data between national police and intelligence agencies, but the sharing of personal data must be subject to stricter safeguards to prevent misuse. Within the EU, all countries have signed up to data protection legislation that governs the sharing of this data. Once the UK has left the jurisdiction of the ECJ, which oversees the data protection legislation that governs such data sharing, any bespoke agreement will have to continue to be governed by similar levels of protection.
Should UK law diverge from EU law on data protection, any agreement will become void if the ECJ deems that UK law is insufficient to protect European citizens’ data. That would result in the flow of data from the EU to the UK being immediately stopped, putting at risk the ability of British police and security forces to investigate and prosecute potential threats.
Given the Prime Minister’s determination, as expressed yesterday, to cut all ties with the European Court of Justice, I urge the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to form, with the utmost urgency, a proposal for the future of information sharing and co-operation on security matters between the UK and the European Union. He needs to set out detailed plans for how collaboration can be continued if the UK will not accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ. He also needs to state how the risks of any bespoke arrangement will be addressed, especially the risk that UK and ECJ case law diverge in the future, making negotiated arrangements untenable.
I hope that Members on both sides of this debate will acknowledge that the full implications of rejecting the ECJ were not put to voters in a referendum campaign and that, had they been, the Prime Minister might not now be so determined to remove the UK from its jurisdiction. I hope that the very real risks to our future security are being properly considered by the Secretary of State and look forward to hearing his proposals in greater detail in due course.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Her constituency is very close to my heart, because I fought my first parliamentary election as the Labour candidate in Richmond Park and lost by, I think, 26,000 votes. However, it was enough to ensure the election of a Conservative Member, Jeremy Hanley. At the count, the Liberal Democrats were very angry with me because Alan Watson, who is now in another place, lost by a very small margin. At least I have the comfort of knowing that the hon. Lady has now been elected as the Member for Richmond Park. I wish her well in her career, which I am sure will be long and distinguished. I have to say that I was fond of the former Member for Richmond Park, who was always extremely courteous and had great respect and affection for the House and for you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I am sorry that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). I was sad to hear that he was to leave the House to take up an appointment outside. I feel that I was at his political birth—I sat on the panel that interviewed him for the seat of Stoke-on-Trent Central. We had interviewed 25 people before my hon. Friend came in; he was so stunning in his interview and we were so impressed that we immediately put him on the shortlist—and, of course, party members in Stoke-on-Trent selected him by a very large majority.
I remember one of the panellists saying that one day my hon. Friend would become the leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister; instead, he has gone for a better-paid job, probably with much better influence and less stress, as the director of the V&A. His amazing career outside the House has been matched by his complete devotion and dedication to the people of Stoke-on-Trent Central. I know that because I have been up there twice in the past five years and seen the great affection that local people have for him. He is dedicated and hard-working and will be greatly missed. We all wish him well in his new career. He is going to keep the museums free, and we are all going to visit him at his first exhibition.
What has been good about this debate was the passion of both Front Benchers. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) gave an extraordinarily good speech, and we heard another good speech from the Minister for Policing. Both supported the immensely important role that we play in justice and security in the EU. In fact, I do not think there was any difference between what the Front Benchers said on this subject: they both realised the importance of our remaining at the forefront of this agenda in the European Union, even though we are leaving it.
The Minister spoke with all the passion of one who supported the remain campaign during the referendum. He reminded us of the importance of the institutions and how vital it is that we remain part of them in one way or another. It is significant that we lead the rest of Europe as far as justice and security are concerned. We need the European Union, but it also needs us in a whole variety of organisations and institutions and in different ways.
Europol has been mentioned a number of times. Like the Minister and shadow Minister, I am a great fan of Europol. I pay tribute to Rob Wainwright for the excellent work that he does. During all the years that we have been members of the EU, how rare it has been for a Brit to be head of an EU agency or organisation. What an incredibly good job Rob Wainwright has done as director of Europol.
The Prime Minister is keen that we should not just have bits of the EU, but this is a bit that we desperately need. We desperately need to be part of an organisation that has a proven record in dealing with organised and serious crime. In the terrible migration crisis that has gripped the EU over the past few years, the involvement and support of Europol from the Hague has been vital to the hotspots that have been created.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Many years ago, when I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee, we went to Holland to see a demonstration of Europol in action; it had traced millions of pounds-worth of drugs to the other side of the world. It helps British police forces to do the very same thing, by getting information from Interpol. The issue is about connections.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend is right. He knew about it then, and I have reminded him.
I know the Minister is busy tweeting parts of my speech, but may I occupy his time for just one moment? It is possible for us to get an arrangement with Europol that will mean not that we are sitting on its management board, but that we are very near that position. We know, from watching what the United States has done, that it is possible to be there. It is not as good as running the organisation, but it is being near the centre of power, which is where we need to be with Europol. As we have heard, every serving chief constable, the head of the NCA and the head of the Metropolitan police say how important it is for us to stay a part of it. The Policing Minister knows that, because I am sure that police officers have said as much to him. At the very least, we should be able to negotiate something equivalent to what the United States has negotiated, whereby we have a room, a desk and access to the kind of information that we so desperately need.
On criminal records, the Minister has responded to me on ECRIS but we do not have details. I spoke yesterday to the national police director of information, Ian Readhead, who runs our database system from Hampshire. He told me how vital it is for our country to have access to ECRIS because it means that we know exactly where people are, and if someone has committed an offence, we can contact their country, which will give us within minutes the results of a check on whether that person has a criminal conviction. Some 200,000 foreign national offenders were arrested in our country last year, half of whom—100,000—are EU nationals. That is why it is extremely important that we have access to the database.
ECRIS is not extended to any non-EU members. Those are the rules. The only exceptions are full members of Schengen, so Switzerland and Norway have access to the database. Of course, we have no prospect of joining Schengen or, indeed, of wanting to join Schengen, so we must be very careful in our negotiations to ensure that we have information sharing so that we can get data from the rest of the European Union.
We heard from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), who is the House’s resident expert on Prüm. After some delay, the Government decided to opt into Prüm, but we will not start sharing the information that is provided under it—the DNA and fingerprinting expertise, and the other information that we need—until later this year. I hope very much that the Minister will ensure in his negotiations that we continue to benefit from Prüm until we leave the EU, and indeed that we have an agreement to allow us access to the important information gained through Prüm after we have left the EU.
I do not think that anyone so far has mentioned the issue of foreign national offenders. The latest figures show that there are 4,217 EU national offenders in the United Kingdom, costing £169 million a year. At the top of the list is Poland, with 983 citizens in our prisons. There are 764 from Ireland and 635 from Romania. The Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), will remember that we questioned the prisons Minister on the issue of foreign national offenders. We could not understand why—since we have a prisoner transfer arrangement with Poland, and both Poland and the United Kingdom are in the European Union—we have not been able to transfer Polish prisoners back to Poland. The answer came back to us from a senior official at the Ministry of Justice that the Government probably could have transferred more prisoners back. It is important that we look at that, especially if we can do the prisoner swap before we leave the European Union. Otherwise, once we come out of the European Union, Poland will be in exactly the same situation as any other country with regard to prisoner transfer arrangements. We should try to make sure that the swap happens as quickly as possible.
A number of Members have mentioned the European arrest warrant. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham made an impressive contribution on that issue. I have concerns about it, because other EU countries are issuing warrants on the basis of their law and their constitutions, and in some cases for very minor offences. Our system is being clogged up with a number of warrants that have been issued against nationals of other EU countries. We should be much more careful before issuing a European arrest warrant: it should be for serious and important offences, not for someone who has stolen a bicycle in another part of the EU, as has been the case. As the Minister negotiates with the rest of EU on the European arrest warrant, this is an opportunity to look at the issue anew. While accepting the importance of the principle of the European arrest warrant, which we would like to keep, we can also look at the defects inherent in it. It is a great scheme but it has its flaws, and this is an opportunity to ensure that they are dealt with.
My final point relates to EU nationals living in this country. As I said to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, I do not know—she did not know either—whether we will have another debate on leaving the EU and home affairs issues other than those that we are discussing today, but I would have thought it essential that we clarify the position of EU nationals living in this country. The Prime Minister gave a guarantee in her speech yesterday that they would be allowed to remain here in tandem with British citizens being allowed to remain in the EU. That is short of an absolute commitment from the Government, for which Members in all parts of the House have asked. Now we have even more uncertainty. Can the Minister tell us the cut-off date for EU citizens who are resident in this country? Will it be 23 June 2016, in that everyone in the country on that date will be allowed to remain here as residents, will it be the date when we trigger Brexit, or will it be the date when we leave the European Union? I realise the Government’s difficulty: they do not want to set a date in the future, because they fear that lots of people would suddenly arrive in order to claim residence.
However, there will be a huge problem in processing the 3.5 million EU residents, because people from some EU countries do not require a passport to enter the United Kingdom. Italians come here on the basis of an Italian identity card, which is not stamped—one cannot stamp an identity card. No matter what the Government say, we still do not have 100% exit checks, and if someone presents their EU passport or identity card, nobody knows when they have arrived. Therefore, how will it be possible to process 3.5 million people in the space of two years?
That is why the best course of action is to make this commitment now—to say that we will allow EU citizens to remain here and to set the date, so that there is no uncertainty or rush in the future. We can get this clarified at a very early stage rather than waiting until the end of the process. There are still EU nationals seeking employment in this country who are being told by employers that they will not be able to stay. There are people who may not be given jobs because they are EU citizens, and people who may not be able to rent accommodation under the new rules regarding landlords and tenants because they now have to show their passport in order to rent property in the United Kingdom. It is essential that we have the situation clarified.
Whatever the detail—it is good to see the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), here as I talk about these matters—the negotiations will be very complicated, and they will not be easy when it comes to enforcement and criminal justice. We need regular reports back to the House on how they are going, because they will affect the safety and security of our citizens. The primary task of any Government is to protect their citizens, which is why it is important that we get as much information as possible.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
This has been an important debate, if a somewhat select affair, and there have been many excellent contributions from colleagues. The safety and security of citizens is the first responsibility of any Government.
Given the need for the UK and EU member states to collaborate, to co-ordinate intelligence and to share information, this debate matters. The fact that the Government have scheduled it is a good signal of their intention to maintain close relationships on security, law enforcement and criminal justice. But there are other important issues to debate urgently—freedom of movement, principles for negotiating new trade deals, change to single market membership and associate membership of a customs union, whatever that might turn out to be—and, welcome as our general debates so far have been, I cannot help wondering whether the Government are avoiding debating some of the most crucial issues.
The Minister has said that he wants to have a future relationship with EU states on security and law enforcement, and we welcome that. Maintaining our close relationship on security is vital. Our security must not be compromised by our departure from the EU. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has said, it is good to hear both Front-Bench teams agreeing on that important point. It is in our national interest to continue to have the closest possible collaboration on these issues. We must maintain our ability to participate in the European arrest warrant, our Europol membership and our ability to participate in information sharing, particularly via the Schengen Information System. We need those measures in order to stay safe.
Justice and security were barely mentioned during the referendum campaign, and the Government have no mandate to water down such measures. The European arrest warrant is strong. The Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have favoured participation in it, and the current arrangements must be maintained. The Minister must not just outline his commitment to the European arrest warrant, but signal how he intends to ensure that it is maintained to the UK’s benefit.
Similarly, full Europol membership is vital. Anything less has been described as “damage limitation”. After we have left, will we still have access to the same databases and sources of information as we do now? How will Ministers ensure that privacy laws do not encumber our access? The Government must ensure, and explain how it will ensure, that Britain’s security and safety are in no way diminished. This is not about trade, vital though that is. This is the most fundamental duty of any Government. Our security and safety are not to be weakened, and our partners need to know that we intend to work together with them more closely than ever. As threats emerge, we must work more, not less, closely with our allies as good partners.
The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) spoke with great care and authority of the need to sustain our involvement with international bodies. Like many of us who campaigned to remain in the EU, he accepts that we are leaving, but, like the rest of us, he sees the danger of departing without resolving the serious and vital security issues. The UK recently opted in to the new adopted regulation on Europol. The Government passed that test of their resolve, but good intentions are not sufficient. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) spoke of the need for Ministers to explain how the UK can remain part of the existing structures, on equivalent terms. The detail counts, and the House will hold the Government to their stated objective of maintaining our current beneficial relationship.
The Chairman of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), urged the Government not to rule out making the financial contributions that may be required so that we can continue to benefit, in particular, from intelligence databases. This is a most reasonable request. Will Ministers confirm that they will not dogmatically decline to make such contributions for domestic political reasons, thereby putting our information-sharing processes at risk?
We have all agreed this afternoon how important security co-operation is to the safety of our citizens. This is the closest to consensus that we are ever likely to see in this Chamber when we discuss Brexit. However, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), rightly said, agreement in this House does not mean that achieving the right outcome will be easy—it will not—hence her call for an explanation of how the Government intend to proceed.
My right hon. Friend gave the example of Europol’s success in achieving arrests in child exploitation cases. Everyone in the House will want to ensure that our capacity to identify and detain the individuals responsible for such crimes is in no way diminished. That ought to be possible, but it will require consistent and unwavering resolve from the Government. These matters must not be up for negotiation: there must be no trading away on these issues.
The Prime Minister spoke yesterday about not wanting to retain “bits of membership”, but as the Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), said, collaboration on justice and security is not a bit; it is a vital tool in securing safety in this country. With that in mind, will the Minister commit to ensuring that a transitional agreement protects us from any interruption in access to data and intelligence?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) made an excellent speech, in which she detailed the specific concerns of her London constituents. She wants the reassurance, as do we all, that co-operation on security and law enforcement measures will outlast our EU membership.
Lastly, I want to turn to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). It was a privilege to sit by him as he made his maiden speech almost seven years ago, and I am pleased, although I did not know he would speak for the final time in this House today, to take this chance to wish him well in his new and exciting role. He has always conducted himself with the utmost courtesy, speaking on issues as important as social mobility and as niche as the management of British waterways. I will miss him, and I know others will, too. I know that he has found opposition frustrating—banging your head against a brick wall is not for everyone—but I feel confident that he will use his new role to make a difference on inclusion and broadening opportunity, and I wish him every success.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)
May I say what an excellent debate this has been? It has been a debate of very high calibre. Indeed, it has been attended by no fewer than five Chairs of Select Committees. The issue of security, law enforcement and criminal justice is of significant importance in the context of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. I am sure that all hon. Members would acknowledge the value of this debate, which is the fourth in a series promised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. These debates have proven to be of real assistance to the Government, not least this one, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) pointed out, is on an issue that impinges directly on all of our citizens.
As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, a global Britain will wish to continue to co-operate with its European allies on tackling crime and terrorism. That is in the interests of not only the United Kingdom, but the continuing European Union, given the significant strengths that we can bring to the table. One of the 12 objectives that the Prime Minister outlined yesterday for the negotiations ahead is to establish a new relationship that enables the United Kingdom and the European Union to continue practical co-operation to tackle cross-border crime and to keep all our people safe.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reiterated that objective to the House yesterday and made clear, during his appearance before the Select Committee in December, that a future relationship on security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation will be one of the Government’s priorities when the negotiations commence.
The UK is leaving the EU, but self-evidently it is not leaving Europe. The reality of cross-border crime and threats to security will remain. In December, as referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the House of Lords EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee report on this subject concluded that there is a shared, strong mutual interest between the United Kingdom and the 27 continuing EU member states to make sure that co-operation on tackling these threats continues. To that end, the UK already has strong bilateral relationships with member states and other countries across the globe that help to address security threats and serious organised crime, as well as facilitate the delivery of effective justice. We intend to continue that close co-operation with our European and global allies on promoting security and justice across Europe after we leave.
Sir William Cash
In my speech, and when the Minister came before the European Scrutiny Committee, I referred to the question of the attitude to be adopted in relation to votes in the Council of Ministers. Will he give some indication as to the kind of trend towards being sure we make it clear where we stand on Brexit matters within the framework of the decision-making process in COREPER?
Mr Jones
As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is clearly now a change in the staffing of COREPER so far as the UK is concerned. As we move closer towards Brexit, and particularly after we trigger article 50, it is inevitable that that position will develop and change.
There were a number of points made by hon. Members during the debate and in the short time available to me I would like to comment on as many of them as possible. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) asked what guarantees can be given that security and law enforcement will not be compromised as a consequence of our departure from the EU. Of course, we have not even started the process of negotiation. We have not yet even triggered article 50. We are leaving the EU, but, as I previously indicated, co-operation on law enforcement and security with our European and global allies will remain a priority for the Government. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both spoken with several EU partners who have been clear about their wish to maintain strong co-operation with the United Kingdom. That is a good basis for starting the negotiation, but clearly this is very early days.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) made an excellent speech. He referred approvingly to the Prime Minister’s speech and made it clear that it is important the United Kingdom continues to be a close friend of the continuing EU. That is certainly the spirit in which the Government intend to approach the negotiations.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and a number of other Members raised the issue of data protection in the continuing EU, and the extent to which the continuing EU would wish to, or be able to, share data with the UK. I would point out that on the day of departure, the UK’s data protection arrangements will be in perfect alignment with those of the continuing EU.
Mr Jones
Forgive me, but I have very little time.
Again, that will be a good basis for continuing the negotiations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chairman of the Justice Committee, raised the European arrest warrant. He said that the United Kingdom should seek to remain within the arrangements of the warrant and that we should seek to be pragmatic in the negotiations. That is certainly the case so far as the United Kingdom Government are concerned. We look for similar pragmatism from our continuing EU colleagues.
The hon. Member for West Ham, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett), the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked what access we would have to Europol. Again, we are clearly at a very early stage in the negotiations, and they will obviously take time to progress, but the Prime Minister has stated that law enforcement co-operation will continue once the UK has left the EU. We are exploring options for co-operation arrangements with Europol once the UK has left the EU. But I repeat that these are very early days.
Keith Vaz
I will be brief as I know that the Minister has limited time. Will he clarify one point? He said that negotiations were at an early stage. I understood that there were to be no negotiations until article 50 had been triggered. Is he telling the House that negotiations in this area have actually begun?
Mr Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to upbraid me. The negotiations are at such an early stage that they have not yet commenced. To that extent, he is quite right. He has chastised me, and I am pleased to stand corrected.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford asked whether there was anything in EU treaties to prevent us from remaining a member of Europol. I understand that the EU treaties do not allow for non-EU members to join Europol as full members, but, as indicated already, we are seeking bespoke arrangements with the EU in this regard, and certainly we would wish to pursue access to Europol on as enhanced a basis as possible.
Yvette Cooper
For clarification, the Exiting the European Union Committee has been given evidence suggesting that although the treaties do not provide for it, neither do they rule it out. I accept the Government’s interpretation, but it would be helpful to have that confirmed.
Mr Jones
The position, as I understand it, is as I have just stated, but now that the right hon. Lady has raised the question, I shall pursue and investigate it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath asked whether the UK would be putting human rights at the forefront of our negotiating agenda. The UK has a long-standing tradition of protecting our rights, traditions and liberties, and we see no reason to depart from that.
Richard Arkless
The Ministry of Justice has responsibility for the Crown dependencies. I have just spent two days with the Justice Select Committee speaking to the Government of the Isle of Man, and they have a simple message—no demands or list of conditions: will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box and say that the Crown dependencies will not be forgotten throughout this process or in any agreement reached with the rest of the EU?
Mr Jones
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. In fact, there have already been many meetings with representatives of the Crown dependencies, and that will continue throughout the process of exiting the EU.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) rightly reminded us that many security arrangements are agreed largely on a bilateral basis and that the UK has significant strengths in this regard, and of course those arrangements will continue undisturbed by our departure from the EU.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who chairs the Exiting the European Union Committee, congratulated my Department on its speedy response to his most recent report, at least in two respects. I am glad to see that we are giving satisfaction. He asked whether the Department would be publishing the economic analysis underpinning the plan that the Prime Minister outlined yesterday, and if so when. I can assure him that the analysis continues and will continue for some time. However, he must understand—I am sure that he does understand—that going into too much detail about that analysis at this particular stage could compromise our negotiating position. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he has had before: as time passes, we will consider and reconsider the issue of how much information should be passed to his Select Committee.
Hilary Benn
The Minister says that the analysis is continuing. Will he tell us whether it will continue for another two and a half years, which would avoid the need to publish anything before the negotiations are concluded? It seems to the Select Committee perfectly reasonable, without compromising the Government’s negotiating hand, to reveal to the House and the public the Government’s analysis of the different options, which will help to inform people’s view about the Government’s plan.
Mr Jones
I have no doubt that that analysis will continue for some considerable time, although I doubt whether it will continue for two and a half years. I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, and we will certainly continue to consider the position. At this particular stage, however, I believe that giving such detail would compromise the negotiation.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) gave his valedictory contribution, and on behalf of Conservative Members, I would like to wish him well in his future endeavours. He reminded us quite correctly that the United Kingdom is part of the greater European culture, and I am sure that under his direction the Victoria & Albert museum will continue to reflect that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone expressed concern about the use of the European arrest warrant for crimes that he regarded as trivial. The European arrest warrant was radically reformed by the previous coalition Government to offer better protection for British citizens and others who are subject to extradition proceedings. British citizens can no longer be extradited where a case is not trial-ready, where the conduct is not a crime within the United Kingdom or where it is simply not proportionate to extradite. These protections are set out in UK legislation. Concerns about the European arrest warrant were also expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), who raised specifically the Adamescu case. The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has listened and attended carefully to the points raised. Concerns about the use of European arrest warrant were also expressed by the right hon. Member for Leicester East.
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) raised the issue of the common travel area, which is a matter of concern. The common travel area long predates our membership or Ireland’s membership of the European Union. It goes back to 1923, and the Government have made it very clear that preserving those arrangements is at the forefront of our minds as we approach the negotiations.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) raised the issue of respect for Scotland in the United Kingdom. He referred to what he described as the spectre of a dystopian future, in which the UK turns in on itself. That is not the future that the Government see for the UK outside the EU. In fact, we see a more global Britain, a more outward-looking Britain—a Britain that is not confined by the limits of the EU. He also raised the issue of respect for Scotland and the paper that Scotland has recently issued. He will be aware that in order to address the issue of the impact of Brexit on the devolved Administrations, the Government established the Joint Ministerial Committee for exiting the European Union. That is the forum in which these issues are raised, discussed and debated, and there is a meeting this week. I do not believe any suggestion that there is a lack of respect for Scotland or indeed for any of the devolved Administrations.
Tommy Sheppard
Would it not enhance the discussions taking place at the JMC if there were discussions between Ministers in his Department and their counterparts in Scotland in order to prepare some of the detail of these very particular matters?
Mr Jones
Discussions will certainly continue, but I must say that I regard it as highly unfair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is any lack of respect for Scotland. I believe that the Government could have done hardly any more to accommodate the concerns of the devolved Administrations.
The debate has been genuinely useful. Both my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister and I have made it clear today that this issue is of the utmost importance to the Government as we prepare to negotiate our exit from the European Union, and that has been reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has said that co-operation with the EU in the fight against crime and terrorism will be one of the Government’s principal priorities when negotiations begin. We are determined that the United Kingdom will continue to be a leading contributor in the fight against crime and the promotion of security and justice, not only in the United Kingdom and the European Union, but throughout the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered exiting the EU and security, law enforcement and criminal justice.
Flooding: Ribble Valley
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
It is a great delight for me to have this opportunity, more than one year on, to reflect on what happened in the Ribble valley during the floods, to reflect on what progress has been made in terms of resilience, protection and prevention, and, indeed, to thank some of the people who, beyond the call of duty, came to help those who were in distress.
I remember that on Boxing day in 2015, I was at my sister’s house in Pontarddulais. Very early in the morning, I received a text message from a friend of mine, Robert Hayward, who has since been elevated to the House of Lords. He asked, “What’s happening in your constituency?” I sent him a text saying, “What do you mean?” He replied, “Floods.” There had been a flood in the Ribble valley just over a week earlier, so I thought that perhaps some footage was being shown of what had happened then. I did not think too much of it, but I went and switched on the television.
Sky News was being broadcast live from Whalley, one of my villages. The reporter was several feet underwater. I watched live footage of one of my constituents, an elderly lady, being carried from a small cottage—manhandled out of her property—to be taken to a safe place further up the road that the floods had not quite reached. My eyes were wide open, and I was aghast to see the condition of the main street through Whalley, but I had not realised that the flooding was much more extensive than that.
I called to my sister, “I’m going.” It was Boxing day, and I was due to stay for about four days, so she said, “What do you mean, you’re going?” I said, “I’m going to the Ribble valley.” She asked why, and I said, “Well, have a look at the TV and I think you’ll understand why.” She asked, “What can you do?” That was a great question, to be honest, but it was about being there. That was the answer: I had to be there. There was no other place I could be on that day.
I got into the car and drove for four-and-a-bit hours towards the Ribble valley. Coming off the M6, I would normally turn right, immediately towards Whalley, but I could not do that because the main road to the right off the motorway junction was flooded. I had to turn around and then use my local knowledge which was quite extensive, to work out another route through Preston.
First I dropped into Longridge, where there was an emergency centre in one of the village halls. I spoke to four people there. Nobody had reported there, because it is several miles away from Whalley, and I think it was just too far away. People were making their own arrangements, with some going to the Clitheroe golf club. The local school had said that it was available to take anybody, and of course neighbours were coming to the assistance of those in distress.
When I drove into Ribchester, an area that gets flooded from time to time, I went to have a look at the River Ribble from not far from my local church, St Wilfrid’s. That is an extensive area. I have to say that my mouth dropped open, as I had never, ever seen that river so high. If it had risen just another few inches, it would have broken its banks into the main street in Ribchester. When I talked to one of the local residents, he said, “I was waiting for it to go one step further before I started moving my furniture and possessions from the bottom to the top floor.”
I then went on to the Ribchester Arms pub. As it was Boxing day, it was ready to take in all the bookings it had for that day, but of course it could not open at all because it was completely flooded. The landlord and landlady were on the top floor. The firemen were already there, pumping water away from one electrical substation to make sure that it was still operational, so there were still lights on at the top of the pub. That pub was closed for several weeks. One thinks of the on-costs to that pub of keeping on the labour and so forth, never mind the colossal cost of the waste of all the food, the equipment that was damaged and the loss of trade during that period.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman’s heartfelt and passionate speech reminds me of what happened in my constituency a year ago. On the subject of businesses being affected by floods, many businesses in Newton Stewart in my constituency now face excesses of more than £15,000 and cannot get cost-effective insurance. Will he join me in trying to persuade the Association of British Insurers to extend the Flood Re scheme to small businesses? At present that scheme covers only individuals, so it is of no solace to small businesses that stand on the edge of a precipice.
Mr Evans
I am more than happy to do that. In fact, I have made representations to Mark Hoban, who is in charge of the Flood Re scheme. I believe that we should extend that scheme to businesses. I have no doubt at all that the premiums for a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises that are prone to flooding or that have made claims will go through the roof. If we think it is a good idea to spread the risk for domestic premises, as we have done through the Flood Re scheme, which is very good indeed, I cannot see any good reason not to extend that to businesses as well. I will talk a bit later about one of my businesses, which has been hit in more ways than one. I am delighted to see you now in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that your constituency also experienced bad flooding. Indeed, the flooding affected a number of areas, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), who is also in the Chamber.
I must praise the brilliant emergency services for all the work that they did. In the late hours of Christmas night and early hours of Boxing day, members of the Army were knocking on doors. They already knew what was going to happen, so they were alerting people so that they could either get out and secure their premises, or get their possessions upstairs if they could. They were working during the time when other people were celebrating with their families, so I have absolute praise for them for everything they did, as well as for the early flood warning system, which clearly was working.
I then went down into Whalley, which had been featured on the television for most of that day. A lot of the water had subsided by that time—it was several hours on—but my goodness me, the damage that had been done during those hours was absolutely phenomenal. It was not just the main road that was affected, but several streets back on both sides. I chatted to Norman Atty, the landlord of the Dog Inn, who was able to tell me all the things that had happened that day. I then went from Whalley through Grindleton towards another village way on the other side of the constituency, but I had to turn my car around when I got there because I could not distinguish the road from the river. The water was so high that I thought that if I went any further, I would have been adding to the problems, because my car would be stuck—it is not a 4x4. I therefore reversed back and went home.
I got up the next morning and went back into Whalley, where the salvage operation had begun. My goodness me! It was heart-warming beyond belief to see the volunteers who had given up their Christmas to help their neighbours. I also heard a story about a group of four men who were travelling up to Scotland for Hogmanay—they were going pretty early by the sound of it—and heard what had happened in Whalley. They drove off the M6 and turned up in the village. They picked a house at random and helped the people there to clear their possessions out on to the street and into skips. They then got back into their car and continued their holiday. What fantastic people!
Other people had had the good sense to get money and drive into the Ribble valley and hand it out to families. Some people would have been without money, and they would have lost all their food. Perhaps they lived alone, or perhaps they had spent all their money at Christmas and had no access to money. Those people giving out money provided a lifeline. They did not need to do it, but they did. People came from all over the area to help. For example, charities in Blackburn gave assistance. It was a colossal operation to help people to get all their food and possessions out of their kitchens and living rooms. I also pay tribute to the skip operators who managed to get skips in on a regular basis, and to the police, who managed to set up a one-way system through the village. I have been talking about all the great things that people did to help, but now and again we had “flood tourists”, who decided to come in just to have a look. They thought it was rather clever to drive through the water, which resulted in water splashing into businesses that had already suffered greatly. Those people were really thoughtless and careless.
I remember talking to one chap, Andrew Ronnan, who has done tremendous work as a volunteer. He told me, “I don’t know what I was expecting to do on the day after Boxing day, but it wasn’t manhandling a piano into a skip.” That was what he ended up doing. The volunteers were absolutely superb. They were led by Gillian Darbyshire, the president of the Whalley and District Lions club, and she was joined by some of her friends, including Kellie Hughes, who runs the hairdresser’s shop. Her shop was badly hit—it is still being repaired—but her resilience has been absolutely superb. Anyway, she did not cut hair for a few days. She went straight across to the village hall, which was requisitioned, where people turned up to give electrical goods, blankets and food. Hot coffee and food were served there. It was quite amazing. Electricians gave up their time to come in and test all the electrical goods to make sure that no faulty items were handed out. Other volunteers included Mags Twist and Katie Blezard—I am afraid that I am going to forget some of the people—and even the Dog Inn was giving out coffee and sandwiches to the volunteers who were coming in to help.
Another electrician was going around people’s houses and helping. Of course, people from the electricity board also came in to switch people off and ensure that everything was safe before getting them switched back on. One of the volunteers had training in mental health issues, which was useful because some people were tipped over the edge by the flood. One can understand why when they were seeing their houses being destroyed on Boxing day. This person was able to talk a man out of his bedroom and get him downstairs so that he could finally get assistance. We need to pay some attention in that area when we think about what actions to take after future floods. I also pay tribute to Marshal Scott, the chief executive of Ribble Valley Borough Council, who was on the scene from Boxing day night onwards. The council moved many officers from the county offices in Clitheroe into Whalley and operated from the village hall. Marshal Scott was there every day, giving assistance to people who badly needed it.
Part of the problem was that some businesses and homes had been hit just a week before, when a culvert became blocked and water rushed down. Funnily enough, Andrew Ronnan had already called some locals together to see what they could do, because they realised that there would be real problems if the river burst its banks. Well, we had real problems, but they brought the community together.
One area that was badly damaged included the houses off Calder Vale. The road there is unadopted, so it was already rough, but that road now has a proper surface thanks to Gillian Darbyshire and the Whalley and District Lions club, which helped to raise more than £100,000, which was matched with donations from the Freemasons and others. In fact, it is now one of the best roads in the Ribble valley—it is absolutely superb. I could not believe it when I went down there the other day. I thought, “Wow. Look at that. That’s what happens when a community works together,” so I pay tribute to Gillian for leading the volunteers.
One chap called Allan Elliott, whom I went to see just the other day, has his house at the back of Calder Vale. One third of his garden was washed away, his car was a complete write-off and, of course, the house was badly damaged. One would have hoped that the Environment Agency would have looked at the damage and given a bit more assistance than it did, but he has had to spend thousands of pounds of his own money to shore up the garden to ensure that it will be resilient against any further rises in river flow.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing a debate on a topic that is important in our area of Lancashire. Following the December floods, Lancashire County Council’s delay in applying for funding for future flood defences until at least April meant that it missed out on Budget funding in 2016. Does he agree that that was a little short-sighted?
Mr Evans
I hope that many lessons will be learned. Any funding that is made available ought to be claimed—I remember the big argument about claiming European flood money, but we all pay into that, so we are only getting our own money back—but it took ages before we did that, which was a huge mistake. We should have known about it from the very beginning. I was told about how complicated it was to claim the money, so that must be sorted out. When one is paying into an insurance fund, claiming our own money back should not involve so much officer time and the filling in of so many pages. Many lessons need to be learned by the council, and by government more generally, to avoid adding to a tragedy through action or inaction.
I also want to praise the refuse collectors. One would not expect to see them the day after Boxing day. There are few sadder pictures in my mind than seeing refuse people backing up into a street on the day after Boxing day and loading Christmas trees into the back of their vehicle because people were clearing their whole houses. It was a very sad picture, never mind that those people were already under stress. There was one lady whose husband was dying, and in addition to all her problems she was having to clear out her house. Some people are still not back in their home a year on. Big questions have to be asked about the resilience of some properties. The Minister has produced her own report on the flooding, and I hope a lot will be learned from it.
I also praise councillors Terry Hill, Joyce Holgate, Albert Atkinson, Ged Mirfin and others. Councillors came from all over the area. Even if their areas were not flooded, they came to give assistance. I also praise Sir James Bevan and the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who turned up the day after Boxing day—I could not believe it, but there they were, walking through the village in wellington boots. I was able to show them some of the damage, and Sir James looked into the River Calder and could see the damage for himself. A lot of the damage is still there. One would have thought that one of the farmhouses over at the other end would not have been touched, but it was way underwater.
Some insurance companies were prompt, and others were not—their answerphones were switched on and saying, “We are on holiday. Please get in touch on 28 or 29 December.” When such colossal flooding is affecting so many thousands of people, one would have thought that all the insurance companies would be there to help.
Andrew Ronnan created the Whalley and Billington flood action group by drawing on the expertise that can be found in any large village and its surrounding areas, including civil engineers and people with knowledge of flood prevention. The group has regular meetings in order to liaise with the lead flood authority—Lancashire County Council—Ribble Valley Borough Council and the Environment Agency on the long-term plan. We have to do that, because these once-in-a-lifetime events are now happening quite regularly. Action must be taken against anything preventable that can lead to the misery I saw that day. Some of that action relates to the river, and other action relates to the housing that is being built, particularly in Whalley, on a rather large scale.
It might be useful if I talk about that housing. One section, Lawson Rise, is being developed in part by Redrow. There should be drainage ponds in the scheme to allow for water attenuation. Well, Redrow has been merrily building the houses, but the ponds simply have not happened. Redrow itself said that the ponds needed to happen, and they have not happened. I understand that there may be problems with the design and with where the ponds should go, but the reality is that Redrow is now in breach of the conditions set by the local authority. The people at Redrow still think it is okay to build the houses, sell them and get people moving in. Well, it is not. They have a responsibility to the people who are going to live on that estate and to the people who may be affected by the building of those houses and other houses that will be built on the same plot. It is their responsibility to ensure that all of the area is properly drained and that the water that runs off is retained. How dare they not take the action that they should at this moment in time? How dare they think it is okay to carry on building those houses without putting in the proper attenuation?
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important and powerful speech. He has mentioned a building company. I want him to know that all over the country, many colleagues on both side of the House have the same experience with building companies. They bang on until the cows come home about their corporate social responsibility, being good neighbours and all that, but with many of them—not all, by any means—it is complete and utter tosh. They need to honour their obligations and be seen to do so.
Mr Evans
I can only agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, one of Redrow’s reports talks about the company being a shining-light member of the considerate construction scheme. Steve Morgan, the chairman, talks about Redrow being in great shape and says that he is looking forward to
“another year of significant progress”.
I have a good idea: some of that significant progress can go into the attenuation ponds and the other things that need to be happening.
Another plot of land, which one could see from the road, famously had a sign saying that it was a
“development site with permission for 39 dwellings”,
but that sign could be just seen above the water. The sign was famous and did the rounds on social media. The sign was there before a single house was built. It is not a good idea, and we really should not put any houses on an area susceptible to that sort of flooding, but what sort of attenuation would that site need to make sure that that water did not flood the houses and was not then pushed to flood other houses?
I say to Redrow, in respect of the particular site I mention, that notice has been served by Ribble Valley Borough Council that Redrow is in breach of the conditions that were agreed to. So when are the people at Redrow going to do it—when will they provide the attenuation that they said they would? Everybody is waiting. They have a social and moral responsibility to do it. I know, as my right hon. Friend will know, that these companies have some great experts working for them and they know some tricks. They know that there are certain things they can do to delay taking the action they need to take. They have very expensive lawyers, who are doubtless listening to every word I am saying, but I say: get on with it! We do not want to see any delay or deferment. They know what they need to do and they need to do it now. That applies not just to Redrow, but to every other developer who is building houses and has conditions put upon them. They should not see that as burdensome; they should see it as playing their part in a community, so that they are not making other people’s lives a misery one or two miles down the road. They have a responsibility, and they should do it.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and moving speech, touching on a number of good points. In 2007, Witney had some serious flooding, which affected a great deal of the town. I spoke briefly in the House yesterday about some of the flood attenuation schemes in Milton-under-Wychwood, which I know the Minister came to visit. My hon. Friend refers to making people’s lives a misery, and does he agree that that is exactly what we are talking about here? This is not just a matter of damage to property, which in due course, when the insurance companies pay up, can be rectified. When I speak to my constituents who have been affected by flooding, I see that the fear and worry of that happening again lives on 10 years and more after the event. “Misery” is just the right word for it.
Mr Evans
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I think these situations are akin to mental torture; once someone has gone through this sort of flooding misery, all of a sudden they have one eye on the computer to see whether there is a flood warning coming up—they have had a few of those since 26 December 2015; indeed, they have had water coming through King Street. We must recognise the impact on people’s lives once their properties have been soiled in that way; if it has happened once, it can happen again, unless something is done about it. That is basically where we are now. Once these things have happened—the flooding happened on a wide scale, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker—we must see what action needs to be taken.
The Environment Agency is talking about spending £2.3 billion over the next six years on a lot of the major works that need to be done, but who knows whether that money will be sufficient? We are talking about spending £3.5 billion on this place, so I suppose that puts it into a bit of context. We need to ensure that the right sort of money is put in place to help to alleviate the problem.
Companies such as Network Rail are doing a great deal of work in Whalley. It is working on the aqueduct because of the water that flowed from it. It is spending a lot of money in an area that was badly flooded—I saw it for myself the other day—so I pay tribute to it for that work. Companies such as AXA Insurance are spending a lot of money on resilience measures, because they have worked out that it is in their interests. It means that when people sadly do get flooded, the costs will be much smaller.
People can take a lot of sensible measures if they have the wherewithal to do so. I remember going into one house in Ribchester that had been flooded a bit before. I walked on the lady’s sodden carpet, and she said, “Last time this happened, Nigel, I asked the insurance company whether we could have flagging instead of carpet, but they said, ‘Oh no, like for like, madam’.” The insurers would not move, but they moved this time. They have now got the message. Hopefully it will never flood again, but if it does, the flagging means that at least something can be done about it more easily.
I know that other Members want to contribute, so I shall go quickly through the things that ought to be done for future resilience. The Environment Agency is looking at proposals for Whalley, and particularly at what action can be taken regarding the Calder. I am told that the study will take about six months, and that the agency will then put in a bid to the Government, perhaps towards autumn 2017. I hope it can bring forward that report as quickly as possible, because of the mental torture that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) mentioned. As long as people cannot see anything substantial being done, they think it can happen again, and of course it can, so I hope that the Environment Agency will look into that and other matters to see what can be done. It will be working closely with the local flood action group—Andrew Ronnan and his friends—along with the lead flood authority and local authorities.
As well as the problems associated with the River Calder, there are problems with surface water after heavy rain. A week before 26 December 2015, Whalley had been damaged because of blocked culverts, and there has been water running through since. It should not be beyond the wit of the local authority to look at those culverts and make absolutely certain that they are not blocked. There are now sensors that can enable it to do that. Lancashire County Council should pull its finger out, have a look at the areas that are prone to flooding and get it sorted.
The drains are also a problem. Kellie from the hairdressers was out cleaning the drains herself, post-26 December. More floods were expected, and she saw that some of the drains were blocked. There are simple things that can be done, and I hope that they will be done.
As for planning, local authorities ought to be able to say quite simply that there should be no housing on a flood plain. That should be sufficient. When companies go to appeal, as they do, and use their expensive lawyers to dance rings around local authorities that are rather strapped for cash, it should be sufficient for the local authorities to say, “No, it is a flood plain”. Even with attenuation, if houses are built on a flood plain, huge amounts of water may still be retained by the fields, as in the example I referred to. Builders must take responsibility for complying with conditions that are imposed on them.
I pay tribute to the Woodland Trust, which is planting trees all over the place. We do not pay enough regard to the usefulness of trees, particularly in preventing soil erosion, which can easily happen. The trust has planted thousands of trees in our area, and we must do more of that.
Insurance resilience measures must come in as well. The early payment of insurance money is important to people so that they can get on with the job. We must also look at this matter of having to get three quotes. Some insurance companies insist on it, but they are lucky to get one quote. Our area was blighted by flooding on Boxing day; it is not hard to imagine how difficult it was to get even one quote. Some companies are just not interested in providing a quote, so different measures must be put in place to cover reasonable costs, so that people can just get on with the job.
One person came to see me last week, one year on from the flooding. He had put in a £110,000 claim—it was part business, part hereditament. He had used a broker, which had insured with one company. The company then part-insured with another company, which went bust. The man received £35,000 of his claim. He was going to get another £20,000 before the other company went bust. He does not know when he will get paid, even under the financial compensation rules, which, when they kick in, pay out 90%. I have to say: 90% of what? Things must be made easier. When a person goes to an insurance company, the responsibility must lie there. They should not have to chase around the houses, worried witless that they will not get the proper compensation that they need. They will already lose some of it, simply because of this offsetting of the bet, as I call it—or the offsetting of the risk. The person paying the premium, which in this case is just under £5,000 a year, should not have to suffer.
The emergency services learned a lot that day, as they had to institute a one-way system. Such best practice needs to be spread around the country, because what has happened in the Ribble valley will, sadly, happen in other areas in the future. Spreading best practice can be done. Whalley and Billington Flood Action Group has done its own resilience programme, telling people of the simple things that they can do, including providing phone numbers that they can use, when flooding happens. Those sorts of things are absolutely superb, and I do hope that local authorities can learn from one another about the actions that they need to take, including providing advice to people now. We are in the winter now, and, sadly, some villages may well get flooded between now and summer.
David Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. As I have explained, we had floods in our area. The local hospital ran on emergency generators, but, apparently, from what I can gather, a state of emergency can be declared only if the Environment Agency has two separate sources verifying the state of emergency. In this instance, the Army had to come in to help in the end. Does he think that it should be only one separate source that contacts the Environment Agency so that measures can be enacted and things do not get so bad that the Army has to be called in to rescue patients who need electricity for dialysis and other life-saving treatments?
Mr Evans
Of course common sense should kick in. Once common sense kicks in, people understand that there is an emergency or a crisis. Why add to the problems by imposing unnecessary bureaucracy and rules? I do hope that lessons can be learned from that as well.
Proper planning in flood areas is essential. For instance, there were a lot of sandbags under lock and key in local authority depots. People could not get access to them until, eventually, calls went through to the county council saying, “Open the depot”. Eventually the sandbags were released. It should not be beyond the wit of planning to ensure that when these sandbags are there—irrespective of the fact that they might have been set aside for somewhere else at another time—they are released immediately to the local community so that further damage can be prevented.
Whalley is what is known as a notspot: I had to go into Benedicts delicatessen to latch on to wi-fi and access certain emails. I had to use the pub phone at The Dog Inn because my phone simply would not work. A lot more attention needs to be put into telecommunications in areas of high susceptibility to flooding; it might cost a bit more, but that needs to be done so that people can use their mobile telephony in an emergency, particularly if flooding has wiped out some of the landlines. Let us be fair: a lot of people do not have landlines anymore.
Earlier, I mentioned the drainage on the main road that prevented me from getting to the area that I needed to get to. If an area floods certain roads from time to time, the floods authorities need to put in extra drainage so that people can get where they need to.
I will never forget 26 December 2015 for as long as I live. It taught me a lot of things—and most of them were good, thank goodness. On new year’s eve that year, I had expected to be in sunnier climes, but I was not. I stood in Whalley’s square with all the local residents as new year rang in. We all linked hands and sang “Auld Lang Syne” together. The community spirit was alive and well and still is in that particular community. I could give a list of worthy people to get gongs when they are handed out, but from what I can remember none of them has got one. That is sad. Recognition ought to be given in communities up and down the country when people go the extra mile—they do not need to—in helping people in their own community because it is the right thing to do.
Twelve months on, and the Minister is listening carefully to what I have had to say. I hope she will give us good news today about the action that the Environment Agency and all the other agencies working together can take to ensure that the misery and torture that so many have suffered in the past because of flooding will be a thing of the past.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I am doing so for two main reasons. First, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans). He was my first ever MP; I remember his election back in the early ’90s. Secondly, I was in Ribble Valley on Boxing day 2015 at my parents’ house, which is about four miles from Whalley. I grew up just outside Ribchester, which I have seen flood in the past. We woke up on Boxing day and we were all supposed to go off to a pantomime. I looked across the hill and asked, “What’s that?” A new river had grown up. I grew up in Lancashire and I know what wet weather is, but I had never seen anything like it.
My hon. Friend said he thought about what he could do. I pay tribute to him: what he did was really remarkable. My friends and family in Ribble Valley were really touched, particularly my auntie Pauline who was with my hon. Friend at The Dog Inn on new year’s eve in the square. My hon. Friend has been a fantastic constituency MP and parliamentarian for more years than we know because he looks very youthful. He has done great things, and I thank him for securing this debate.
The River Ribble, the historic border between north and south, flows from Yorkshire into God’s own county of Lancashire, and the flood plain is in my constituency of South Ribble. I share that great river with my hon. Friend. My constituency, like my hon. Friend’s and yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, had bad flooding on Boxing day 2015 when Storm Eva struck. The constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) were also affected, although Storm Desmond may also have been involved in those places. Various other parts of the country were affected.
I pay tribute to the local groups. We had flooding in Leyland, but work was done by my constituent, Celia Whittaker, and the Leyland flood action group. In Eccleston, Gillian Jamieson and other members of the parish council did sterling work to rebuild the parish hall back in November. Hon. Members may remember the views of the Chinook flying over Croston, which has three rivers, to assist with the breach in the River Douglas. I believe that Chinook was actually flown by one of your constituents, Mr Deputy Speaker—a member of the Chorley air cadets, of which you are president.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Correct. He is now in the RAF, by the way.
Seema Kennedy
There are also flooding issues in the areas of west Lancashire in my constituency. I know that the Minister is aware of the situation with the flood pumps in Alt Crossens. The villages of Rufford, Croston, Banks and Hesketh Bank are all affected. Trying to stay on topic, there is concern in South Ribble about the progress of the Preston and South Ribble flood scheme. As the Ribble leaves urban areas, the last bridge, although we hope to have another, is at Penwortham in my constituency, with Preston on the other side. Flood defences were built up in the early 1980s but they are not ideal when there is a high tide and rain such as that which we saw on Boxing day 2015. I have walked the area many times, including in the summer with representatives from the Environment Agency. I know that there is funding, but we are hoping that it will be matched by the Department. I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about the progress there.
I pay tribute to Croston flood action group; to the parish council, whose members actually man their own pump; and to Kath Almond and Anne Peet, who came down to No. 10 when there was a reception for flood heroes in spring last year. Businesses in Croston have been very resilient. In fact, I went to Croston on Boxing day 2016. It was a beautiful, sunny day with blue skies and I wanted to see how people were. Jon Lilley, the publican of The Wheatsheaf, said that things were difficult but that the village really drew together. I think the people have weathered it well, but I met another constituent who has been badly affected by damage to his property and to the mental health of his family. As all hon. Members who have faced such a situation in their constituency know, flooding does not just affect possessions. There is a sense of people watching out for every flood warning and thinking, “Is it really going to happen again?”
Flooding is a complicated issue because rivers and waterways are complicated. We need to be creative in how we deal with water upstream, because what happens in Whalley and Walton-le-Dale affects what happens down in Penwortham. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley for the great work he has done on the matter and for being such a wonderful champion for Ribble Valley. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this debate on flooding in the Ribble valley. He spoke passionately on behalf of his constituents, and painted a vivid picture of the events of Boxing day 2105 and beyond. He rightly paid tribute to the many individuals who came forward to help their neighbours and communities, particularly citing Gillian Darbyshire from the local Lions, as well as a number of other business people and local councillors—and, indeed, strangers. I am very aware of the impact that flooding can have on a community. I have supported my own constituents in Suffolk following flooding in recent years. Only at the weekend, when we had our own severe flood warnings, I was able to visit local communities who have also formed flood action groups like those that have been mentioned. It is important to pay tribute to those people who have taken charge of actions in their local community to help their friends in need.
As a bit of personal disclosure, I will always particularly welcome the contributions that strangers make. In 1998, when I was heading home to Liverpool, rather than Lancashire—although historically, of course, Liverpool was in Lancashire—I encountered my own flooding trouble. I had to climb out of my car, which was busy filling with water in the middle of nowhere, and knocked on the door of a house. I will always be grateful to the McDermotts of Honeybourne, who took me in for two days, after which I was able to make my way home. I am very conscious of the fact that flood risk can be very frightening for people, and the warm, loving presence of friends, and strangers, is something that never goes out of one’s mind.
The Government continue to play a key role in improving protection for those at flood risk. We are spending over £2.5 billion on 1,500 new flood defence schemes better to protect 300,000 homes by 2021. Over this Parliament, we have also been increasing maintenance spending, in real terms, to more than £1 billion.
As my hon. Friend said, there is a history of flooding in the Ribble valley, principally from the Rivers Ribble and Calder and the tributaries that run into them. He spoke extensively about the communities affected in his constituency, including Whalley, and Ribchester. Clitheroe, Bolton-by-Bowland, Slaidburn, Samlesbury, Higher Walton, and Walton-le-Dale have also been affected. It is fair to say that December 2015 was the wettest month on record, and the highest flows on record were observed in the Rivers Ribble and Calder during that month. Flood warnings were issued by the Environment Agency at Whalley and Ribchester, and temporary flood defences were deployed. As my hon. Friend will be aware, 432 properties in the Ribble valley were flooded, and about 2,600 right across Lancashire. I am aware that the communities he describes of Whalley, Ribchester, Higher Walton and Walton-le-Dale were among the worst affected, and Billington flooded from the River Calder for the first time. Thankfully, as he will also be aware, Low Moor, Slaidburn and Bolton-by-Bowland did not flood. Local communities expressed their gratitude for the flood defence works previously undertaken by the Environment Agency, protecting them from experiencing any flooding at that time.
Since that flooding incident, the Environment Agency has given one-to-one help and advice to over 100 residents in the Ribble valley. As part of the works to repair bank erosion at Whalley bridge, the Environment Agency contributed a significant sum to reduce flood risk by removing gravel from the river channel. Prior to 2010, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Environment Agency completed flood risk management schemes at Low Moor, Slaidburn and Bolton-by-Bowland, spending a total of £1.5 million in those areas. Between 2010 and 2015, the Environment Agency invested more than £200,000 in making properties in Whalley and Ribchester more flood resilient. That included working closely with the local council to offer grants to homeowners for property level flood resilience measures, including flood doors and airbrick cover. The properties that were unfortunately flooded were eligible for £5,000 recovery grants. Some of the homes that flooded had not been previously eligible for grants as they had no recent history of flooding.
Mr Nigel Evans
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. Will she ask the Environment Agency to look again at the arches by Allan Elliott’s house, where a lot of silt is building up? The Environment Agency will be well familiar with that. The silt should have been removed so that free-flowing water could more easily pass through, but that has not been done; I do not know why. This is causing grave concern to people in the area, because if it is not done and the river rises, there could be severe problems.
Dr Coffey
I do not know the details of that, but my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Environment Agency manager responsible for his area is in the Box today and will have taken careful note of what he has just said. My hon. Friend might be aware that a future scheme to protect Whalley from river flooding is in the development stage. It would cost approximately £1.4 million, and considerable work is being done with the Whalley and Billington flood action group and the local community to optimise the design of the scheme and to develop partnership options prior to a bid for funding. I think that that is the project to which he referred.
A review is ongoing of flood risk right across the River Calder, which will provide additional information to refine options for addressing that flooding. We expect to undertake a review of flood risk in Ribchester this year. A scheme to protect Clitheroe from flooding from Mearley brook will cost approximately £4.8 million, and work is taking place to develop partnership funding options prior to submitting a bid for funding. Lancashire County Council is developing a £2 million scheme to address surface water flooding in Whalley and Billington.
Overall, I am pleased that local partners are already working together to contribute to those schemes, alongside considerable Government investment, and work is continuing to bridge the current funding gap. I remind the House that under a Conservative-led Government, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), changed the funding policy to give every scheme that had a positive benefit-cost ratio a chance to secure some grant funding, rather than the old system of all or nothing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has referred to planning, and he should be aware that the national planning policy framework is specific about issues relating to planning in flood areas. The Environment Agency’s advice has been accepted in more than 98% of applications. I have looked carefully at the ones that were rejected by local councils, and that information is publicly available.
My hon. Friend referred to Redrow and his concern that the housing development in Whalley is failing to comply with planning conditions designed to reduce flood risk. As he has indicated, I expect the local authority to deal robustly with any developer that does not adhere to planning conditions. I know that my hon. Friend wrote to the Environment Agency about the matter. The Environment Agency does not have the necessary powers, but if there is more that my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government can do, we will do it. I will just say on the record that this is the second time today that Redrow has been raised with me as a developer not particularly fulfilling its conditions—in the other case, it is fulfilling a condition that simply does not work—so I will certainly be following up on that matter with my hon. Friends responsible for planning.
In terms of drainage, the Environment Agency leads on flood risk associated with culverted sections of main rivers in England. Where there are culverts, the EA will inspect them regularly, and operations staff will clear structures upstream of such culverts prior to flood conditions. Lancashire County Council, as both the highways authority and the lead local flood authority in Lancashire, leads on flood risk associated with highway drains and culverted ordinary watercourses.
In the village of Whalley, Lancashire County Council has been investigating the condition of the culvert that carries an ordinary watercourse—Wiswell brook— underneath King Street, to which my hon. Friend referred, in the centre of the village. The culvert has surcharged in the past and led to flooding, most recently on 21 November. When any works are deemed to be necessary to the culvert and associated infrastructure, bids for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding will be submitted by the council via the Environment Agency.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) spoke eloquently on behalf of her constituents. I thought it might be worth sharing where we are on the Preston and South Ribble flood alleviation scheme, to which she referred. At the moment, the costing for that is about £32 million. The scheme would better protect more than 3,000 homes and 600 other properties in the area from fluvial and tidal risk. It would also decrease flood risk at Walton-le-Dale, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley. Further work is ongoing to assess whether the scheme could be extended to benefit Higher Walton.
As it stands, the scheme qualifies for about £17 million of Government grant-in-aid, and it requires £15 million of additional partnership funding on top of the contributions that the Environment Agency is working hard to secure. Many local businesses in this catchment area would benefit from the scheme. If my hon. Friends are in a position to assist with obtaining further partnership funding, it would go a long way to securing the viability of the scheme. I understand that the local enterprise partnership has been heavily involved in trying to secure funding for projects in Burnley and Lancaster. I encourage my hon. Friends to work with the LEP to consider potential moves for the scheme.
It is worth setting out for the House what we are doing more broadly to improve resilience and to ensure that we are better prepared this winter for whatever arises. No Government can promise that no one will ever be flooded again, but we can learn and act, and that is what we did with the national flood resilience review. The review was undertaken to assess how the country could be better protected from future flooding and extreme weather events. I can report that considerable progress has been made to help to prepare for future flood events. We have invested £12.5 million in mobile flood defences, which means that the Environment Agency now has 25 miles of new temporary defences, located across seven key areas and available to be deployed flexibly around the country, compared with just 5 miles available last year. There are 500,000 sandbags, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced, 1,200 troops were on stand-by if councils needed their help. In all three cases, they were deployed at the weekend.
With regard to the Ribble valley, the Environment Agency has undertaken a robust assessment of the locations that are suitable for using temporary barriers. It assessed the practical implications, such as road closures, and the flood-risk benefit, as well as ensuring that they do not make the flooding worse elsewhere. There are plans in place to use temporary barriers at Ribchester and Billington. Unfortunately, these barriers are unsuitable for Whalley, despite being used in 2015, a fact of which the local flood action group is aware.
Infrastructure providers have been reviewing the resilience of their key assets for communities of 25,000 people and above. They have been identifying where they can also protect these assets with temporary defences this winter, while longer-term solutions are implemented. I have been leading a series of weekly ministerial phone calls to ensure that we are in a good place. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred in particular to mobile phones. They have been a key part of ensuring that we are more resilient.
This means that the country has been better protected this winter—of course, the winter is not over yet—and services to our communities will be more resilient to flood events. The next stage of the review will focus on surface water flooding, which is a significant source of flooding, particularly in our cities and urban areas. The next stage will involve collaboration between the Environment Agency, lead local flood authorities, the water sector and other stakeholders with a key interest in managing this risk.
We have worked with the private sector to develop a new property flood resilience action plan, and I thank Peter Bonfield for leading that work. It illustrates some straightforward measures that homeowners and business owners can take to improve the resilience of their properties to flooding, as well as to enable them to get back in far more quickly if, unfortunately, they are flooded. These can be simple measures, such as in-built covers, or more substantial works, such as installing pumps, having solid floors or rewiring so that plug sockets are higher up the wall.
On insurance, my hon. Friend made a series of points about the presence of companies, quotes, the availability of assessors, the challenge of the risk being passed on and the problem of not being able to get to the end of the process. I will raise these issues with the ABI and share some of this with my hon. Friends in the DCLG, who are primarily responsible for the recovery from flooding.
On Flood Re, I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of access to affordable flood assurance. For those at high risk, whether households or businesses and their surrounding communities, I recognise that the matter is very important. Flood Re is already under way, providing relief for the thousands of households at high flood risk so that they can now access affordable flood insurance. I recognise that that will bring very real practical and emotional comfort to many. Fifty insurance companies, which is over 90% of the market, now offer access to Flood Re, and 53,000 households have benefited during its first six months. It is important to stress that this project is time-limited—it will last for 25 years—and is, in effect, funded by all other households paying towards it. That principle of taxation ensures we can support our communities.
On businesses, just last month the British Insurance Brokers Association launched a product designed to help small and medium-sized enterprises at high flood risk to access affordable insurance. By using very granular postcode data and recognising the benefit of property level resilience measures, it should prove a welcome solution for many businesses. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless), who is no longer in his place, also raised that issue.
I want to give this product a chance to work, but I would welcome evidence about whether it is working. As I have pointed out in relation to Flood Re, there is the significant principle of taxation that means we can help each other. If we moved to the stage of asking businesses to start adding to their insurance premiums to help businesses in other parts of the country, that would be an unprecedented form of mutual business support. It would take a lot of evidence for me to say that that is the next necessary step, but I am open to the evidence and I want to hear from people. Should it prove that there is a need for additional action, I remain open to exploring what could be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred to European Union funding. I draw his attention to a written statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made on Monday 16 January, which sets out in considerable detail what has happened in relation to EU funding. Ultimately, we were going to receive a payment of £15 million. We now have to pay back £14.5 million due to ineligible expenditure relating to an application made in 2007. It therefore looks like we will end up with about half a million pounds. I will leave it to my hon. Friend to read the written statement in detail to explain that situation further.
I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) were able to provide more detail on the issue he raised, so that I can look into it. He should be aware of the £9.7 million allocated to the Morecambe wave reflection wall, which is due to be completed by 2019 and will protect more than 8,000 properties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) referred to the building issues and I agree that we need to follow up on them. Again, I will involve my hon. Friends from the Department for Communities and Local Government in that matter.
This has been a very useful debate to consider the particular situation in this very special part of Lancashire. I was born in the county of Lancashire and it will always be in my heart. I hope I have been able to show my hon. Friends that plans are under way to try to address the flooding issues. We have already seen the benefit of additional investment, including the use of the mobile barriers. I hope the House will join me in thanking the Environment Agency, our emergency services, council officials and the many volunteers involved in responding to the east coast tidal surge this weekend just gone. I am sure we are all relieved that the worst-case scenario did not happen, and are grateful for the work put in by so many people to ensure the potential impact was minimised.
The Environment Agency will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley to reduce flood risk in the area, and to work collaboratively to help to deliver projects locally. I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House that I will listen to all the comments made today. The Government will continue to try to ensure that we are all as best protected from flooding as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Division
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deferred Divisions
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
he House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Bank of England and Financial Services (Conseqential Amendments) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Bank of England and Financial Services (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2017.
Good afternoon, Mr Flello. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This is a technical and, I hope, straightforward and non-controversial piece of legislation. It provides for ending Prudential Regulation Authority’s status as a subsidiary of the Bank of England. It transfers the PRA’s functions to the Bank and provides that, when acting as the PRA, the Bank’s functions are to be exercised through a new Prudential Regulation Committee.
I do not want to detain hon. Members unnecessarily this afternoon. I am happy to answer questions on any specific technical point later.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
May I, too, say that it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Flello? As we have heard from the Minister, the regulations are purely consequential on the change of the Prudential Regulation Authority’s status from a subsidiary to a committee of the Bank of England.
Hon. Members will be aware that the PRA was created by the Financial Services Act 2012, and it is responsible for promoting the safety and soundness of the firms it regulates. Only a few years later, sections 12 —“Bank to act as Prudential Regulation Authority”— to 14 of the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 and its relevant schedules demoted the PRA to the Prudential Regulation Committee. The Labour party voted against that Act on Third Reading because of concerns that it failed to appropriately increase the oversight, transparency and accountability of the Bank’s work. In Committee in particular, Labour voted against the aforementioned section 12 owing to its downgrading of the PRA. Unfortunately, I therefore have to tell the Minister that we cannot support the regulations.
Before addressing the technical substance of the matter at hand, it is important to reflect on the fact that individuals sit at the heart of all the considerations we discuss at a Treasury level. Their lives and livelihoods can to be significantly impacted by our decisions on these matters. Despite taking place nearly a decade ago, the 2008 economic crash will be fresh in the memory of those who lost their jobs and homes as a result. Those events nearly brought down the global financial system, and it was only due to taxpayer-funded bail-outs that it was able to survive. What is more, it was that financial crisis that caused the deficit that the Government have relied on as their justification for making a series of political choices to cut public services, funding to local authorities and support for the most vulnerable, and to drive down the incomes of working people.
It is our responsibility as lawmakers to do everything in our power to ensure such events can never be repeated. Moreover, as the official Opposition, we are obliged to be honest and constructive in our scrutiny of legislation. It is in that fashion and for those reasons that we oppose the regulations. We fear that changing the Prudential Regulation Authority to the Prudential Regulation Committee signals less transparency over the Bank of England’s role. Currently, the Prudential Regulation Authority is a separate corporate body and a distinct authority. It can be held separately liable and accountable for its actions and interactions. However, the Prudential Regulation Committee will be less independent, given the demotion of the authority, which currently has statutory powers to create a rulebook and to enforce its own regulations, to being a mere committee of the Bank of England.
Debates over the past few years have thrown up numerous contradictions and queries, and it is not clear to what extent those have been sufficiently resolved. It is difficult to understand how the changes contained in the regulations will make the regulator more competent and effective in carrying out its work. Our concern is that it will not, and that there is no evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Having set up a structure that remains relatively young, would it not be logical to let it work itself out and see what the issues are, rather than to tear it up so quickly?
Will the Minister say how the body can be both more integrated and remain independent? Have the Government mitigated the serious risk of oversight being impaired by a conflict of interest? Will the Minister clarify the safety mechanisms in place to prevent the Bank’s main board from rationing resources to the proposed committee? Will he guarantee that the Prudential Regulation Committee can go public if it feels that it is not getting the support and resources it needs from the main Bank of England board?
We continue to argue for the retention of the Prudential Regulation Authority as a distinct regulatory authority, just as we continue to express concerns that the Government are failing to provide a proper framework for a banking system for the future. We need a healthy and effective banking sector that is appropriately regulated and serves the interests of our wider economy, by delivering the vital investment that our country needs for long-term economic growth. We know that people want assurances that we as a society and Parliament have learnt from the financial crisis, that we will improve transparency in banking regulation and banking practices and that the serious damage inflicted on people’s livelihoods caused by the collapse in 2008 can never happen again. I therefore tell the Minister that it is our duty to vote against the regulations. We will divide the Committee.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Flello. There is one area to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention, to express why we have grave concerns about the regulations. It is that of limited liability partnerships. As he will be aware, the Government launched a review on Monday because of the extent of international criminality that has been able to take place under the previously existing regulatory system.
Nothing in the proposed changes will strengthen the capacity to protect against the kind of abuse that has taken place through not just Scottish limited partnerships, which have received a lot of publicity in the past year or so, but other limited liability partnerships. I can see nothing at all in the regulations that will allow for the proper regulation of an area that the Government have admitted is of major concern.
Simon Kirby
I shall address the first comment made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde about independence. The PRC will have clear statutory safeguards for its independence, including a majority of external members. He suggested that this change might be a downgrade. It is in fact the opposite—it is an upgrade that reinforces to Bank staff and the public to whom the Bank must be transparent and accountable and that the Bank is not simply an organisation dedicated to setting interest rates but one with equally important macro and microprudential responsibilities.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Bank might ration resources. I hope to reassure him by saying that the use of the levy will continue to be limited to meeting the costs of the PRA’s functions. The Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 requires the Bank’s external auditor to state whether the Bank has complied with the requirements in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in relation to the levy. The 2016 Act also requires the Bank to produce a separate statement of accounts for its PRA functions to ensure continued transparency in the use of the levy. It is interesting to note that Andrew Bailey, then the PRA chief executive, speaking to the Treasury Committee said that there is no change in terms of robustness of the accountability for the use of the levy.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of and repeating the arguments made during the primary legislation’s progress through Parliament. I politely suggest that he is perhaps trying to shut the stable door after the horse has already bolted. This is a straightforward, technical arrangement that changes words in existing primary legislation that clarify references to the Bank and the PRA.
I note with interest the comments from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. The changes are sensible. They are a final, legal tidying-up exercise to commence the provisions ending the PRA’s subsidiary status. We plan to make the change on 1 March.
Question put.
Draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, D and H) Order 2016
(7 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, D and H) Order 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Nuttall. I hope not to detain the Committee for too long, but I will go into some explanation of the order because, in preparation for the debate, I had to do quite a bit of homework to understand what the codes are about, which I thought Members would also find useful.
The order, which was laid before the House on 22 November 2016, will bring into effect three revised codes of practice issued under section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. These are code C, which concerns the detention, treatment and questioning of persons detained under PACE; code H, which concerns the detention, treatment and questioning of persons detained under terrorism provisions; and code D, which concerns the identification of suspects by witnesses and biometric data such as fingerprints, DNA and photographs.
I will briefly describe the PACE codes and how the changes have come before us. For England and Wales, the statutory provisions of PACE set out the core framework of police powers to detect and investigate crime. They also require the Home Secretary to issue codes of practice. The eight accompanying codes of practice —codes of practice A to F—do not create powers but provide rules and procedures for the police to follow when exercising their powers. PACE and the codes establish important safeguards for individuals that are designed to strike the right balance between the need for the police to have powers to tackle crime and the need for safeguards for suspects and other members of the public.
To maintain that balance, we regularly update the codes as we change primary legislation. The three codes before us today were published in draft format in March 2016 for statutory consultation in accordance with section 67 of PACE. The consultation, which was also open to the public, ran for eight weeks, and the bodies that the Secretary of State is required to consult in accordance with section 67(4) of PACE were invited to comment. Others invited to comment included the Crown Prosecution Service, Liberty, Justice, and the Youth Justice Board. The drafts, together with the invitation to the public at large to respond, were also published on gov.uk. A total of 18 responses were received, which is normal for this type of consultation.
In accordance with section 67 of PACE, the revised codes were laid before the House and the other place, together with the draft order and explanatory memorandum.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
As the Minister will know, one restriction on police interviewing applies once somebody has been charged. When several people are involved in a criminal act, such as an act of terrorism, it is sometimes difficult to get to interview all the people who might have been involved before the police want to charge somebody. The European arrest warrant has been particularly useful in that it gives us the ability to bring people back swiftly to the United Kingdom to be interviewed before other members of the group are charged. Is she confident that we will be able to remain under the terms of the European arrest warrant, or that the PACE requirements will be flexible enough to meet the possible longer times that may arise in such cases?
Sarah Newton
The hon. Gentleman makes a very significant point about the importance of the European arrest warrant, which has provided all the benefits he ably describes. I am confident that we will maintain the same level of arrangements we have had with our colleagues in Europe. Keeping citizens safe is absolutely the first priority of the Government. The former Home Secretary, now Prime Minister, made huge strides in closer relationships with our colleagues in Europe, keeping citizens here and in Europe safe. As she outlined yesterday, although we are leaving the European Union, we are not leaving Europe. We are determined to work very closely with our colleagues in Europe to ensure that we can share information and data, so that we can continue to provide effective ways in which to enable our law enforcement officers to bear down on terrorists.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but how is it consistent with the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that we will not take part in any bits of the EU? The European arrest warrant is a European Union measure, so how can we possibly stay part of it after the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday?
Sarah Newton
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but you will agree with me, Mr Nuttall, that we are straying well beyond the purpose of the debate, which is to consider these very specific PACE powers.
The Chair
Order. The Minister prejudges what I was about to say, because I am slightly concerned that we should not go too far down the road of general European matters. I entirely concede that there is linkage between the matters raised in the two interventions and the subject matter of the statutory instrument, but we do not want to expand the debate into a general discourse about European matters.
Sarah Newton
Thank you, Mr Nuttall. If this Committee does not sit for long, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East will have the opportunity to go to the Chamber, where this very matter is being debated this afternoon. I am sure his points will be very well handled by the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service.
The subject of the order—the three codes, which will hopefully be approved by the Commons and another place this afternoon—will come into force 21 days after the date the order is signed.
The main revision to PACE code C is expressly to permit the use of live-link communications technology for interpreters. The changes enable interpretation services to be provided by interpreters based at remote locations, and allow access to be shared by forces throughout England and Wales, which will avoid interpreters having to travel to individual police stations and improve the availability of interpreters of all languages. By reducing delays to the investigation, the measure will enable a more streamlined and cost-effective approach to the administration of justice.
The revisions include safeguards for suspects to ensure, as far as practicable, that the fairness of proceedings is not prejudiced by the interpreter not being physically present with the suspect. The provisions therefore require the interpreter’s physical presence unless specified conditions are satisfied and allow live-link interpretation.
Chris Bryant
How do the Government expect to be able to meet those requirements in terms of timeliness and physical attendance for interpretation purposes when all police forces in the country are concentrating their interrogation suites and cells in small areas rather than spreading them across rural areas? That has happened in my patch in the past couple of years, meaning that the journey to the suite is at least an hour.
Sarah Newton
Representing as I do a rural area with a dispersed population, I recognise that there are fewer suites where people can be interviewed than there were. However, I believe there is a sufficient supply of centres where people have timely access to justice. All those decisions have been much debated and well scrutinised in the House.
Revisions to code C reflect the amendment to PACE made by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which defines a “juvenile” for the purposes of detention under PACE as someone aged 18 rather than under the age of 17. That resulted from a Government review of the way in which 17-year-olds were treated under PACE. The review concluded that the age at which a person should be treated as an adult under PACE should be raised from 17 to 18. That accords with the age-related jurisdiction of youth courts and other legislation applicable to children.
There are also new provisions supporting section 38(6) of PACE, which requires juveniles who are not released on bail after being charged to be moved to local authority accommodation pending their appearance at court. Under the revisions, the certificate given to the court in accordance with section 38(7) must show why the juvenile was kept at a police station, and their case is required to be monitored and supervised by someone of the rank of inspector or above. Separate measures in the Policing and Crime Bill will ensure that outstanding provisions of PACE that continue to treat 17-year-olds as adults are amended.
New provisions in code C permit an appropriate adult to be removed from an interview if they prevent proper questioning. When a suspect who is a juvenile or a vulnerable adult is interviewed, the code requires an independent adult, known as the appropriate adult, to be called to help. Their job is to help the suspect understand—and exercise—their rights as a suspect and the safeguards provided by the codes, which include their right to legal advice, the meaning of the caution, and when adverse inferences can be drawn if the suspect chooses not to answer questions. These new provisions are necessary to ensure consistency with provisions that have been in code H since 2006, and they are modelled on code C, paragraph 6.9, which concerns the removal of a solicitor from an interview if they prevent proper questioning.
Before an appropriate adult can be removed, an additional safeguard in both codes requires the inspector or superintendent called on to determine whether the appropriate adult should be excluded to remind them about their role and advise them of the concerns about their behaviour. If that advice is accepted, the appropriate adult can remain. The changes to code C are, where applicable, mirrored in code H for persons detained under terrorism provisions. This ensures consistency in provisions that are common to both codes.
In code D, eyewitness and witness identification procedures are updated to take account of significant changes and developments in case law and police practice, and to address operational concerns raised by the police. Revised video identification provisions clarify and confirm the identification officer’s discretion to use historical images of the suspect; regulate the presence of solicitors at witness viewings; and direct others, such as police officers and police civilian staff, to implement any arrangements for identification procedures. The investigating officer’s responsibility concerning the viewing of closed circuit television and similar images by a witness other than an eyewitness is also clarified. Other revisions to code D reflect amendments that the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 made to PACE concerning the retention of fingerprints, DNA profiles and samples.
There are revisions to all three codes to highlight the need to check all sources of relevant information in order to establish a detainee’s identity; enable officers to use electronic pocket books and other devices to make records required by the codes; clarify those who are not eligible to act as the appropriate adult for children under 18 and vulnerable adults; and highlight the requirement under section 31 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to separate children from adult detainees in police stations and other places of detention by including a link to College of Policing guidance on this matter. Also, minor typographical and grammatical corrections have been made.
The revisions strike a balance between the need to safeguard the rights of suspects and the need to support the operational flexibility of the police to investigate crime. They are being introduced to bring codes C, D and H in line with current legislation, and to support operational policing practice. The revised codes provide invaluable guidance to both the police and the public on how the police should use their powers to ensure that they act fairly, efficiently and effectively.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under your excellent chairmanship, Mr Nuttall.
The order brings into force proposed revisions to the codes of practice that govern how the police should treat potential suspects, the public and their property prior to any conviction. The relevant legislation is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which states that the code must cover how the police exercise their powers not just of arrest, but of search prior to arrest, and how suspects are treated throughout their contact with the police, including during detention, treatment, questioning and identification.
Obviously, the important issues under discussion relate to an individual’s liberty. On the one hand, we must ensure that potential suspects are treated fairly under the law, and at all times respect the principle that a member of the public is innocent until proven guilty. At the same time, however, we have to ensure that police officers have confidence that they can go about their duties without being accused of acting improperly, including in a discriminatory way.
Many organisations made representations to the Government’s consultation—representations that have been taken into account and incorporated into a revised programme. The Opposition thank all those organisations that gave their time and expertise to get those proposals right. We support the Government’s approach, but we still have concerns about how the changes to the codes will affect the rights and freedoms of suspects. I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer.
Our concerns fall into four broad areas: the use of remote live-link communications to provide translation services; the provision for appropriate adults to be removed during questioning; the replacement of pocket books with electronic recording devices; and the deletion of parts of the code relating to the process of conducting witness identifications. Before turning to those concerns, I want to place on record our support for the changes to the codes that arise from the change to primary legislation to raise the definition of “juvenile” by one year, from 17 to 18. We wholeheartedly support that move, which provides additional protections for those on the verge of adulthood who find themselves in the criminal justice system.
On remote translation services, the proposed change would enable police to use live-link electronic communication systems to provide interpretation services for suspects. That means that the interpreter would not need to travel to the police station. The aim of the proposal is to enable more efficient questioning—there are similar measures in the Policing and Crime Bill, which is in its final stages—but we have questions about how it will be implemented in practice.
Will the Minister write to me, if necessary, to set out how she intends to review whether the expected efficiency gains have indeed occurred, and what mechanisms are being put in place to ensure that non-English-speaking suspects are satisfied with the new arrangements? What evidence will the Department use to assess whether the new arrangements deprive suspects of their rights? Will the suspect or their solicitor be allowed to say that they would prefer a translator to be present? Are there any circumstances in which the suspect’s vulnerability, in the opinion of the police, would make the physical presence of an interpreter more appropriate? Those safeguards need to be a matter of public record.
A change to code C permits an appropriate adult to be removed from an interview if they prevent proper questioning from taking place. In this context, “appropriate adult” means one who is there to support a vulnerable individual in police custody, be they a juvenile or an adult who is considered vulnerable due to impaired ability to comprehend what is happening, for whatever reason. I accept that there needs to be a mechanism whereby an adult who would otherwise be permitted to attend questioning can be removed if they obstruct the process. There is also a precedent for that approach elsewhere in the code. I would be grateful, however, if the Minister could explain in more detail the safeguards that are in place to ensure that the person being questioned is fully supported in such circumstances. The Government’s response to the consultation cites a new safeguard that requires
“having an inspector to inquire into the circumstances before a particular adult can be excluded”,
and states that the appropriate adult should have an opportunity to modify their behaviour. That is welcome, but it seems weak without detail on the face of the code of the criteria that should be used to determine whether the appropriate adult should be excluded; otherwise, in the words of Liberty in its response to the initial consultation:
“At the very least, there is a real risk of over-hasty exclusions of appropriate adults leading to interviews in the absence of the required support for the suspect.”
Liberty proposed, in response to the original consultation, that before the appropriate adult could be excluded, the suspect’s solicitor should be present and have an opportunity to explain the matter to the suspect and, if needed, the adult in question, before a final decision was made about the exclusion. What is the code to determine the grounds that an officer may use to exclude an adult? What are the best practice guidelines in that regard, and will the Minister publish them? Particularly given that there are widespread concerns over a shortage of appropriate adults available to support vulnerable suspects, what measures are being put in place to ensure that they will always be replaced by another appropriate adult?
A proposed change to code C allows electronic recording devices to replace the age-old police pocket books in providing a time-specific record of events. Although I understand the need for police to adopt more modern technology, I am interested in the Minister’s view on what provisions would be in place to ensure that these electronic records cannot be tampered with, either from inside or outside the force.
There are changes to code D that alter the way in which witness identification procedures are undertaken. The Minister’s Department states that the purpose of doing so is to take account of significant changes and developments in case law and police practice, and to address operational concerns raised by the police. In practice, these changes include the deletion of old annexes A and E, which detail the principles applicable to video identification, and the showing of photographs to eye witnesses. Little evidence was offered to show that those deletions were necessary, and I ask the Minister to clarify the reasons for the change, and how she expects the procedures to change as a result of the proposals before us.
We will support the Government today, but I would appreciate receiving answers to my questions.
Sarah Newton
The hon. Member for Swansea East and I have begun to have weekly exchanges across Committee Rooms, but today’s is on quite a different subject. We are usually together banning illegal substances. I thank her for her questions and will do my best to answer them, but I am sure that I will also take up her invitation to write in more detail.
As I will probably touch on only some aspects, I should let hon. Members know that at the same time as the Government tabled the revised measures, we set out all the changes that were made in response to feedback from Liberty and others to the consultation. Any hon. Member may therefore look on the gov.uk website or visit the Library to see all the revisions based on the feedback that we received. As the hon. Lady said, that information is detailed and specific.
The hon. Lady asked first about the live-link implementation. The presumption is that a live interpreter will be sitting with the suspect. This gives an opportunity for flexibility, however. If it was agreed by all the parties concerned and their representative that it was acceptable and appropriate and that they thought that the suspect had capacity and understood what would happen, that live-link facility could be used to improve the speed with which they could conduct the interview. If there was any concern from the suspect, the appropriate adult, their representative or, indeed, the police that the vulnerability of the suspect meant that having remote access to the translator would in any way compromise them or would not give them the justice they deserved, it would not go ahead. The assumption is that the process will happen face-to-face, but this is a tool that can be used if everybody agrees that it is in the best interests of the suspect and of securing the evidence.
On the question of reviewing whether the code lives up to expectations and the opinions of suspects, lawyers and the police about how well it works, all such codes are kept constantly under review by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in its inspection process, in which it considers the opinions of suspects and how they are treated. There will be opportunities to make sure that it is working.
Of course, the Home Office works closely with the Chief Constable’s Council and the national police leads to reflect back on the implementation of policy and how well it works in practice so that we can make refinements. If we look back in Hansard, we will find that PACE codes are often debated in Parliament—at least a couple of times a year—as operational best practice is brought up to date. If HMIC finds poor practice when it does inspections, then of course there is a process of continuous improvement. I hope that provides the assurance that the hon. Lady is looking for.
The safeguards around the removal of an appropriate adult are important. Everybody should feel that there are adequate safeguards and that the police cannot be heavy-handed in the way that the hon. Lady mentioned. The involvement of a senior officer—it has to be an inspector or above—in making the decision is really important. When I was talking to colleagues about the practical applications of the code, we were thinking more about a situation in which, as one can imagine, a parent comes in with a child who, out of love and enthusiasm to protect their child, shouts, “Don’t say anything! Don’t give evidence! Don’t answer the questions!”, when in fact that is not the best advice and is not in the interest of the young person.
In such circumstances, the first course of action would be for an officer to explain to that appropriate adult and ask them to moderate their behaviour. At that point, most people would think, “I’ll moderate my behaviour and we can carry on with the interview,” but if that is not the case and an amicable solution cannot be found, the inspector will be called. They will look at all the evidence and discuss with everyone the best way forward. Everyone would hope that the behaviour would be modified and that the interview would carry on, but I can assure the hon. Lady that if that was not the case, another appropriate adult would be found. That would be an essential safeguard for any suspect, or anybody being interviewed, but particularly for such vulnerable people.
The hon. Lady asked about electronic devices. Of course, we all want to keep up with the times and we want to enable police officers to use their time in communities talking to people and keeping us safe and well. We do not want them to have to spend hours in police stations filling out loads of forms, and technology has been proven to enhance the operational effectiveness of police officers, enabling them to spend more time in communities, where we all want to see them. The use of electronic devices has been piloted and trialled. As for the hon. Lady’s point about safety and ensuring that they cannot be hacked into and that the evidence cannot be tampered with, that has been fully tested during the piloting. However, I do not think that any of us is complacent. Technology is always changing and there are determined criminals out there who would like to be able to break into these data and tamper, so we will always be vigilant to ensure that appropriate actions are taken.
The final question was about changes in relation to witness identification. The best assurance I can give the hon. Lady is that those procedures—the identity line-ups that we always think about—will be filmed and videoed. That gives a great degree of transparency so that, when it comes to the court case, there is plenty of opportunity for the defendant’s representatives to challenge the admissibility of the evidence coming into court. If there were any doubt about the way in which evidence had been collated, especially when that was to do with the identity of the suspect, the openness and transparency of the process would enable their representative to challenge that in court. I think that assures us all that the codes can be properly monitored.
I thank and put on record my appreciation of all those who participate as stakeholders on a regular basis and all the organisations who contributed to the development of the codes. I also thank hon. Members for their contribution to the debate. I really think that the codes are in the best interests of justice and operationally necessary. We must ensure that we always strike that right balance between enabling the police to have all the powers they need and plenty of safeguards for suspects and citizens. I thank the Committee for its consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, D and H) Order 2016.
Draft Bank of England and Financial Services (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Bank of England and Financial Services (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2017.
Good afternoon, Mr Flello. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This is a technical and, I hope, straightforward and non-controversial piece of legislation. It provides for ending Prudential Regulation Authority’s status as a subsidiary of the Bank of England. It transfers the PRA’s functions to the Bank and provides that, when acting as the PRA, the Bank’s functions are to be exercised through a new Prudential Regulation Committee.
I do not want to detain hon. Members unnecessarily this afternoon. I am happy to answer questions on any specific technical point later.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
May I, too, say that it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Flello? As we have heard from the Minister, the regulations are purely consequential on the change of the Prudential Regulation Authority’s status from a subsidiary to a committee of the Bank of England.
Hon. Members will be aware that the PRA was created by the Financial Services Act 2012, and it is responsible for promoting the safety and soundness of the firms it regulates. Only a few years later, sections 12 —“Bank to act as Prudential Regulation Authority”— to 14 of the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 and its relevant schedules demoted the PRA to the Prudential Regulation Committee. The Labour party voted against that Act on Third Reading because of concerns that it failed to appropriately increase the oversight, transparency and accountability of the Bank’s work. In Committee in particular, Labour voted against the aforementioned section 12 owing to its downgrading of the PRA. Unfortunately, I therefore have to tell the Minister that we cannot support the regulations.
Before addressing the technical substance of the matter at hand, it is important to reflect on the fact that individuals sit at the heart of all the considerations we discuss at a Treasury level. Their lives and livelihoods can to be significantly impacted by our decisions on these matters. Despite taking place nearly a decade ago, the 2008 economic crash will be fresh in the memory of those who lost their jobs and homes as a result. Those events nearly brought down the global financial system, and it was only due to taxpayer-funded bail-outs that it was able to survive. What is more, it was that financial crisis that caused the deficit that the Government have relied on as their justification for making a series of political choices to cut public services, funding to local authorities and support for the most vulnerable, and to drive down the incomes of working people.
It is our responsibility as lawmakers to do everything in our power to ensure such events can never be repeated. Moreover, as the official Opposition, we are obliged to be honest and constructive in our scrutiny of legislation. It is in that fashion and for those reasons that we oppose the regulations. We fear that changing the Prudential Regulation Authority to the Prudential Regulation Committee signals less transparency over the Bank of England’s role. Currently, the Prudential Regulation Authority is a separate corporate body and a distinct authority. It can be held separately liable and accountable for its actions and interactions. However, the Prudential Regulation Committee will be less independent, given the demotion of the authority, which currently has statutory powers to create a rulebook and to enforce its own regulations, to being a mere committee of the Bank of England.
Debates over the past few years have thrown up numerous contradictions and queries, and it is not clear to what extent those have been sufficiently resolved. It is difficult to understand how the changes contained in the regulations will make the regulator more competent and effective in carrying out its work. Our concern is that it will not, and that there is no evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Having set up a structure that remains relatively young, would it not be logical to let it work itself out and see what the issues are, rather than to tear it up so quickly?
Will the Minister say how the body can be both more integrated and remain independent? Have the Government mitigated the serious risk of oversight being impaired by a conflict of interest? Will the Minister clarify the safety mechanisms in place to prevent the Bank’s main board from rationing resources to the proposed committee? Will he guarantee that the Prudential Regulation Committee can go public if it feels that it is not getting the support and resources it needs from the main Bank of England board?
We continue to argue for the retention of the Prudential Regulation Authority as a distinct regulatory authority, just as we continue to express concerns that the Government are failing to provide a proper framework for a banking system for the future. We need a healthy and effective banking sector that is appropriately regulated and serves the interests of our wider economy, by delivering the vital investment that our country needs for long-term economic growth. We know that people want assurances that we as a society and Parliament have learnt from the financial crisis, that we will improve transparency in banking regulation and banking practices and that the serious damage inflicted on people’s livelihoods caused by the collapse in 2008 can never happen again. I therefore tell the Minister that it is our duty to vote against the regulations. We will divide the Committee.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Flello. There is one area to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention, to express why we have grave concerns about the regulations. It is that of limited liability partnerships. As he will be aware, the Government launched a review on Monday because of the extent of international criminality that has been able to take place under the previously existing regulatory system.
Nothing in the proposed changes will strengthen the capacity to protect against the kind of abuse that has taken place through not just Scottish limited partnerships, which have received a lot of publicity in the past year or so, but other limited liability partnerships. I can see nothing at all in the regulations that will allow for the proper regulation of an area that the Government have admitted is of major concern.
Simon Kirby
I shall address the first comment made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde about independence. The PRC will have clear statutory safeguards for its independence, including a majority of external members. He suggested that this change might be a downgrade. It is in fact the opposite—it is an upgrade that reinforces to Bank staff and the public to whom the Bank must be transparent and accountable and that the Bank is not simply an organisation dedicated to setting interest rates but one with equally important macro and microprudential responsibilities.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Bank might ration resources. I hope to reassure him by saying that the use of the levy will continue to be limited to meeting the costs of the PRA’s functions. The Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 requires the Bank’s external auditor to state whether the Bank has complied with the requirements in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in relation to the levy. The 2016 Act also requires the Bank to produce a separate statement of accounts for its PRA functions to ensure continued transparency in the use of the levy. It is interesting to note that Andrew Bailey, then the PRA chief executive, speaking to the Treasury Committee said that there is no change in terms of robustness of the accountability for the use of the levy.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of and repeating the arguments made during the primary legislation’s progress through Parliament. I politely suggest that he is perhaps trying to shut the stable door after the horse has already bolted. This is a straightforward, technical arrangement that changes words in existing primary legislation that clarify references to the Bank and the PRA.
I note with interest the comments from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. The changes are sensible. They are a final, legal tidying-up exercise to commence the provisions ending the PRA’s subsidiary status. We plan to make the change on 1 March.
Question put.
Homelessness Reduction Bill (Sixth sitting)
Wednesday 18th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 View all Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 January 2017 - (18 Jan 2017)
David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)
During my time as a council leader, the Government introduced a number of measures aimed at combating rogue landlords. We have heard real horror stories of how some private landlords are behaving, so those measures were welcome and, in my view, long overdue. That minority of rogue landlords gave the whole industry cause for concern, but the changes mean that local authorities now have experience in and knowledge about dealing with them. Further changes introduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 will also help.
That experience will be really important in relation to the clause, because the new prevention and relief duties mean that we are helping to house more people in the private rented sector, and they may be vulnerable. Local authorities will already be checking the suitability of accommodation for those deemed to be in priority need under existing legislation. However, as more people are brought into that classification, it is right to ensure that additional protections apply to people deemed vulnerable, so that we can safeguard them against rogue landlords or unsuitable accommodation.
I am pleased that the provisions are clear about, for example, the need for the property to have fire safety precautions, a gas safety certificate, compliance with electrical safety regulations and precautions against carbon monoxide poisoning. Those are all things we would want in our own homes, and it is right that we seek the same protections for vulnerable people who are going through a difficult time in their lives. I welcome the inclusion of those protections.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, for what we hope is the final day of consideration of the Bill in Committee. I, too, rise to support this important clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South picked up an aspect that I want to touch on briefly, which is carbon monoxide poisoning.
Many of us know either personally or from constituents what a deadly killer carbon monoxide can be. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and others are officers of the all-party parliamentary group on carbon monoxide, and there are a number of similar groups. This issue highlights the importance of ensuring that there are additional protections against rogue landlords.
It is right to say that the Government have already made large steps in that direction, but inserting this provision into article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 will strengthen those protections further. I welcome the other measures in the clause, but the carbon monoxide poisoning provision is particularly worth dwelling on.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South, I used to be a councillor. I recall numerous cases—I am sure we all can, as Members of Parliament—of constituents coming to me about rogue landlords in the private rented sector, where there is a local housing allowance relationship. Part of the problem is that the vast majority of landlords are very good. Rogue landlords—I do not particularly like that term—are a small few, and they give most landlords, who are very good, a bad name. Nevertheless, we have to protect people from those few.
I would rather the legislation went much further. I would like to see local authorities making checks on all the properties they let out, but that would be extremely onerous on local councils and would undermine the premise that the vast majority of people are capable of making those checks themselves and determining whether a property has the necessary gas safety certificate, carbon monoxide detection equipment, smoke alarms and the other things we have come to expect, whether we are renting or own our own properties.
Michael Tomlinson
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a balancing act? As he says, there are many good landlords out there, but there are a few for whom I believe “rogue landlord” is the right expression. However, in this clause, as in others, it is a matter of getting the balance right, so that we have sufficient landlords—without them there would be no property to rent—but with sufficient safeguards and protections to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend makes a good point. As much as we would like to extend the protections to all, we have a duty to safeguard the most vulnerable—people who are not necessarily able to make those checks or to make informed decisions because of their financial position, a disability, a mental health issue or all sorts of other reasons that mean the council has an additional duty to safeguard them.
I support the clause. As much as I would like to see it go further, I am realistic about what we can achieve. Protecting the most vulnerable is what we should aim to do, and that is exactly what the clause does.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
I, too, am delighted to support the clause. It continues the Government’s work in the previous Parliament to tackle rogue landlords, such as introducing the new code of practice on the management of property in the private sector, the requirement for landlords to be a member of a redress scheme and the production of guides for tenants and local authorities.
The landlord accreditation scheme run by my local authority in Portsmouth seeks to impose both physical condition and management standards on the private rented sector, not only through the provision of encouragement, support and incentives, but by actively working with, and publicly recognising, those landlords who are willing to adhere to good property standards. The council is well supported in that by the Hampshire constabulary and fire and rescue service, Portsmouth University and, crucially, the Portsmouth & District Private Landlords’ Association.
There are some 4,000 private landlords in Portsmouth, and their association acknowledging the benefits of accreditation is of huge benefit to prospective tenants. The reassurance that a landlord has accreditation that is supported by the emergency services and two significant providers of accommodation in the city—the University and the council—is so important to tenants in my city. It is especially important when accommodating the homeless. In those situations, there is a danger that individuals and families might feel obliged to take up whatever is on offer, even if they have serious concerns about its standard of upkeep. The clause should ensure that such fears do not arise.
Responsible local authorities and landlords are already accustomed to checks to ensure quality. Does the Minister agree that the clause will complement existing work, such as that being done in Portsmouth? There is every reason to think that landlords and local authorities will welcome it.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
By extending the provision to vulnerable people, and not only those in priority need, the clause goes to the heart of the Bill, which is about expanding what we do for everybody who needs the help on offer.
The checks we are talking about are important; things such as gas safety and electricity records are essential not only to people’s wellbeing but their lives. Vulnerable people would not necessarily be able to ensure that those checks had been done beforehand. Of course, a lot of people who rent in the private sector are aware of the necessary checks and are quite capable of getting them all the way through. A lot of vulnerable people will be able to do so too, but there are groups of people who cannot, and it is important that we look after their wellbeing and ensure that they are in safe accommodation.
Several hon. Members have spoken about rogue landlords and work that has already been done and work that still needs to be done. The clause must be seen in conjunction with tackling rogue landlords and not in isolation, because alone it is not sufficient. It is important to note that not all landlords are rogue landlords. They provide a great deal of service by providing housing, but we must look after those who are affected by housing that is not up to standard.
I note that many councils throughout the country are already doing these checks. Wiltshire Council, which covers my constituency, already provides checks for a number of vulnerable people. However, we need one standard across the country, and we need to ensure that, no matter where someone lives or is homeless, they get the same provision of care. That is very much what the Bill seeks to initiate.
I will touch on a point that was raised by an Opposition Member in the last sitting. Although the Bill extends the provision to include vulnerable people, not everybody who is in need, such as pregnant women, will fall into that category. There are a host of other anomalies that will slip through that gap; people who, if we sat back and thought about it, we would realise are very much in need of the extra checks on their private accommodation. I urge the Minister to think about expanding the clause. Thinking about pregnant women and other vulnerable people in my constituency, it would be harrowing for them if they were unable to get these additional checks, and it would be to the detriment of all of us working on the Bill. We need to ensure that it is inclusive and encompasses help for all.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Mr Chope, to take part in the debate on this crucial clause on suitability. We all have experience of constituents who have been placed in unsuitable accommodation. What we need is evidence to back up what we all know about the importance of suitable housing for vulnerable households.
I want to refer briefly to the evidence commissioned by Crisis and Shelter, both of which are well placed to tackle homelessness. They undertook a 19-month study, published in 2014, looking at 128 people who had been rehoused. The evidence is very relevant because it makes an important, though perhaps obvious, point that private rented accommodation, which is now the predominant housing option available, is not suitable for everybody, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Tenants were found in properties that were in poor condition and where there had been issues with the landlord. Accommodation was cramped, unsuitable and often affected by damp, mould and insect infestation. With a lack of suitable fixtures, fittings and furniture, many tenants struggled to pay household costs, which often resulted in debt. The relevance is that the physical condition of accommodation is compounded in vulnerable households that might have multiple and complex needs. If they are placed in accommodation without suitable fixtures, fittings and furniture, leading to debt, their complex needs are compounded. I want to ask the Minister whether particular attention will be given through better practice and guidance to those vulnerable households.
Under the existing law, local housing authorities need to consider whether the accommodation is affordable for the person, as well as its size, condition and location. Are those considerations all tailored to vulnerability? The issues of affordability, size, condition and location are different for different and complex needs. On affordability, there are extra associated costs for those with complex needs, and size and location might also be important for those with mental health needs.
An example that has come to my attention recently that illustrates the point about location concerns people with addictions and in recovery. Location is relevant for an addict in recovery, for instance if their placement is in an area where drug use is prevalent or other addicts are around. That is particularly pertinent when considering suitable accommodation. Will the Minister tell us whether that factor will be taken into account? Those vulnerable individuals need to be placed in suitable accommodation to assist their recovery. It is one thing to get them off drugs, but it is another to keep them in sustained recovery. Appropriate and suitable housing is crucial to long-term recovery. The Government are due to publish soon an updated drugs strategy, and no doubt housing will be a key part for sustainable recovery. It is important that accommodation is suitable, so location must be taken into account.
Legal obligations predominantly address physical issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester rightly mentioned carbon monoxide, an issue I have taken an interest in through the all-party parliamentary group. However, location also includes who is present, although I am not sure that will come under the purview of this provision. A placement could be in a licensed multiple occupation property. Will account be given to how appropriate it is to place a vulnerable household in accommodation where there might be peers who are not conducive to someone’s long-term recovery? Will it get into that kind of detail to ensure that suitability is also based on who is present in the accommodation, or who is nearby?
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Westminster has explicitly stated that it is doing that because of Government policy on cuts to the support for temporary accommodation, the benefit cap, cuts in local housing allowance and a range of other measures? It is not an accidental development; it is the result of deliberate Government policy.
Mr Burrowes
I hear the hon. Lady’s point, and that is what the local authorities pray in aid as the reason they are obliged to do as they are doing. Nevertheless, they have duties and legal responsibilities. That is why I am interested in how far the Bill and the measures on vulnerable households will bite and oblige local authorities to look at the matter more seriously, rather than under the banner of “We are pressurised and do not have affordable accommodation”, taking the easier option of putting households in Enfield, for example, which has associated costs.
I have been talking to the Minister and to the relevant director of finance about both the local government finance settlement and this particular issue. I have also talked to the deputy Mayor of London, who I understand has been trying to bring about a more collaborative approach with directors of housing so that they cannot simply come up with the easy excuse of, “It’s just the Government’s fault.” They have legal responsibilities and should not just shunt their problems on to outer London boroughs.
We have had a debate about appropriate location and ensuring that households—particularly vulnerable households—are not moved away from supportive networks in relation to education, as well as other family and care support. How far will clause 12 ensure that Westminster housing officers deciding about vulnerable households will not place them in areas such as Enfield so easily? Yes, with suitability there is an issue of affordability, but there is also an issue of location. When there is a competing interest, which is the one that will really kick in? Can the Minister advise us on the discussions that he is having about ensuring that decisions are appropriate?
The Select Committee recommended that placing vulnerable households away from the area and their supportive networks should be not a first option but a last resort. I do not hear that it is being thought of as a last resort.
Michael Tomlinson
My hon. Friend talks about location. Article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 is relevant. He also mentioned houses in multiple occupation. Does he see, when he talks about location—and thinking about neighbours as well—that there would be a difficulty in an extension beyond HMOs, and the licensing regime within that structure? I understand his point about the suitability of the people nearby, but does he recognise that it would be difficult under article 3 to draw provisions as widely as he suggests?
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend is right, but we shall probably hear later about the extent of inspections, and it may well be that when an inspection is done to make normal physical checks, an eye can be given to wider concerns that might affect vulnerable households. The multiple occupation provisions are an issue of licensing—it is a question of checking unlicensed multiple occupation premises. It is important to check that, because it is not surprising that there are extra risks in unlicensed multiple occupation premises, not least for those in recovery or with other needs. It is those unlicensed premises that need attention. The inspection regime will ensure that the current law is extended to vulnerable households and that accommodation in unlicensed houses in multiple occupation will be deemed unsuitable. That will help to ensure that vulnerable households will not be exposed to other risks.
Michael Tomlinson
As I understood the point my hon. Friend was making a few moments ago, he was seeking to draw the regime wider than HMOs, whether licensed or unlicensed. Does he not see that, as drafted, article 3 does not catch accommodation that is wider than that, and that there would be difficulty in drawing it more widely? Certainly HMOs, whether licensed or unlicensed, can be looked at, but if we go wider than that it will be very difficult to assess the suitability of accommodation under article 3 by dint of looking at the suitability of the neighbours, unless it is specifically in relation to HMOs.
Mr Burrowes
I concede that point. I am trying to encourage us to look at the wider duties in the Bill and its wider application to prevention duties that might assist. I accept my hon. Friend’s point.
This is an important clause and we want to hear from the Minister that we are making the best of what we can do here. I appreciate that we will come to implementation and costs, which must be proportionate. We want to ensure that they are not open-ended. I want to hear from the Minister that he is open to seeing how we can extend the checks to ensure that we do the best for vulnerable households and ensure that they receive suitable accommodation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
The Government welcome the introduction of greater protection for vulnerable persons placed in the private sector under the new homelessness prevention and relief duties. Existing legislation already requires local housing authorities to be satisfied that accommodation is suitable when exercising their part 7 functions on homelessness and the prevention of homelessness in relation to factors such as size of accommodation, affordability and accessibility. I hear what my hon. Friend said and I will certainly go into more depth on his important points. I feel under a little pressure from Conservative Members and get the impression that they have reflected on the comments of the hon. Member for Westminster North, who talked much the same language at our previous sitting.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, when making an offer in the private rented sector for those in priority need under the main homelessness duty, existing legislation also requires local housing authorities to make additional checks to ensure the property is in a reasonable physical condition, and is safe and well managed. The points to be considered are set out in the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012. Local authorities are therefore already used to making those checks and reputable landlords should be readily able to provide the requisite documentation.
I heard the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester and for Chippenham. They are quite right to say that most landlords are extremely responsible and do the right thing by tenants, but we know that 3% of landlords are rogues and do not do the right thing by their tenants. Frankly, the Government want to drive them out of renting property, particularly to vulnerable people. We have taken significant steps to drive out those rogue landlords through the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I will not go into the detail of that Act.
Michael Tomlinson
Before the Minister moves on to what the Government are already doing, if I understood and heard him correctly, he said that they deem only 3% of landlords to be rogue landlords. Perhaps he could clarify where that evidence comes from, but if he is right, does he not agree that it is a matter of balance—of making sure that we are not punishing those landlords who are doing a perfectly good job already, and potentially deterring and putting off other people from becoming landlords and providing much-needed accommodation?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes an important point. A number of studies have been done around this issue, and that is where the figure of 3% comes from. As Members of this House—I am not, personally, a residential landlord but I know other Members who are—it is easy for us not to understand the challenges of being a residential landlord. The last thing we want to do is drive residential landlords out of the market so that we have less rental property for the people who we are trying to help to access good accommodation.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am concerned by the number of references Government Members have made to how small the number of rogue landlords is. The 3% refers to the definition of rogue landlords from the data that the Government have. My experience is that there are very many more landlords who, although they might not fall into that category—nevertheless, 3% is a lot of landlords—of the most unscrupulous, are not as responsible and rigorous as they might be and do not provide tenants with the right level of service. This requirement is about local authorities being able to check that repairs that should have been done, have been done and that the property is in a fit state to move in to. Consistently this morning, the comments from Government Members have undermined the nature of the problem and the extent of the challenge that my constituents face.
Mr Jones
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but my understanding of what I have heard this morning is that Government Members, including myself, are extremely concerned to make sure that people who are vulnerable have the right accommodation and are supported in accessing it. The hon. Lady was on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee in late 2015, before the Bill became an Act in 2016, so she will know that local authorities now have a real incentive to tackle rogue landlords. If that legislation leads to our identifying more rogue landlords because they are genuinely rogue, so be it. That is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Michael Tomlinson
I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said, save for this: 3% is a relatively small number. To my mind, one rogue landlord is one rogue landlord too many—I am very happy to put that on record. Perhaps the Minister has other evidence of a second tier of bad landlords that do not reach rogue status and therefore are not in that top 3% but may be below it. Either way, the point from this side—certainly, I speak for myself—is that one rogue landlord is one rogue landlord too many, but 3% is relatively small and there should be a balance in relation to this clause and the whole Bill.
Mr Jones
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The legislation in relation to rogue landlords means that civil penalties of up to £30,000 can be levied against them. Those civil penalties can be retained by the local authority to put towards the enforcement that they make in this regard. There are strong powers there, which is a good thing if there is a second division of rogue landlords that we need to uncover. However, my hon. Friend is right: we need to get a balance.
Mr Burrowes
For clarification, the 3%—an upper tier that is not wholly relevant to the wider issue of the suitability of property and of landlords—deals with the number of rogue landlords, but does not account for the number of properties held by those landlords. If rogue landlords are particularly known for having large numbers of properties, the figure does not properly reflect the huge number of unsuitable properties under their control.
Mr Jones
That was why the civil penalty was raised to £30,000—to reflect that it needed to be a penalty that had teeth for the type of people that my hon. Friend is talking about. On the point about banning orders, that also relates to companies where a rogue landlord might be a director. There are many ways in which the legislation will help in that sense.
I must move on. As I said, local authorities already make some checks so they have significant experience. However, we should recognise that there is a cost to the providing and checking of relevant information that local authorities need to do. That is why the approach to the Bill is to extend that additional protection to where it is needed most, to protect those who are most vulnerable, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East in his opening speech, which seems quite a long time ago.
This is a proportionate approach, which hon. Members have stressed is important. To require similar checks for all tenants would place additional burdens on local authorities and generally be unnecessary. Tenants who secure accommodation in the private rented sector already do so without the local authority’s carrying out additional checks on their behalf. Those who are themselves able to ensure suitability of property should do so.
However, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Westminster North, who expressed concern that the group of people protected because they are defined as vulnerable is narrower than the group in priority need. She gave the example of pregnant women or those with children. I do not dismiss her comments and I hope I can reassure her that I share her concern that people do not live in homes that are unsafe or badly managed. I believe that all homes should be of reasonable standard and all tenants should have a safe place to live regardless of tenure.
The proportion of tenants in the private rented sector living in non-decent housing fell from 47% in 2006 to 28% in 2014 and 80% of private renters are satisfied with their accommodation and stay in their homes for an average of four years. I know that people will say that that is an average and may not be the case in London. That is why we have had to look in the Bill at the situation around 12-month tenancies and settle on a minimum of a six-month tenancy because of the challenges that certainly exist in London.
While I discuss the challenge raised by the hon. Lady about people who fall between the groups defined as vulnerable and in priority need, it is important to pick up points from other hon. Members. Several of my hon. Friends have thrown down the gauntlet on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned carbon monoxide. We all know that is a silent killer and it is extremely important that landlords keep their gas safety checks up to speed, to ensure that gas appliances such as a boiler, cooker or gas fire are not a threat to people who are in a commercial transaction with the landlord. They are paying a good rent and deserve a good and safe service.
David Mackintosh
Does the Minister agree that some local authorities would be better at this than others, and that when the measure is introduced we must make sure all authorities are acting in the same way and that training or information is provided when necessary?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend has had significant experience as a councillor and at one point was a council leader, so he is well placed to speak on this matter. He is absolutely right. We have had a number of discussions on the same theme and part of the Government’s work is to bring forward from our Department a team of advisers. Local authorities do not often go out of their way to get something wrong or deliberately not follow guidance, but there are occasions when it is helpful to have someone working alongside to go through the guidance and to help develop local policy. That is certainly what we intend to do with our advisers. It is about assisting local authorities to get this right and I am sure all local authorities want that.
There is an existing framework that offers local authorities strong powers to make landlords improve a property. The health and safety rating system is used to assess health and safety risk in residential properties. Local authorities can issue an improvement notice or a hazard awareness notice if they find a defect in a property. In extreme circumstances, a local authority may even decide to make repairs themselves or to prohibit the property from being rented out. In the worst case scenario of an unsafe gas appliance, no member of the Committee would want that property to be rented out.
The Government are determined to crack down on rogue and criminal landlords. I mentioned the Government’s significant progress. I will not go into more detail, but in addition to the civil penalties I was talking about, we have provided £12 million to a number of local authorities. A significant amount has gone to London authorities to help tackle acute and complex problems with rogue landlords. More than 70,000 properties have been inspected and more than 5,000 landlords are facing further enforcement action or prosecution. We have also introduced protection for tenants against retaliatory eviction when they have a legitimate complaint. All members of the Committee will agree with that.
I want to pick up a couple of other points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. He mentioned vulnerability and complex needs, and I think his concern was about this group of people who are not necessarily caught by the definition of “vulnerable” or “priority need”. I am not unsympathetic to what he was saying and will consider it and the comments by the hon. Member for Westminster North. I also noted the challenge from my other hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate made a good point about temporary accommodation. We are absolutely clear that wherever practicable, local authorities should place people in their own area. Obviously, there are situations where that is not practicable and we are clear that factors such as where people work, where their children go to school and so on are taken on board. Local authorities should—we fully expect this—take those factors on board in meeting their statutory responsibility.
Ms Buck
As the Minister knows, Westminster is now reversing its practice of maintaining most temporary accommodation in-borough and announced last week that most homeless households will, in future, be discharged into the private rental sector outside the borough. Will he define “practicable” for this purpose and will he clarify whether that means “affordable”, given that Westminster is praying in aid Government policy and cuts to housing support as an explanation for that policy?
Mr Jones
We are being very clear: when we say that local authorities have got to take steps to house people in their borough unless it is not practicable, we mean that they must use every means and method at their disposal to ensure that they house people in their local area. If they do not, they have to take people’s circumstances into account. It is very difficult to see how any local authority could take an approach where, for example, a family with two children, both doing their GCSEs at a school in a particular borough, are sent to another part of the country at such a vital time, without it breaking the law. It would clearly not be taking that family’s situation into account.
I heard the earlier point made by the hon. Member for Westminster North. We are absolutely committed to replacing the temporary accommodation management fee with a flexible grant from this April. Funding of £616 million is available in that sense, and for the next three years. The grant will give local housing authorities far more flexibility on how they manage homelessness pressures. My officials are working with London authorities on temporary accommodation procurement. I am well aware that, in certain circumstances, London local authorities compete against one another for temporary accommodation. We need to look at all that can be done to try to avoid that situation.
As I mentioned, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 included measures to crack down on rogue landlords and we plan to implement those in 2017. That also includes the rogue landlords database for property agents, and banning orders for the most serious and prolific offenders.
In summary, we expect prevention and relief activity to increase following the implementation of the Bill. The provision seeks to ensure that those who are vulnerable are afforded the necessary protection. I believe it strikes the right balance, although I have listened carefully and heard what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said. I will take the concerns that they have raised about the way in which clause 12 will work back to the Department and will look at it further.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Extent, commencement and short title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
To conclude the debate on clause 12, the original intention, as I said in my speech last week, was rather broader. The concerns that colleagues—not least the hon. Member for Westminster North—have raised need to be looked at again. I am glad the Minister has agreed to do so to see what further action we can take to broaden the scope of clause 12.
Clause 13 is the final clause in the Bill, but this is not the final debate we will have. It is a relatively straightforward clause that obviously relates to the usual matters, namely the extent of the Bill, the provisions for commencing its clauses, the ability of the Secretary of State to lay regulations as necessary and the title.
The Chair
Order. I am interrupting the hon. Gentleman because we are moving into a discussion about financing. Obviously it is legitimate to have a discussion about financing, but we will have only one such discussion. I had rather expected that it would be when we were discussing clause 1 or clause 7 stand part rather than now. My own view is that it would be better to discuss financing in the context of clause 1 rather than in the context of the commencement date.
Bob Blackman
I will take your guidance, Mr Chope. As the Bill’s promoter, I am very happy to discuss finance under clause 1.
Michael Tomlinson
I, too, see the force of discussing finance under clause 1. On clause 13, my hon. Friend mentioned timings, on which he is being understandably sensitive. As the promoter of the Bill, when does he envisage the measures we have been debating so extensively coming into force?
Bob Blackman
In an ideal world, I would like this to be implemented immediately, but I recognise that councils will need time to prepare, and to recruit and train staff. They will also need to capture a lot of data. Local authorities that do a good job on homelessness prevention will have data on potential landlords, properties that may be available, help and advice from the third sector and other organisations that have the capability to provide the help and assistance required under the legislation. The concern is that a large number of local authorities are not in that position and will need time to gear up. They will need to begin the process of staff recruitment and the time to train people. They will need to change the culture in which they work—we must remember that the original culture is denial of service to homeless people unless they are in priority need. The Bill will change the cultural aspects. I hope local authorities around the country are planning how they will implement the legislation.
Will Quince
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, and notwithstanding your comments, Mr Chope, on financing, when the finances are likely to be made available to local authorities so that they can undertake transitional work is clearly of some importance for commencement.
Bob Blackman
In planning how they implement the legislation, local authorities will need to consider how much it is going to cost them. I take your guidance, Mr Chope, that you do not want us to debate finance at this point, but in putting together those plans, local authorities will have concerns about the resources that they will need as well as the potential for large numbers of people, knowing that the Bill has become law, turning up at their local authority, which is when I suspect we will discover large numbers of hidden homeless people in this country—the sofa surfers that we spoke about in earlier debates.
David Mackintosh
Does my hon. Friend have any idea how and on what timeframe the cultural change took place in Wales? Could the Minister look at that? The Bill will affect a larger number of people, but we can learn lessons from what happened there.
The Chair
Order. We are discussing changing the law, not the culture. This is a very narrow clause about the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. Normally, such a clause in a Bill would go through virtually on the nod at the end. It is only because we have changed the order in which we are considering the provisions of the Bill that we have not discussed finance. I have already made it quite clear that I think the best occasion to do that is in the clause 1 stand part debate. I am not going to allow this essentially succinct debate on commencement to develop into a Second Reading debate about the whole Bill.
Bob Blackman
Thank you, Mr Chope. I take your guidance. We do not want another Second Reading debate—we had one that was well attended and covered a wide range of contributions. It is fair to say that I have had representations from London Councils and the Local Government Association, including from its leadership, on the implications of enacting the Bill. There needs to be a discussion among the Committee so that we send a clear signal to the LGA and its membership about how the Bill will be enacted and delivered.
I hope the Minister sets out some of the Government’s proposals for delivering the Bill and the sort of support that will be available from the Department for Communities and Local Government. Following your guidance, Mr Chope, we will not discuss finances, but the resources, training and special assistance that may need to be provided to local authorities are vital. Homeless people and people threatened with homelessness need to know at that crisis point in their lives that they will get support and assistance, and that local authorities are geared up and ready to deliver them. Without that, many of the great aspects of the Bill may fall into disrepute, and as its promoter I am determined that we should not reach that position.
Ideally, we would not have to change the law in this way, but all parties are determined to change the culture by changing the law. We have already said in debates on other aspects of the Bill that further sticks will be applied if they are needed to ensure that local authorities deliver on the promises that we expect them to make. I look forward to the Minister setting out further details on how the Bill will be delivered, so that local authorities have certainty about what they will be expected to do and what support they can provide.
Mr Jones
I will not delay the Committee for too long on this clause. I hear your guidance on discussing cost, Mr Chope, and I welcome the fact that we can debate costs when we consider clause 1.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East is not making an unreasonable challenge on implementation. Given the questions he has asked, I hope the Committee will allow me a little time to provide reassurance. His questions were mainly concerned with the speed—or lack of it, as the case may be—of the Bill’s implementation, which other hon. Members also raised. In an ideal world, it would be great to see the Bill implemented as soon as Royal Assent takes place. However, my hon. Friend is experienced enough as a parliamentarian to be well aware that a Bill of this type takes time to be implemented because of the secondary legislation that will follow, the code of guidance that will have to be updated and the statutory code of practice that may need to be implemented if things do not go to plan. Those processes will certainly require consultation with local authorities. We will work closely with them to implement these important measures because we understand their concerns that they will be stepping into the unknown—they will be supporting a group of people to whom they have not hitherto had to provide such support.
It is difficult to give exact timings. I am not going into finance, but what I can say to my hon. Friend is that the funding for the measure would be available now if we were in a position to implement now, and it will be available when we come to that point.
Mr Burrowes
Will the Minister be learning lessons from Wales, where there was a lead-in time before implementation? That helped to bring together a collaborative effort. Will he be relying on the trailblazers to be at the forefront, to ensure delivery as we transition to full implementation?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend has brought me to where I wanted to be and prompted me on to my next two subjects.
First, we can look to the Welsh legislation to learn from its implementation. My officials are certainly doing that, and we have done it in relation to a number of areas in the Bill so far. My hon. Friend suggests an extremely sensible approach.
Secondly, I was about to come on to the prevention trailblazers. We have given £50 million to local authorities to undertake the rough sleeping work. Authorities across the country will already be gearing up for the legislative changes—testing new methods, gathering new data and working with external organisations to meet the aims we all want to achieve. I assure my hon. Friend that in that sense we are looking to what Wales has managed to achieve in a relatively short space of time, and we are also looking carefully at the prevention trailblazers. I have considerable hopes that those prevention trailblazers will really blaze a trail in creating the culture that we need to implement the legislation successfully and help people to get off the streets.
We are absolutely committed to the implementation of the Bill. We will be working closely with local housing authorities to ensure that the process takes no longer than it must, but it cannot be rushed. We have to get it right if we are to make a success of the Bill. On that basis of co-operation and in the spirit of how the Committee has worked, I will leave my comments there.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate: duty upon giving of notice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bob Blackman
As the Committee knows, we reordered the business because we anticipated amendments being tabled to this key clause. It is clear, however, that we do not have any amendments to discuss today. I know that many of us will be disappointed by that, and I want to update the Committee on the situation and the reasons why we have reached this position.
In our last sitting before Christmas, I reported that we had discovered a technical problem with clause 7 —specifically, that the clause was drafted too widely. At that time, we believed that a simple amendment would resolve the issue, tightening up the circumstances in which the provisions of the clause could be triggered. However, when drafting the amendments and the consequential amendments to other parts of the Bill, the local government sector and the charities that work day-to-day with homeless people—namely Shelter and Crisis—identified further issues with how the prevention and relief duties would be ended should an applicant refuse an offer of suitable accommodation. That is obviously a key part of how the Bill will work in incentivising applicants to work co-operatively with local housing authorities. If it did not work correctly, there would be a very real risk that the Bill would create an unacceptable new burden on local housing authorities and would fail to achieve the policy objectives.
I have been working with my hon. Friend the Minister and with Shelter, Crisis and the Local Government Association to address the issues that have been identified. The priority has been to ensure that we maintain protections for all applicants who co-operate with the new duties. That has involved working through the complex relationship between the Bill and the existing legal framework to ensure that the protections for those in priority need are not affected unacceptably. We want no reductions in how priority need households are assisted. We want to make it clear to new applicants that we are providing help and assistance, but it is not a one-way street.
We are now exploring potential solutions and hope to be in a position to resolve the situation on Report, with amendments tabled by Friday. I hope that if colleagues have concerns they will place them on the record so that I, as the Bill’s promoter, and the Minister can look at them in the round and make sure we deal with the issues that have rightly been raised by the charities and the LGA and in other representations we have received on this clause.
When we debated clause 3 in December, we discussed the new duty on local housing authorities to assess the applicant’s case and agree a personalised plan. Clause 7 outlines the important steps that must be followed in those hopefully rare cases where an applicant deliberately and unreasonably refuses to co-operate with the key required steps set out in the plan that they agreed with their local housing authority. This process is designed to include safeguards that will protect vulnerable applicants from abuse of the process.
When people who are threatened with homelessness or are actually homeless present themselves to the local authority, they might be in a state of difficulty not only from a mental health point of view, but in facing this problem for the first time in their lives. If that is the case and they are directed to do things by a housing authority, they may not appreciate and understand the plan. Throughout the development of the Bill, I have listened carefully to the views of the homelessness charities to ensure that vulnerable individuals are not unfairly penalised for non-co-operation on some of the very issues that caused them to seek assistance in the first place.
The clause includes numerous safeguards that I will outline briefly. I can assure the Committee that, in the recent discussion of amendments, my key driver has been to protect those safeguards and to enhance them if possible, so that no one is placed in a position whereby they feel they have been fooled and tricked into accepting something that they do not want.
Michael Tomlinson
Before Christmas, my hon. Friend characterised the clause as “tough love”. Given his recent comments, does he anticipate that that will remain his attitude in relation to the clause, or has it changed?
Bob Blackman
I do characterise the clause as tough love. I do not believe it is acceptable for someone to arrive at a local authority and say, “Under the law, you have to provide me with housing; I do not have to do anything,” and then fold their arms, sit back and wait for the local authority to do things. Part and parcel of the clause is to say that there are responsibilities on the local authority and on individual applicants.
Clause 3 is about personalised plans. Under clause 7, if applicants do not co-operate with the local authority, it can terminate the duty. That is the tough love that I previously described. That is where the bar is placed in terms of a deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. I am very clear that we want to ensure the bar is sufficiently high so the local authorities do not disadvantage applicants, but at the same time make it clear to them that they have to co-operate with the local authority that is assisting them in alleviating their homelessness or threat of homelessness.
The personalised plans will clearly set out the required steps that have been agreed between the applicant and the local housing authority. The steps must be those that are most relevant to securing and retaining accommodation. In some cases, the applicant and the local housing authority may not be able to reach an agreement about the actions despite trying very hard to do so. If that is the case, the required steps will be those recorded in writing and considered reasonable by the local housing authority.
The local housing authority will be required to keep under review both its assessment of the applicant’s case and the appropriateness of the required steps. If the local housing authority considers that the applicant is deliberately and unreasonably refusing to co-operate, it must give them a warning—it is not acceptable that it ends its duty at that point—explaining the consequences for the duties owed to the applicant if they do not begin to co-operate. At that point, if the individual sits back and says, “I’m not doing anything. I’m not taking the steps that I have agreed to take,” the authority can use a sanction.
The local housing authority must also allow a reasonable period for the applicant to comply and take external advice if necessary. If the applicant continues to refuse to co-operate following the warning, the local housing authority can choose to issue a notice that brings to an end the duties under proposed new section 195(2), the duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant prevent homelessness, and proposed new section 189(b)(2), the duty to take reasonable steps to help secure suitable accommodation for those homeless and eligible for assistance.
Michael Tomlinson
My hon. Friend mentioned a reasonable period, which appears in proposed new subsections (4)(b) and (8), but, unless I have missed it, there is no precise definition in clause 7 itself of what a reasonable period is. As he knows, a reasonable period for one man may be a very unreasonable period for another. Can he, as the promoter of the Bill, indicate to the Committee what he envisages would and would not be a reasonable period?
Bob Blackman
If I could just continue the point. The notice must explain the reasons for giving the notice and its effect, and inform the applicant of their right to request a review of the decision to issue a notice and the time period for doing so. My hon. Friend is a learned lawyer, and reasonableness is an issue that has been tested by the courts on many occasions. What is reasonable to an applicant facing a crisis and what is reasonable to a local authority may be two different things. It is difficult to lay out every detail in the Bill; regulations may be required to specify the period, and in the code of guidance that will be issued when the Bill becomes an Act, I expect to see a clear statement to local authorities of what is considered to be a reasonable period. If local authorities are acting in what the Minister and the Department consider to be an unreasonable manner, we may have to insist on a code of practice to set out that detail. I trust that local authorities will see that they are seeking to end the duties that they have to the applicant, so they must act in a reasonable manner.
As a final safeguard, where the prevention or relief duty has been ended under these measures, rendering the main housing duty inapplicable, the local housing authority has a further duty to the applicant if they are homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and became homeless through no fault of their own. In such cases, the local housing authority must as a minimum make a final accommodation offer of an assured shorthold tenancy of at least six months. To ensure that that measure and the safeguards work effectively, the clause also allows the Secretary of State to issue regulations setting out the procedures to be followed by local housing authorities in connection with notices.
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend has indicated that there have been discussions about amending the clause. So that the Committee is clear, is he concerned that although the clause ensures that the full rehousing duty is retained for those in priority need if there is a failure to co-operate—as Shelter and others have said, that is an important backstop—it is currently too wide and could lead to a penalty, not just in terms of compliance with the plan but in relation to the wider prevention and relief duties?
Bob Blackman
Clearly, the intention is to lay out that individuals have responsibilities and must follow their actions. There is however a concern that in some local authorities—not all, but some—there could be an impact on priority need and vulnerable households. I expect that amendments will be tabled on Report to revise the position and make clear that we are talking, as I have said, about those who deliberately and unreasonably refuse to co-operate, but also to ensure that we do not impact the main relief duty. We have striven from the word go not to change the impact on individuals who are owed a responsibility by their local authority already.
I will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Minister to bring forward a package of amendments on Report, which I hope we will all be able to support. If Committee members want to put particular comments on the record so that we can use them in our deliberations between now and Friday, when we need to table the amendments for Report, I would be very keen to hear them. I will be working on the amendments over the next week, and I hope that Members will be able to support them when they come before the House.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I greatly missed the Committee last week.
Andy Slaughter
I hear what the promoter is saying, but I am sure that it is not true, because the Committee had the services of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. It is always dangerous to ask someone to stand in for you when they are more experienced, competent and knowledgeable on the subject, but there we are.
I will not be long on this clause. With all due respect to the promoter and the Minister, if we are to debate it all over again on Report, and we have yet to have the benefit of the amendments, I would rather wait and see what happens then. It is unfortunate that the Bill has had to be sliced in this way, and that we are jumping around from clause to clause. I understand that we all want to get it right, but it is not an ideal way to proceed, as will be clear when we come to clause 1. We Opposition Members will try to be as disciplined and organised as we can be, in order not to repeat ourselves or lengthen the debate more than is necessary, which is the guidance we have heard from Mr Chope as well.
Therefore, all I will say on clause 7 is that we do not oppose it; it is a necessary clause, because there has to be some sanction or limitation on the relationship between the applicant and the local authority. The key issue is getting the balance right. What is the balance? I pose the question, which may be better answered on Report, when we know the full extent of the clause. We are all familiar with the term “unreasonable”, but are perhaps less familiar with the term “deliberate”. There have been perfectly reasonable representations from both sides, if I can put it that way—from Shelter and from the Association of Housing Advice Services. One side of the argument is that it is essential that the bar is set very high, so that local authorities cannot evade their duty; on the other hand, the process must not be overly bureaucratic, or effectively provide no sanction because the applicant would be entitled to the same assistance as they would if they had not deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate. That question hangs in the air. As for the definition of “deliberate” and what might constitute that behaviour or how authorities would define it, that is a question that the Minister or the promoter may wish to deal with, although it may not be a matter for today.
I reserve any further comments. It is regrettable that we are doing this on Report. I remember having a conversation early on with the promoter, in which I said, “We might wish to table some clauses on Report,” and he said, “Can you please ensure that you do that in Committee, so that we have a clean run at Report and Third Reading?” I think I may have to table something on Report myself now; we will see.
Michael Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman mentioned unreasonable behaviour. I completely take his point and agree with what he says, but in clause 7, there is a definition to help local authorities define what the characteristics of unreasonable behaviour would be. Would he anticipate, as I do, that that sort of subsection will be essential in any sort of rewriting, to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected?
Andy Slaughter
Yes, but “unreasonable” is a term with which we and, more importantly, the courts are familiar, if a matter has to reach that point. “Deliberate” is a rarer and higher standard, and that term gives me pause, but I think the consensus is that it needs to be there, because “unreasonable” is not sufficient. I only ask for a slightly clearer exemplification.
Will Quince
I am conscious that there are likely to be further amendments on Report. I want to touch briefly on the new duty to assess cases and agree a plan. I very much support the idea of a personalised plan, whereby we empower those who seek help with a number of key steps that they are expected to take, which are reasonable, proportionate and, most importantly, achievable. That will encourage positive action and working together to find a solution, rather than people simply turning up at the council saying, “You have a duty to house me because I’m homeless.” Instead, we will say, “Let’s look at the steps we can take together to address the issues”—and, in many cases, the complex needs—“behind your homelessness or risk of homelessness before the situation gets worse.”
No doubt we have all seen situations involving councils. It is difficult, because the vast majority of local authorities are excellent and take their duties and responsibilities very seriously. Some, however, discharge their homelessness duties far too easily, which has knock-on effects on other areas and local authorities. For example, if a borough or district council discharges its duty on homelessness for whatever reason, it puts added pressure—especially if children are involved—on either the unitary authority or the county council in respect of social services, and that is often hugely expensive compared with the action that could have been taken by the local authority.
There have been a number of comments on deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate and the definition of “unreasonable”. Clear guidance on what is unreasonable would certainly be helpful, but the addition of that word adds a safeguard. I used to be a lawyer as well.
Will Quince
I used to be; I am not any more, I am glad to say. The addition of that word protects those with mental health issues or complex needs. We know that the vast majority of people who are at risk of homelessness or are homeless have very complex needs.
I very much welcome the safeguards in the Bill, including the concept of a warning letter that clearly and succinctly sets out what will happen if someone fails to co-operate and the clear steps that will be taken after that. On the whole discharging of the duty, I welcome the fact that those who are found to have deliberately or unreasonably failed to co-operate, even after the warning letter, will still receive, as a minimum, an offer of suitable accommodation, with an assured shorthold tenancy of six months. That adds the necessary protection and safeguard. and stops additional pressure being put on county councils.
David Mackintosh
I am pleased that the clause is included, because I strongly believe in the principle of personal responsibility. Of course, public bodies have a duty to help people, especially those who are vulnerable or traumatised. I am sure we have all seen cases of people in difficult circumstances who, inexplicably, do not co-operate with the local authority, even in challenging situations.
Local authorities may well worry about how this new legislation will affect them. That is why I welcome the proposals. Action plans can be agreed between the council and the person seeking help, with proper, agreed actions for both parties to undertake. The council, of course, has a responsibility to help, but this also allows people to help themselves; as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester put it, it helps to empower people. They are an active participant in the process and take some responsibility for their destiny. This is about much more than finding a home and helping someone in the short term. This helps people to set off on their future path, and create their own future.
Helen Hayes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I want to put on the record my disappointment that we are not able to debate amendments to the clause in Committee. The judgments and the balance of responsibilities involved in the clause are among the most complex and sensitive of any aspects of the Bill. We should have the opportunity to consider the balance of responsibilities and judgments in full in Committee with the wording that is likely to make it into the Bill.
The case that the hon. Member for Harrow East described of a person who simply sits back and does nothing about their circumstances is indeed clear cut, but in my experience such cases are extremely rare. Much more common are cases that involve judgments around the location and type of property. Those judgments involve issues about which many of us, if we had the misfortune to find ourselves homeless, would also feel strongly. People who find themselves homeless often feel, quite rightly, a strong sense of injustice and a high level of distress around their circumstances. They want things to be put right in such a way that they can imagine rebuilding their life in acceptable circumstances. Judgments as to what somebody would regard as a suitable offer of accommodation are therefore necessarily very difficult and sensitive.
The Bill also seeks to bring about a change in homelessness culture and practice in local authorities. In its inquiry, the Communities and Local Government Committee certainly saw evidence of gatekeeping practices in some local authorities. It was common practice for them to look for minimal reasons to discharge the duty; we have to get rid of such practices.
The change in culture, the complexity of the judgments, the balance of responsibilities and the definitions of reasonableness and suitability that will apply to cases are sensitive and complicated matters and should not be left for us to consider in full on Report. I look forward to debating them further on Report, but I want to put on the record at this stage my disappointment that the Government have left this matter so late.
Mr Burrowes
I will follow on from those points in a similar vein. We are, in a somewhat rarefied Committee, looking at deliberate and unreasonable refusals to co-operate, while being far removed from the challenging circumstances faced by people, particularly those with complex needs. Even with revisions to the Bill on Report, we must be clear that the bar is set at a level that will ensure that there is understanding, particularly of those with mental health and complex needs, and that those needs are taken into account when considering what is deliberate and unreasonable. That does not mean that those people will not be liable to being deemed to have refused to co-operate. We need to look sensitively at how we ensure that the most vulnerable are taken account of properly.
On discharging duties, I recall a case in which the NHS was able to discharge its duty of care to a vulnerable constituent who had complex needs and was paranoid. When people knocked on the door to see whether he was going to co-operate, unsurprisingly he did not answer, because he was paranoid; it was a part of his condition. He repeatedly refused to answer the door, so the NHS discharged its duty of care to him. As for the safeguards in this provision, there is a warning letter. We need to look in detail—this matters—at how that warning letter will be communicated and take proper account of people’s needs, which include communication difficulties.
Michael Tomlinson
That is exactly the point I made a few moments ago. Subsection (6) refers to taking into account the “particular circumstances and needs” of the applicant. My hon. Friend’s story highlights the reason why we need that safeguard in any future redrafting of the clause—to protect exactly the sort of people he is talking about.
Mr Burrowes
We need to ensure that when the rubber hits the road, there is a reality to this, so that there is not the lowest common denominator of just discharging a duty, but there is a real, positive intent to meet people’s particular needs.
It is important to ensure there is reassurance and the backstop provided by new section 193B(4). The full rehousing duty for those in priority need must be maintained. We have often praised the Welsh for getting there first with the prevention duty, but this clause will do a lot better. It will ensure that, in this case, we do not follow the Welsh example, where legislation allows an authority to discharge all duties for those who refuse to co-operate and where there is evidence of one in eight households now being refused further help; emerging evidence suggests that they are often vulnerable people with support needs. That is despite codes of guidance, which we talked about in previous deliberations.
It is so important that we get this right. This is where it could go wrong, despite all the codes of guidance that might be produced. I welcome the care that has been given to ensuring that we get this right. The litmus test is those with complex, particular needs. We need to ensure in this deliberation on what is deliberate and unreasonable that we have a true understanding of vulnerable people.
Michael Tomlinson
I, too, rise to say that I am disappointed by the difficulty that this Committee has been put under in not being able to look at clause 7. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and with the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that this is one of the most crucial parts of the legislation, and that a delicate balancing act needs to be got right.
That said, I support the principle. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill’s promoter, when he characterises this as tough love. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South mentioned personal responsibility, and the phrase “help to empower” was also used. I entirely agree with the principle behind the clause but am disappointed that we cannot thrash out more of the detail. I will certainly take up the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to set out what I believe needs to be within the clause, although I support the thrust of it.
I had a meeting with a representative of East Dorset District Council—a local authority that you know well, Mr Chope, because East Dorset covers three constituencies: mine, yours and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). The council is concerned not only about the potential burden on local authorities, but about the risk of this going wrong. The interplay between local authorities and housing associations was also raised.
Perhaps when the Minister gets to his feet in a few minutes, he will give me and those at East Dorset some reassurance on the clause as drafted, or as we hope it will be drafted in future, and on the interplay with housing association duties. Many of our local authorities own very little stock and rely on housing associations to perform many of their functions and duties. What is the interplay between that and the clause? Is there a risk that housing associations will fall short or have a lower standard than is the aim and intention behind the clause?
I have said before that we are looking at the most vulnerable. I agree that there should be a strict definition in clause 7. As drafted, the tough love aspect is whether an applicant has deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate. I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith that this is familiar territory for lawyers and courts. In my view, it is helpful to have as much detail in the Bill as possible. That is why I welcome proposed new section 193A(6), which states that the characteristics—correction, circumstances—and needs of the applicant should be taken into account. Perhaps the Minister and promoter of the Bill should consider characteristics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate gave a striking example of why it is necessary to take into account the circumstances and needs of the applicant. Knocking on the door might be sufficient for one applicant but not for another. Therefore, clause 7 needs that additional safeguard in its redrafted form.
The term “reasonable period” is also fertile territory for lawyers. My concern is that, if it is left in the Bill, lawyers will argue the toss that the local authority says, “Yes, it was a reasonable period,” while the applicant says, “No, it was not because more time was required.” I understand entirely the difficulty of putting that sort of detail in the Bill. An indication of the timeframe from the Minister when he is looking at redrafting may be helpful, although I do understand the risk of causing problems.
Finally, like my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I welcome the additional safeguard of a notice to inform and explain to the applicant. The Minister might pick up on one caveat. As drafted, subsection (8) provides for what would happen if a notice were not received. In an ideal world, we would need to ensure that notices are received. As we know, sometimes the serving of notices is not as straightforward in practice as it is to set out in a document. The Minister might consider and emphasise the need to ensure that notices are received.
David Mackintosh
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that there should be a written warning or notice rather than just a verbal statement? People could be confused and lose bits of paper, so it is important to have this written down.
Michael Tomlinson
I agree in part with my hon. Friend, but in fact it would be helpful to have both. Depending on the needs and circumstances of the individual, it could be helpful to have the notice read out. Of course, it should also have the fall-back authority of a piece of paper or document.
I would like the Minister to pick up the point in subsection (8) about the notice being
“made available at the authority’s office”.
Given we are considering the most vulnerable people, is that sufficient to draw attention to the fact that their rights are to be taken away under the homelessness provisions?
Mrs Drummond
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. If that information is not put very clearly in writing to the vulnerable person, surely the appeals will be more difficult. Will we see an increase in appeals if we do not get the clause absolutely right in the detail?
Michael Tomlinson
That is absolutely right. It is not only the difficulty with appeals, but the rise in the number of appeals, exactly as my hon. Friend says. As a former lawyer, I want fewer of these cases appearing in front of court. Far too often, we have seen lawyers arguing over clauses exactly like this one by picking up points of technicality and trying to say whether a notice was served. Every effort should be made to ensure that notices are brought to the attention of individuals, and I would like reassurance from the Minister specifically on that point because the clause takes away rights that we are seeking to give to individuals.
While I entirely support the thrust, aim and intention of the clause and its characterisation as tough love, I regret the fact that we are not able to debate its final form. We are almost shadow boxing in anticipation of what may or may not be incorporated into clause 7. I encourage the Minister to take on board all the points that have been made.
Mr Jones
I am afraid that I must start with an apology to the Committee. I know that the Committee was expecting to see the amendments today. Indeed, I was fully expecting to be able to introduce the amendments for consideration. I am sorry that circumstances have meant that that has not been possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has already provided a significant overview of the concerns we have been investigating over the past few weeks, so I will not go into too much detail in that regard. I simply say that we are addressing the two issues that have been identified with the clause. The first is that the clause is drafted too widely. While an applicant could be penalised for deliberately and unreasonably refusing to co-operate with the required actions as set out in the personal housing plan, as the clause is drafted they could also be penalised for deliberately and unreasonably refusing to co-operate with the authority in relation to the prevention or relief duties more generally. That is a broader formulation of the clause and is certainly not the one intended.
The second issue is that we are not confident that the balance between incentives and protections is right in cases where an applicant refuses a suitable offer of accommodation at the relief stage. We have been working closely with homelessness charities to resolve that and develop a way forward, and I hope to be in a position to say more before Report.
My hon. Friend has made it clear to the Committee this morning that we have spent significant time in the intervening period since the previous sitting and before then working with external stakeholders. We have been working with local authorities that have expressed concerns about what my first point may mean in relation to their duties, as well as with the charities that he mentioned, which obviously have significant concerns about the second point.
This is a very unusual situation. We have a private Member’s Bill, and the Select Committee has looked at it and proposed amendments. The Government have worked with the Member to come up with a form of Bill that works. Within that, we have also had significant engagement with local authorities, the LGA and stakeholders, including charities. My hon. Friend mentioned Crisis and Shelter. It is a complex situation, and I am determined to work with him to get the legislation right. I reiterate my disappointment that I have not been able to debate what I would have liked and expected to debate with the Committee, and again tender my apologies to the Committee.
A number of measures in the clause remain pertinent. Many times during our consideration of the Bill, Members have spoken about the importance of culture change in building a more co-operative relationship between the local housing authority and those who need their services. That is already the case in the best local authorities. We want to encourage those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness to work with their local housing authority to prevent or relieve their homelessness as soon as possible. We believe that such a co-operative approach is better for the individual or family, and is better for local housing authorities, too.
The clause sets out the actions a local housing authority may take if an individual who has made a homeless application subsequently deliberately and unreasonably refuses to follow the steps in the personalised plan agreed between themselves and the local housing authority. In most cases, the local housing authority and the individual will take the agreed steps and work co-operatively to resolve the situation before it becomes a crisis. However, if the local authority considers that an applicant has deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate with the required actions agreed in their personal housing plan, it must first issue a written warning explaining that that is the case, and that a failure to co-operate will result in the end of the duty to secure accommodation for the applicant. We will work with local housing authorities—this comes back to points that have been raised in the debate, on which I will now elaborate—to develop common-sense guidance on the meaning of “deliberate and unreasonable”.
To pick up on the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East, for Enfield, Southgate and for Mid Dorset and North Poole on applicants deliberately and unreasonably refusing to co-operate, statutory guidance will set out the Government’s view on what that means. For example, it will include refusing to engage in negotiations with the landlord to prevent their tenancy from ending, or refusing to contact landlords or view properties. We have also talked about the definition of “suitable”, which is set out in existing legislation.
Several hon. Members have asked what a “reasonable period” is. Reasonableness is a well understood concept in law, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole will understand. When considering what is a reasonable period, local housing authorities will have to have regard to all surrounding circumstances, which brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. We can consider saying more in guidance about the factors we expect local authorities to take into account when making the judgment. In doing that, I will take on board the comments made by hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for North the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole made a good point on the interplay with housing associations. Local housing authorities will work closely with a range of landlords as they deliver the Bill, as they are intended to do now. Housing associations are key partners in many respects, but the clause relates specifically to the applicant’s co-operation with the steps that they agree with the local housing authority for their personal plan, and not with third-party organisations. I hope that clarifies the point for my hon. Friend.
The Chair
Before adjourning the Committee, I remind hon. Members that there are two substantial amendments to clause 1 to be debated. I think it would be convenient for the Committee to debate those two amendments together with clause 1 stand part.
Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)
Wednesday 18th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 View all Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 January 2017 - (18 Jan 2017)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
When we broke at the last sitting, I was coming on to the subject of written warnings. I nearly got one this morning, I detected, but was very fortunate that I evaded the wrath of the Chair.
We would expect that before a local housing authority issued a written warning, it would make all reasonable efforts to engage the individual, explore the reasons for their failure to act and try to re-establish a co-operative relationship. Following that written warning, if the applicant continued deliberately and unreasonably to refuse to co-operate, the local housing authority might choose to issue a notice that brings to an end its duties to prevent or relieve the applicant’s homelessness.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I fear the Minister is about to move on. At that stage, is there not, under proposed new section 193A (3)(b), the right to request a review of that decision? The notice is therefore not necessarily the end of the piece, because the applicant may request a review if they feel they have been unfairly dealt with.
Mr Jones
There is, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, a right to review. I am sure he realises that I will not go into too much detail about that, because we will deal with it far more when we come to the amendments tabled to the clause on Report.
Where a local housing authority has brought its duty to an end in this way, and the applicant was made homeless through no fault of their own and is in priority need, the authority will be required to make a final offer of a private sector tenancy of at least six months. The Government will review and update the homelessness code of guidance to provide clear guidance on how that will work in practice. As I said, that will include guidance on the meaning of “deliberately and unreasonably” refusing to co-operate.
Guidance will be developed in consultation with stakeholders across local government and the charity sector to ensure that it is clear and fair. We had quite a lengthy debate about that this morning and will discuss it on Report, so I will not go into it any further. We must ensure that the provisions are clear and fair, and that we minimise as far as possible the risk of someone failing to get the support they need. We will also work closely with stakeholders across local government to develop further regulations relating to the process that local housing authorities should follow. As colleagues have said, that is key to getting this right.
This is an important part of the Bill and of driving the cultural change we want, so that local housing authorities and individuals work together for the best outcome within a framework that is clear and fair, with a balance of responsibilities. Although the need for amendments is disappointing for all of us, the importance of the clause drives my determination to make the amendments that the Committee expects.
Michael Tomlinson
I hope the Minister will at some stage address the point that not only I but a number of colleagues made about the particular circumstances and needs of the applicant. I understand that we will have an opportunity to look at the clause when it is rewritten, but we were invited by the Bill’s promoter to make particular representations on those parts of the clause that we think should remain in it. Does the Minister agree that new section 193A(6) is an important part of it? Even if we do not use exactly these words, we should look at the applicant’s particular circumstances and needs when assessing whether he or she has unreasonably refused to co-operate.
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
Clause 1(2) of the Bill, which this amendment would leave out, currently makes provision about the implications of a notice given under section 8 or 21 of the Housing Act 1988, and court orders, for whether a person is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Amendment 17 makes provision about the implications of a section 21 notice.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 17, in clause 1, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) After subsection (4) insert—
“(5) A person is also threatened with homelessness if—
(a) a valid notice has been given to the person under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (orders for possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) in respect of the only accommodation the person has that is available for the person’s occupation, and
(b) that notice will expire within 56 days.””— (Mr Marcus Jones.)
This amendment provides that a person will be threatened with homelessness for the purposes of Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 if they have been given a valid notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 in relation to their only accommodation and that notice will expire within 56 days.
Clause stand part.
Mr Jones
The Government have tabled amendments 16 and 17, which remove all of clause 1 apart from the extension of the prevention duty from 28 to 56 days and clarify that an applicant is threatened with homelessness if they have a valid section 21 notice that expires in 56 days or less. I am sure that most Committee members will be aware that this clause has been the subject of extensive discussion with and concern from the many external stakeholders who will be affected by the Bill, including landlords, local authorities and the charities working with those in need of housing support.
Prevention is vital to tackling homelessness. Getting in early and working with applicants before a crisis hits is key. The clause works in conjunction with the rest of the Bill and with current legislation to shift the focus towards prevention and to encourage those at risk of homelessness to seek help early. In the best local authorities in the country, that ability to seek help early is the guiding principle. I had a very good visit to Sevenoaks in Kent, where the council is absolutely following that principle. It is effectively putting the message out to local people that if for any reason they have a challenge in maintaining their housing, they should get in touch with the local authority at the first opportunity and go in to discuss those concerns. When concerns such as relationship breakdown, challenges with budgeting and redundancy are brought to the council, it has officers who have experience in those areas and are able to guide and support people with, for example, budget planning.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that often when people experience life-changing events, be it a marital or relationship breakdown or the ending of a tenancy, they are not at that point in crisis? They often just need some really good, clear advice, which they can then reflect on, long before they reach crisis point. That is why this particular duty is so important.
Mr Jones
I completely agree. Too often, under the current legislation, people who get into those sorts of difficulties or experience those sorts of events do not know who to turn to—the local authority, the citizens advice bureau, a friend or even the local MP. I hope that this will lead to more clarity, and to people being quicker to approach the local housing authority, which might be working with the CAB or charities, to deal with challenges that are often not about housing, but that lead to people having a problem with their housing or, indeed, to homelessness.
David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and I are part of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, and we have taken evidence. It has emerged that there are some very good schemes around the country that not only help people to find a home but equip them with the life skills they need. Would it be helpful if I wrote to the Minister with some of the evidence gained from the APPG’s information gathering, so that he can pass on forms of best practice?
Mr Jones
I would be delighted if my hon. Friend sent me that information. As we have discussed, advisers will be going around the country and speaking to local housing departments to explain how this legislation works and help them with any challenges. There is some really good best practice—I mentioned Sevenoaks—including help with the general life skills that sometimes even the most able people struggle with when they experience a difficult event such as a relationship breakdown, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said.
Clause 1 helps to tackle the bad practice whereby some local authorities advise tenants to remain in properties until the bailiffs arrive. It also includes some flexibility to allow local housing authorities to talk to landlords and work with tenants before they have to leave the property, to see if solutions can be found. We all know that our biggest challenge when it comes to priority need homelessness acceptances by local authorities is the ending of an assured shorthold tenancy. We firmly believe that if we can get in there and help people to maintain a tenancy before it is too late, we will not only do a very good job for those potentially losing their tenancy, but help the local authority, which will have time freed up to support people who are more difficult and challenging to deal with because of their circumstances.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Will the Minister acknowledge that this is already happening in Wales? They opened up the period in which someone could be classified as being threatened by homelessness. That backs up this clause and proves that it will work to prevent homelessness.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It has been said outside this Committee many times and in the discussions I have had, particularly on the amendments we are looking to make to clause 7, that the housing market in England and particularly in London is very different from that in Wales. We can certainly draw many parallels with the Welsh legislation and have confidence that, in many ways, this legislation will have a very positive effect. On whether it will have the significant effect it has had in Wales, I make two points. First, local authorities in England were already better, in general, at preventing homelessness than those in Wales before the legislation was introduced; we need to take that point on board. Secondly, our assumptions—particularly on cost, which I will come to later—have been based very much on an acknowledgment that the housing market is very different in England, and particularly London and the south of the country.
Michael Tomlinson
Is not the point about clause 1 that all these notices are meant to be mandatory? The local authority will have confidence that it will be giving advance help, or that there will be more warning, in the knowledge that when the notice is provided, it will eventually lead to a possession order and therefore homelessness.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. There is obviously an incredible amount of good will in relation to increasing the period over which people are supported and trying to mitigate the challenges they encounter before they become homeless, but some concern has been expressed about the approach. Landlords are worried that the flexibility could be misused by some local housing authorities to delay triggering their obligation to help tenants, which could result in increased costs for landlords in having to go through the courts to evict tenants and cause extra distress to vulnerable at-risk households. In general, landlords and local authorities were concerned that the clause as drafted was too complicated and could be misinterpreted or even misused.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and I have met a range of stakeholders to agree an approach that best addresses everyone’s concerns while keeping at its core our overall aim of helping people to solve their housing issues before they become homeless. I thank all of them for their constructive engagement and for helping us to reach the approach that the Government are proposing. Local authorities and the housing charities have confirmed that they support the amendment.
The prevention duty provides that local authorities must work quickly and proactively with applicants who are threatened with homelessness to find a long-term housing solution during that period. The amendment adds to that by making it clear that any applicant with a valid section 21 notice that expires in 56 days or less is to be treated as threatened with homelessness and therefore offered the relevant help and support. Where applicants in those circumstances seek help, local housing authorities will be required to work with them to try to prevent them from becoming homeless before the notice expires. That should help to reduce evictions from privately rented accommodation and facilitate less disruptive moves to alternative housing when tenants do have to move out. It has been mentioned many times that once a family have paid a deposit bond to a landlord, if they are subsequently evicted quite often the biggest challenge is that do not have that bond to get back into the rental market.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
On support from local authorities, how much engagement, involvement and sign-up from local authorities is there for the amended clause 1? I know that my hon. Friend has had discussions, and there will obviously be further debate about the costs. I think that some local authorities have been under a particular impression in terms of the somewhere-to-stay provision and using a cost element that is not focused on what is in the Bill now, although it will be if we pass the amended clause.
Mr Jones
There have been infinite discussions about this clause and the others. I think that, generally, the clause has been accepted readily by most people involved, particularly on the local authority side and by the Local Government Association. Generally that is because people recognise that if we gear our help to being upstream, rather than waiting for a housing crisis, that will significantly reduce the cost of helping people, but more important than the cost, it will put people in a far better position as individuals than would have been the case otherwise.
The end of a private rented sector tenancy is currently the main trigger for homelessness, so the Government commend the amendment as a way to ensure that valuable opportunities to prevent homelessness are not lost and that households are more likely to receive the help that they need at the right time. The amendment balances the need for flexibility for local housing authorities with recognition of the legitimate concerns of landlords and homelessness charities. Clear guidance will be issued to set out in more detail how that flexibility should be used.
Michael Tomlinson
With respect, the Minister is slightly skating over the significance of the amendment he tabled. It sweeps away any section 8 notices as well. He says he consulted landlords and other bodies, but perhaps he could deal with this, because section 8 notices can be mandatory as well. Why do only section 21 notices remain under the amendment? Why have section 8 notices been swept aside?
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that up. I will deal with that at the appropriate point.
As I said, the amendment balances the need for flexibility for local housing authorities with recognition of the concerns of landlords and homelessness charities, and clear guidance will be issued. I can confirm that to ensure that applicants threatened with homelessness due to the issuing of a section 21 notice receive continuous help and support through the prevention and relief duties, the Government plan to table an amendment on Report to clause 4—the prevention duty. That will require that while the applicant remains in the same property, the prevention duty continues to operate until such time as the local authority brings it to an end for one of the reasons set out in clause 4, even if 56 days have passed. In an ideal world, if we were dealing with the Bill in the usual order, I would have tabled that amendment once we had debated clause 1, in advance of the debate on clause 4. Regrettably, because of the timetabling and the challenges we had with clause 1, I was not able to do that, which I apologise for. Unlike with clause 7, that could not have been avoided at all.
The prevention duty may be brought to an end because, for example, agreement is reached by a tenant to stay in the property for at least a further six months; alternative suitable accommodation has been secured for the household; they have become homeless and eligible for the relief duty; or they have withdrawn their application. The amendment to clause 4 will address a concern raised by some charities that there may be cases where the 56-day prevention duty period has run out but the household is unfortunately still at risk of homelessness. They may not yet be homeless and would therefore, in some instances, not be covered by the relief duty.
To complement that change to the legislation, the Government will take other action to encourage people at risk of homelessness to present earlier to their local authority. We will amend form 6A, which is used to evict tenants through section 21, and amend the “How to Rent” guide to include information encouraging tenants to seek help earlier when they receive a section 21 notice and believe they are at risk of homelessness as a result.
David Mackintosh
Clearly, this will be a change for some housing authorities. As we have said before, that will require extra training. Will the Minister confirm that his Department is looking at that?
Mr Jones
As I have said a number of times, I fully believe that additional training will be necessary in some cases. Some local authorities are already doing many of the things being introduced in the Bill, but many local authorities are not. This morning the hon. Member for Westminster North challenged certain practices of housing options departments. The team of advisers that the Department will employ will be there to do just that—to embed the new legislation as it comes through, so that we get the result that we all seek and desire from the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was right to raise section 8 notices and the reasons why our amendment will remove them from the Bill. For those served with a section 8 notice, there is a set defence procedure that tenants must have the option to follow through if they wish. For example, a tenant may wish to challenge a section 8 eviction if the notice is not valid, if they can prove the amount of rent arrears is wrong, if they have evidence that disproves their landlord’s case, or if they have a counterclaim for disrepair. Any applicant at risk of homelessness within 56 days or fewer will be offered the prevention duty assistance by their local housing authority. The measure ensures that those served with a section 8 notice have the flexibility to dispute it if they wish, but will also be able to seek help should they be at risk of homelessness. I hope that allays my hon. Friend’s concerns.
You said earlier, Mr Chope, that the issue of costs should be dealt with during the clause 1 stand part debate, in which we are also considering Government amendments 16 and 17. As I have said during the Bill’s passage—on Second Reading and at Committee stage—the Government are committed to meeting the cost of the Bill, in line with the new burdens doctrine, and I announced yesterday that £48 million will be provided to fund the Bill. The Bill will place new duties on local authorities to prevent and tackle homelessness for all those who are eligible, not only those currently in priority need. In line with the new burdens doctrine, the Government will fund the cost of the new burdens placed on local government, including providing all households with free information and advice on preventing and relieving homelessness. As we have just heard, the prevention duty and the period in which local authorities have to work with people to do all they can to prevent homelessness, is increasing from 28 to 56 days. There is also an enhanced duty for those who are already homeless, meaning that local housing authorities will support people for 56 days to relieve their homelessness to help them to secure accommodation.
I assure the Committee that we have committed to working with the LGA and local authorities to establish a formula for distributing the funding that factors in the different pressures and costs in different places. We have discussed the far greater pressures in London and parts of the south-east than in other parts of the country. That said, we are acutely aware that there are challenges with homelessness across the country that we have to deal with, and we will reflect that in our discussions with the LGA. In addition to the money that will be provided for new burdens, we have committed to considering whether there is a case for a small amount of additional funding to help those areas facing the highest pressure. At this point, we have not made a complete assessment of what that figure will be, but we are certainly mindful that some places will face significantly greater challenges than others.
To give a headline view of how the costs have been worked out—I am trying to pre-empt questions from the Committee—the cost of the new measures has been determined by using current data on local authority homelessness spending combined with national statistics on homelessness. Those have helped us to arrive at unit costs for the various services. Assumptions were made on the effect of the Bill on such activities: for instance, we have assumed that the case load will increase as a result of the new offer to households at risk of homelessness.
We have also looked at the situation in Wales and judged that we will not increase the case load in England as much as was the case there. That is because there is already a more significant prevention duty in place in England than there was in Wales at the start of its legislation.
Mr Burrowes
On the methodology, obviously it is important that there is as much agreement as possible on the basis for the Government’s welcome funding commitment for the implications of the Bill. Certainly one cannot predict how much demand there will be for prevention services, but has as much agreement been reached as is possible with local councils and the LGA in relation to the methodology testing that has taken place up until now?
Mr Jones
There has been extensive discussion on that, and from the LGA’s press statement it is apparent that it does not dispute the methodology used. It has talked about reviews—we can come on to that—but it has not disputed the methodology. On the methodology, we must be careful to ensure that we are comparing the potential cost with the burdens created under the Bill. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) spoke at considerable length about what he saw as a multimillion pound commitment that his local authority would have to meet as a result of the Bill. That included concern over the original proposal for a “nowhere safe to stay” clause, which after speaking to local government the Government considered carefully. Although in an ideal world it would be fabulous to do what that proposal intended, it would have created a huge new burden that would have been difficult to deal with. More particularly, the big challenge around that was that that new burden’s demand could not be quantified. In many of the assumptions we have made in preparing the Bill, we have been able to use methodology relating to the experience of the Welsh legislation, and that legislation did not have provision for nowhere safe to stay.
David Mackintosh
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and for the work that has gone on behind the scenes to get the methodology. I note from the LGA’s response that it asked for this provision to be looked at in the future. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East is not in his place, but I am sure that the Communities and Local Government Committee stands ready to help look at that again in the future, if required to do so. I make the offer, I am sure on behalf of all members of the Select Committee, that we will be willing to help and look at anything, going forward.
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that kind offer. The Select Committee has taken an active role in the Bill—in fact, as he is well aware, a number of changes have been made as a direct result of its intervention. We will certainly look to review the policy and how it is working in practice once there has been time for the system to bed in. Bear in mind that the policy will not be implemented on the day that the Bill gets Royal Assent; it will be reviewed ahead of the new burdens assessment in the 2021 financial year. New burdens reviews do not lead to automatic recoupment of overpayments. Any review will be based on assumptions and estimates, although informed by experience on the ground. The actual policy cost may differ between local authorities, depending on how they choose to implement it. That is an important point, which we need to take into account.
Michael Tomlinson
On finance, it has been indicated that several amendments will be tabled in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South was talking about a different thing; I am talking about the specific amendments, which may place additional burdens on local authorities, that may be tabled when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. Will the Minister look at that issue again and give reassurance on it when the time comes?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is as perceptive as ever and makes an excellent point. Clearly, amendments will be tabled on Report. I assure him that anything in those amendments that constitutes a new burden on local authorities will be dealt with in the same way. There is nothing in the statement that we have already made that is not in the Bill today. If there are any additional costs as a result of amendments tabled on Report, they will quite correctly be dealt with separately from the £48 million that we announced in our statement. I hope that gives him some reassurance.
Amendments 16 and 17 represent the best balance between the interests of tenants, landlords and local housing authorities. I believe that the schedule of new burdens costs that we have set out for the Bill is fair and we did our homework in relation to the calculation of those costs. The clause is part of the excellent package that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has brought together with the support of the Select Committee, the Government, housing charities, and in the main local authorities. I am pleased to propose that the Committee supports the amendments and clause 1 as amended.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
If I understood you this morning, Mr Chope, you would like single speeches addressing both the amendments and clause stand part. That is a sensible way to proceed. I observe in parenthesis that I would be the first person to be accused of being a hypocrite if I was to deprecate a filibuster. The only thing that I say is that in my experience, one usually does that when one does not care for the legislation one is talking over. I say to the promoter, the hon. Member for Harrow East, that I would hate, for the sake of posterity, for this debate to be one of rather more quantity than quality. I will try to set a good example by being clear, precise and concise while I hope covering the relevant points.
It would be churlish to say that the Government or the promoter have laboured mightily and brought forth a mouse by spending several weeks mulling over what we should do with clause 1 and then deleting 95% of it. I also asked those advising us to have a look at it and they could not come up with much better than deleting most of clause 1. So there it is; that is where we are. There is broad agreement that the new slimline version of clause 1 is better than the old version, so I concede that point. There were technical and policy difficulties with the original version and the more that everyone looked into them, the more irreconcilable and unresolvable they became. Although the revised version is better, there are still problems. I will not ask the Minister to respond to those problems today, but do ask him at least to look at some of the concerns and to consider, perhaps before the Bill emerges in the other place, whether clause 1 does the entire job.
Rather than spend a long time outlining the problems, let me just give two examples. The Association of Housing Advice Services said:
“There is government guidance that requires councils to make a decision on a homelessness application within 33 working days (about 42 days). As an applicant is now threatened with homelessness as soon as they receive a section 21 notice, we must take the homelessness application at that point. Which means we will need to determine the application…before the S21 notice has expired and often whilst prevention work is still being undertaken. If we succeed in preventing”—
that is the local authorities—
“homelessness after the application has been decided, we have to formally end it with an offer of accommodation; which is unnecessarily bureaucratic as they (still) have somewhere to live. Currently if we are negotiating with a landlord, we can delay starting the homelessness application (as they are not yet threatened with homelessness) until that fails.”
However, Shelter says that
“in cases where the prevention assistance does not prevent proceedings or help find an alternative home, the amendment to Clause 1 would allow the local housing authority say that the applicant was not actually homeless right up to the date of eviction. Only homeless applicants in priority need are entitled to interim accommodation, so authorities would not be obliged to provide interim accommodation until the applicant actually became homeless, which could still be interpreted by local authorities as the date of the eviction.”
I am not saying that I entirely agree with either of those points, but they are worthy of consideration and are caveats to how the amended clause would run. They are not necessarily consistent with each other; indeed, in some respects they contradict each other. I just feel that we may not have resolved the fundamental issue with clause 1, although we have gone some way towards that.
My other concern relates to Government amendment 17 to clause 1, which refers to a “valid” section 21 notice having been served. What is a valid section 21 notice? I earned quite a lot of money arguing over that for a number of years, but in the end it was not my decision—it was the judge’s decision as to what would be valid. In this case, I assume it will be the view of the local authority, but will it be correct and does it have the full facts on which to determine what is a valid section 21 notice? These things can be quite technical and complicated, and there is a body of case law, not surprisingly, as a no-fault eviction, which is what the section 21 notice is all about, behoves representatives and courts to look even more closely at the technical side of the matter.
Notwithstanding what the Minister said about section 8 notices, the new version of the clause does deal with section 21 notices. Again, these are technical legal points, so rather than the Minister responding today, he might want to go away and reconsider them before Report or even before the Bill goes through the other place. I was not entirely persuaded as to whether there is some inequality between the serving of a section 21 notice—a no-fault process—and a section 8 notice. Of course, there are other types of tenancy as well, some of which are less secure than assured shorthold tenancies, which can be terminated by a notice to quit. Where do they stand? Given that the Bill does not deal with the myriad tenancies under housing law, but with anyone who is made homeless, we need to able to deal with those matters comprehensively. I entirely understand the problem of trying to draft something that deals with section 8 notices as well as section 21 notices, but nevertheless we need to hear a little more at some stage about how the clause will impact on those tenancies—a minority, probably—that are terminated other than by a section 21 notice.
Will Quince
Having seen the announcement from the Government for the £48 million, I was surprised to see the response from the LGA. I expected its response to be, “It’s not enough. It’s never enough. It cannot possibly be enough.” In fact, its response was the opposite. It agreed fully with the Department’s methodology, which is a huge credit to the Minister and his departmental officials. Why does the hon. Member for Hammersmith suggest it is not enough? The LGA has only said that the measure should be reviewed in two years’ time, two thirds of the way into the three-year funding formula.
Andy Slaughter
We can all read the statements in the way that we wish to. Everybody wants the Bill to succeed. In the statements made not just by the LGA but by London councils and non-governmental organisations, I detected a sigh and a comment that seemed to suggest, “We hope this will succeed”. I did not see anything in the LGA’s statement or any other statement that said the funding was sufficient. The LGA’s statement welcomed the Minister’s comments in Committee that the Government wish to fully fund the Bill. I do not think it specifically said—hence the comment on review—that that was necessarily going to be the case. Let me rely on my own counsel rather than the LGA’s in this matter. I am simply raising our concerns.
It is difficult—I will concede this to the Government—to come up with a figure, because we are in new territory. I appreciate that. That should be an absolute reason why the Government should adopt the view of the LGA and agree to a review. Perhaps the Minister will say whether we will get a review. If it is right that none of us can be absolutely certain, we need to know, within the time that the money is still being paid out, which is effectively one to two years, whether the money will be sufficient.
David Mackintosh
It is fair to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Department for Communities and Local Government yesterday circulated to local authorities and us the background behind the funding of the new burdens for this Bill, which includes quite a lot of information about the assumptions. It talks in great detail about Wales, where there was a 28% increase in cases, and works out a sensible assumption for England. It is helpful to point that out to the Committee. I wonder whether he has seen it.
Andy Slaughter
Of course I have seen it and read it. I was slightly surprised that it appears to have come personally from the DCLG statistician, rather than the Minister. I do not know whether that is to allow the Minister, if it all turns to dust, to say, “Oh, it was just some functionary who produced that”—[Interruption.] Let me take the points one at a time.
First, there is the matter of quantum. Although we do not have absolute figures, because we are in new territory, all the indications so far—I quoted some of them earlier—suggest that £48 million is not going to touch the sides. I am sure the responsible Minister saw the article in “Inside Housing” on 21 December, in which a number of councils volunteered what they think it will cost them. Lewisham, for example, said it would cost £2.38 million per year and Ealing said it would cost £2.55 million per year. AHAS estimated, and I think the figure has increased since then, that the 32 London boroughs will have a combined bill of £161 million in the first year, which is substantially in excess of £35 million.
I appreciate that even in the two pages of methodology there has been no attempt yet to divvy the sum up among authorities, and I think one can anticipate that London authorities are going to get a larger share than some rural or district authorities. Nevertheless, there is such a disparity between what the professional bodies and local authorities have estimated and what the Minister has provided. It is, shall we say, unlikely that it is going to fully fund, even in the first year, the local authorities’ new responsibilities.
Mr Jones
We do not recognise some of the very high figures that have been quoted. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is within the scope of the Bill and what will be within the new burdens. There is also the question whether the savings that will offset the costs have been taken into account. Has the hon. Gentleman done any homework and asked the local authorities in question whether they have considered those issues?
Andy Slaughter
The Minister is getting ahead of me. I am dealing simply with quantum now. I will come on to the methodology next and the savings as a third point.
There is an estimated gap of nearly £200 million by the end of the decade in local authorities’ current homelessness provision. If one looks at the fact that London boroughs spent £633 million in the last year for which figures were available—2014-15—on temporary accommodation, including £170 million of their own funds, and the fact that they are already subject to substantial reductions in funding, I am not surprised that they are very concerned about that. That is purely on the issue of quantum.
On the issue of methodology, I am not sure how far it takes us. Although something is better than nothing, I found it a slightly odd way of presenting the background information. I would like to see a full impact assessment. I appreciate that we may need to wait until we know exactly what the Bill is going to do. There may need to be a review of provision—the methodology concedes that—but once we know how the sum is going to be broken down, I would like to know exactly how the Government can justify their claim that this will be new burdens funding and that it will be fully funded.
On the issue of savings, of course we all hope for savings, not only cash savings but savings in human misery, bureaucracy and unnecessary action. I am, however, less sanguine than the Minister about the fact that that will all be resolved in one to two years. In part I say that because much of what the Bill will do is to encourage what we have often heard called a culture, a culture of local authorities doing more by way of prevention. Yet in a lot of the busiest authorities, prevention work is done—in 80% of cases in Camden, for example—so quite a lot is going on, and I am not persuaded that we will see an immediate culture change, or that that culture change will produce savings.
Savings are likely to come by averting homelessness for priority need cases, because that is where the substantial burden of cost comes. At the moment part of the point of the Bill is that a lot of local authorities are not taking their responsibilities seriously in relation to non-priority need cases. Thereby, if we simply see an increased focus on those cases on which there is not current expenditure, or people being turned away, I do not quite see where the savings are coming from or where the supposition comes that within two years there will be nil cost to local government. To be perfectly honest, I just do not believe it.
We could sit here all afternoon saying, “We think it is”, or, “We think it isn’t”, but surely the sensible course is to have an early review to see whether the LGA’s caution or the Minister’s option is justified.
Mr Burrowes
I want to encourage an optimistic view, perhaps even a realistic one. The Welsh choice led to that 69% decrease in the first year. I understand that the assumption in the figures we are discussing is for a 30% decrease in homelessness, but is that not seeking simply to follow the Welsh model, which is a great success? The shadow Minister, however, says that there will be hardly any reduction or savings. He cannot say that. What is his concern with 30%? Is 30% too optimistic? Where would he say there will be reduction?
Andy Slaughter
The principal way in which a case could be resolved in Wales was by finding accommodation. We have been talking about Westminster for half a day, and we know that for the authorities with the most pressing housing need, finding accommodation is virtually impossible. It is not impossible in Wales; it is virtually impossible in many London boroughs. Resolving those issues will be expensive in any event—there is a higher cost attached, whether it is to mediation, landlord incentive, deposit schemes or whatever—but there is also less ability to do anything, so it will take more time and be more difficult to do. So yes, I am pessimistic about it compared with the situation in Wales.
If we do not know the answer, let us make sure that we build in a mechanism to ensure that we do know. I am sure that the Scots will agree with this, even if Conservative Members do not, but we do not want the initiative to fail, and certainly not for lack of resources. I will be delighted to make a public statement of having been totally wrongheaded about this if it turns out that within 18 months there is no additional cost to local authorities under the provisions of the Bill. At the moment, however, I am somewhat dubious about that. The Minister may call my bluff simply by agreeing to what the LGA wants.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman talks about 18 months’ time. Does he accept that the chances are that, in 18 months’ time, we will have only a matter of months’ worth of evidence on the effect of the policy and the costs and savings from it? It needs to be looked at over a longer period. The LGA is saying two years, but that is not 18 months.
Andy Slaughter
I said 18 months because the money runs out in two years, as a maximum, but if the Minister wants to say two years, let us say two years.
My final point is one that I suspect the Minister has heard before. It is difficult to look at the Bill, especially the funding element of it, in a vacuum. There is a supply crisis, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) urged the Government before Christmas to make additional properties available that were dedicated to relieving rough sleeping. Supply is a many-headed issue, but there is a specific issue about rehousing those who are in a particularly vulnerable position.
Mr Jones
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne may talk a good game, but the Government are playing one. We are putting in place move-on accommodation, and we are going to spend £100 million on providing 2,000 places for the very people that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is talking about. Does he welcome that?
Andy Slaughter
I gave way to the Minister because he was so insistent that I thought he had something new to say.
Supply is an issue, and so is security. We know—Government Members have said it today—that the biggest cause of homelessness is ending private sector tenancies, because of the opportunity for “no fault” possession and because of rising rents and landlord attitudes. Our very sensible and moderate proposals for longer tenancies and for controlling rents would be a major way of controlling homelessness. The Government cannot ignore their own actions in relation to local housing allowance, the benefit cap and all the measures that we have heard mentioned today. I pray in aid Westminster City Council and other Conservative authorities, which are saying that they cannot cope because of the additional pressures that the Government are putting on them. Those pressures go right across the board for local authorities.
I will not labour the point. I simply say that the Government need to take a holistic approach and say, “Yes, of course we want the Bill’s provisions to work and we want to fund them properly.” However, we cannot do only that. We have to look at where the accommodation is going to be, at why people are increasingly coming to local authorities—there has been a substantial, 40% increase in the use of temporary accommodation over the last four years—and at the effects of other policies that are directly contrary to the intentions behind the Bill. I put that on the record. The question of money relates not just to the specific matters raised in the Bill, but to how the system works as a whole. At the moment the system is creaking incredibly. It is not getting better; it is getting worse.
Michael Tomlinson
I begin by picking up on one or two points from the hon. Member for Hammersmith. On a positive, optimistic note, let me start by saying what I agree with in his analysis of clause 1. He mentioned several other forms of tenancies, such as less secure tenancies; perhaps he could also have mentioned licences or those that are subject to a notice to quit rather than the more strict section 21 notice or court procedure. I agree with his analysis on that point. There are a wide range of tenancies that could have been encompassed within the clause but are not. I suspect that his analysis is right: that that is because of the sheer difficulty of juggling all the different potential tenancies. Look at the different Acts that we have to deal with, and that he had to deal with when in practice: the 1980, 1985, 1988 and 1996 Acts, all with varying levels and layers of interplay. I suspect that is why we find clause 1 drafted as it is.
I agree, to that extent, that as drafted and certainly as amended, the clause does not encompass a wide range of different forms of tenancy, especially those less secure. I will come back to section 8 and its interplay with section 21. However, I take issue with the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members on criticising and being too antagonistic towards no-fault notices and that regime. I agree that it is desirable to have as long-form tenancies as possible and I was heartened by the Minister’s submission that confirmed that the average tenancy is four years. The Minister is nodding, so I heard that correctly.
Of course, that is not the whole picture but four years is a significant period. My concern, if no-fault tenancies are simply swept aside or undermined, is that landlords and potential landlords will be put off purchasing and letting out properties, so we would be in a worse position. That is a concern that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and his colleagues should look out for if they seek to undermine no-fault tenancies and those who are, on the whole, perfectly good, decent landlords, as we heard this morning. I will pick up later the points the hon. Gentleman raised on finances and his self-professed pessimistic view on life. I will encourage him to have a slightly rosier view by the time my speech finishes. Whether I succeed is another story. I see he is busy looking at his papers.
I start with sounding alarm bells on what the Minister mentioned in relation to finance of further potential burdens on local authorities. I mentioned earlier that I had had meetings with East Dorset District Council. My constituency covers three local authorities—East Dorset, Purbeck and Poole—and each will be concerned about additional burdens if additional resources do not match them.
I want to come back to finances but I was heartened by the reassurance that, if there are to be further amendments—as we understand there will be on Report—there will be an opportunity for additional funding. I simply ask that the Minister, as he has done at this stage, gives an early indication when the new clause is considered on Report of the level of funding he assesses as necessary.
I support the principle of clause 1 but my concern relates to notices given under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. Although amendment 17 looks like it offers a neat proposal, in fact it sweeps away any reference to a valid notice being given under section 8. The Minister began to give an explanation of why notices given under section 8 are to be swept away, but I fear he did not give us as complete an answer as he may or should have done.
Section 8 notices are important. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith noted, section 21 notices are no-fault notices, whereas section 8 notices are given where there has been fault, where there has been a breach of a tenancy agreement. Section 8 notices are divided into two parts: mandatory and discretionary. If an allegation that a tenant has breached a mandatory obligation is proved, a judge as of right will give a possession order. That is the mandatory part of the notices given under section 8. If it is an allegation under the discretionary part, there is discretion as to whether a judge would make an order for possession. I therefore fear that throwing all section 8 notices out might not have been as wise a move as it looked, because what section 8 and section 21 notices have in common—at least partly—is that they may inevitably lead to a possession order.
Although I note the reasons that the Minister gave for keeping section 21 notices in—they are mandatory, and it is all but likely that they will lead to a possession order in any event—those reasons also apply to the mandatory part of notices given under section 8. Take arrears of rent: if there are two months’ worth of arrears, both when the notice is issued and when the matter arrives at court, a possession order is mandatory, as it is in a no-fault procedure in relation to section 21.
However, I take on board what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said: there might still be a dispute about whether the correct notice has been given under section 21. I have stopped practising—I understand he has, too—but since October 2015, there has been a new regime for section 21 notices. They now have to be done on a mandatory form, whereas under the old system, when I was practising, there was no prescribed form for what a section 21 notice looked like.
I fear that throwing out all section 8 notices narrows things down too much, which is potentially unhelpful for those who inevitably will end up homeless. That is the thrust of clause 1 and why it has been devised: to help those who inevitably will end up homeless by inserting into section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 a change to the definition of homelessness. If it is inevitable that an individual—a tenant—will end up homeless, it is worth looking again at whether the mandatory parts of notices under section 8 should still fall into clause 1 as well.
We all want as many people helped as possible. I said I will come back to finance, but it is relevant in this instance as well. The more people who are helped earlier, the more it will help with the costs to them, local authorities, and housing associations or anyone who needs to take proceedings in court. It will also help in respect of the human cost. My understanding is that the clause’s intention is to help people who are inevitably going to end up homeless, so I ask the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill’s promoter, to address this point: why have all section 8 notices been taken out, instead of retaining just the mandatory ones, where it is all but inevitable that a possession order will be granted?
I want to make a related point that shows the complexity of the Housing Acts. Perhaps at some stage a Government will be bold enough to look at a consolidation Bill—or perhaps not. Section 89 of the Housing Act 1980 is still in force. It relates to pleas of exceptional hardship, but that would only delay possession and not stop it. It is not a defence; it is only a mechanism to delay the inevitable. Even with that in place, it is still inevitable that people will be made homeless, and therefore help should be provided at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Burrowes
We are grateful for my hon. Friend’s expertise on this issue. He has spoken about section 8, but section 7 is also not part of the amended clause, so should further consideration be given to including section 7?
Michael Tomlinson
May I clarify that my hon. Friend means section 7 of the Housing Act 1988?
Michael Tomlinson
Section 7 is important, because it states whether possession is mandatory or discretionary. It refers to schedule 2 to the Act, which has 17 parts, the first eight of which list mandatory grounds for possession. The ninth to 17th grounds for possession are discretionary. Section 7 of the 1988 Act, which, if I understand correctly, is what my hon. Friend referred to, is what distinguishes between mandatory grounds and discretionary grounds. I can see he looks slightly puzzled, so perhaps he means something else. If he did mean section 7 of the 1988 Act, it gives effect to schedule 2 and a body of law. Part I of the schedule sets out the mandatory grounds and part II sets out the discretionary grounds. It effectively feeds into notices given and possession proceedings under section 8 of the 1988 Act.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on yesterday’s long-awaited announcement of funding for the Bill. The first thing to say is that the lateness of the announcement combined with its lack of detail is somewhat at odds with the cross-party spirit in which the Bill is being brought forward. All members of the Committee want major reform of homelessness legislation, so that it has a transformative impact on homelessness, but Opposition Members have always been clear that the Bill’s success will depend on the Government’s commitment to resourcing the new burdens in the Bill realistically and properly.
I am concerned about several aspects of yesterday’s announcement. I want to put those concerns on record, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them. First, the Government must publish more detail on the formula and the assumptions used to calculate the funding commitment. How does that commitment relate to local authorities’ estimates of costs? The briefing states that it does relate to them, but does not say how. What are the assumed activities that it will fund?
A number of the Bill’s clauses change the way that local authorities will work with applicants who find themselves homeless, but the funding announcement does not make explicit the nature of the activities that the money is expected to fund. The briefing talks about an increase in cases, but does not say how local authorities’ activities will differ under the new prevention duty. It is based on the assumption that practice will change and that local authorities’ workload will increase, but I am simply not sure how that detail has been worked through. How do the new activities that local authorities will undertake under the new prevention duty relate to an increase in applicants, who may come forward earlier in the process? How are those two dynamics flushed out in calculating the funding? How does the funding commitment take into account regional variance in cost and, in particular, the much higher costs faced by London boroughs?
From what I can tell from the detail behind the announcement, there appears to be an assumption that most of the additional money will be spent on administration and officer costs, not costs related to, for example, supplementing somebody’s rental payments in order to sustain their tenancy during a period in which they are working through a benefit sanction. We need to understand that, because local authorities need to understand how the funding can be applied practically, and whether it is enough to make the difference we want.
It is important that the Government publish the distribution of funding across the country, by local authority, as soon as possible. On the face of it, if the funding is evenly spread, which I do not think it will be, £300,000 will be allocated per council area. If that is the distribution, or if the distribution looks anything like that, that is of great concern to me. It is significantly less than the sum—possibly considerably more than £1 million—allocated to the London Borough of Southwark under the trailblazers programme. That sum was presumably what the Government believed Southwark needed to undertake that work as a trailblazer. We need to understand how the distribution will work across the country and how it will relate to local authorities’ calculations about their additional costs.
Finally, it is of some concern that the Government’s announcement shows funding for two years, but none at all for the third year. While the Bill is clearly intended to reduce costs and homelessness, the desperate shortage of genuinely affordable housing, in London in particular, and the need for other measures—such as, in my view, tenure reform of the private rented sector—to help to reduce homelessness, it is at least possible, if not probable, that the reduction in costs and homelessness will not be entirely achieved within the first two years.
Without a commitment to looking again at funding beyond the first two years, and to fund local authorities as needed beyond that period, this really does not look like a long-term commitment from the Government to sorting out homelessness; it looks like a headline announcement to tick a box that says that the Government have fulfilled their pledge to fund the new burdens in the Bill. I am concerned that, having received the announcement very late in the day, we are left without time to consult properly with local authorities at a detailed, fine-grain, local level, or to scrutinise properly the level of funding, what it will fund and how local authorities have worked that through. Without that, I am concerned that this funding commitment simply lacks credibility. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm the funding arrangements beyond the first two years, and to come back with the further detail I have requested.
The lateness of the announcement, combined with the announcement we will receive and further amendments to the Bill on Report, somewhat undermine effective scrutiny of the Bill. Scrutiny, particularly of a Bill that commands cross-party support, is about strengthening legislation and making it as good and effective as possible. It is an important process from which the Government have nothing to fear. I regret that we have received this information so late in the day that the Committee, members of which have such a significant amount and depth of knowledge of homelessness and the process in the Bill, has not had the opportunity to scrutinise and debate it in greater depth. I therefore hope that the Minister will provide additional information as soon as possible, and that on Report we will have an opportunity to debate and scrutinise the clause with the benefit of further input from local authorities.
I represent two local authorities, Lambeth and Southwark, which are at the forefront of the intensification of the problem of homelessness. They are both under extreme pressure from the growth of homelessness in recent years, and are both doing the best they can on this significant set of challenges. Both authorities welcome the principle and intention behind the Bill, but they cannot be expected to work miracles. They need the Government to put the resources into officer time, and the funding necessary to mitigate and prevent homelessness properly within existing arrangements; into the provision of more genuinely affordable housing; and, perhaps more importantly than anything else in the very short term, into the reform of the private rented sector, so that authorities do not feel the pressure of successive no-fault evictions under the section 21 process presenting at their door.
Will Quince
I support clause 1. Extending the period for those threatened with homelessness from 28 to 56 days is one of the Bill’s core elements, and it will make the biggest difference.
I very much welcome the clear definition of tenants as homeless once a valid section 21 notice has expired. I have been one of the largest critics of local councils that routinely dish out the advice to stay in a property until the bailiffs arrive. I have had numerous people come to my constituency surgeries who have reached crisis. They went to the council at the first available opportunity, when they knew they were getting into difficulty—they were getting into rent arrears or had complex needs, as the Minister pointed out earlier, or problems such as relationship breakdown—and their landlord was looking to end the tenancy, but they were told at that point by the local authority, “Stay in the property. Come back to us when you’re in crisis—the point at which the bailiffs are knocking on your door.” I have raised concerns about that for numerous reasons. Apart from the financial pressure it puts on that family, there is a huge social cost to them as well. I have two young children, and I cannot imagine what that is like.
I had a call recently from a constituent who told me that the bailiffs were at the door, and because she would not let them in, they smashed the window and tried to encourage and coax the children to open the door while she was not looking. That will stay with those children forever. If local councils are giving out this advice, it is disgraceful.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that that approach discourages landlords from taking in people who may be on benefits, which reduces the number of houses available to them?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is right. The reputation of local housing authorities among landlords is, in my view, at an all-time low, because of the approach that those authorities are taking to section 21 notices—not all of them; many are very good, but some take this approach, and it leads to terrible reputational damage among landlords.
For the first time in our nation’s history, there are more private-sector lets than social lets. The role of the private sector is vital, but we may undermine that by the approach we take with local authorities. If I were a landlord, would I take someone who is on social security benefits, or recommended by the LHA? I do not know the answer to that, but if there were other options, I probably would take them. At the moment, because of a shortage of housing supply, and because of the demand, landlords have other options, hence we see rent increases. The advice to stay until the bailiff arrives is not good advice in nearly all instances.
Michelle Donelan
Does my hon. Friend accept that failing to act early not only hinders our ability to combat homelessness but allows complex needs and problems to escalate over time? Many charities in my constituency have echoed the message to me that the quicker we act and the earlier we get in, the less those needs will escalate and develop. That will save the NHS, local authorities and other sectors money in the long run.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that prevention is always better than cure, but there is also the question of rewarding the right kind of behaviour. We want to encourage people to come to us at the earliest possible opportunity, when they are not in crisis but can foresee a risk of homelessness. Then we can take the most appropriate action. She is right to say that at that early opportunity people have options, but when they reach a crisis they have few, and they are expensive.
To return to the point about which I am concerned, I hope that the Minister can give me comfort on the Government amendment, because this is important. As I have said, I am the first to chastise local authorities or housing authorities that routinely advise tenants to stay in the property, for all the reasons I gave—I recently met representatives of my local housing authority, and I have been a critic of it—but on occasion, that can be the right advice. A hypothetical example might be a local authority that has no option but to rehouse a family out of area that week; it might work with the landlord, and say, “I understand why you have done what you have, that you would like them to leave, and that you have served the section 21 notice, but we are happy to cover the rent, if you are happy for the tenants to stay there for three more weeks, when we know there will be a more suitable property locally.” My concern—this is why I like the original wording—is that we should include conditions in which it could be considered reasonable to stay until the expiry of the possession order.
Michael Tomlinson
I invite my hon. Friend to look at my submission on section 8 notices. As he has acknowledged, section 21 notices are no-fault notices, and what he has described, rightly and properly, are cases where tenants have fallen into arrears of rent, which would ordinarily come under a notice served under section 8. If there are sufficient rent arrears, that is a mandatory ground, and therefore homelessness is inevitable, and the case should be caught by the clause. Does he agree?
Will Quince
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point based on his experience and practice. I hope that the Minister will answer those points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham made a good point about emphasising early intervention. The clause encourages those at risk of homelessness to seek advice at the earliest opportunity, and I worry at the moment about the advice being given to local authorities. This advice disseminates quickly across local authority areas so people know that is being given out and it discourages them from going to the local authority. For example, first and foremost, they will often go to their Member of Parliament, the local council or a citizens advice bureau. If they say the likely advice from the council is this, they will be reluctant to take it. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the crisis point is far too late. We must intervene earlier, which will lead to far fewer people reaching a crisis.
Finally, I want to touch on funding. I was pleased about the funding announcement. As the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood rightly pointed out, it would have been helpful to have it sooner, but nevertheless it was useful to have it before this sitting. I welcome the £48 million and, as I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I was interested to read the LGA’s response because, given the fact that it is a membership organisation representing local authorities across the country, I was expecting its response to be, “It’s not enough money.” I expected that response whatever the sum was.
It is hugely to the credit of the Minister and the officials in his Department for using the methodology that the LGA concurs, rightly in my view, is the right one and hence why a rather bland statement does not question the amount of money. It would certainly be worthwhile to review it after two years. Nevertheless it was somewhat disappointing, given the reaction of the LGA, to hear the response from the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Dulwich and West Norwood. There is no indication from the membership body of local authorities—which, incidentally, will be the LHAs implementing the Bill—to suggest that the funding is not sufficient.
Mr Burrowes
Good authorities are already, before the legislation is in place, fulfilling the mandate to do a lot of prevention, so they will welcome the fact that they will now have a lot more money than before.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He is right to suggest that good local authorities up and down the country are already doing a lot of this work, which eats into other budgets, so for them this is very valuable. We know there will be a transition, training requirements and a cultural change within organisations. LHAs—I spoke to my LHA only last week on this very point—do not want just to implement the Bill in full; they want to do it well. They want to make sure it works and they want emphasis and focus on prevention.
I very much support the clause, but I would like some reassurance from the Minister that there will still be flexibility in the advice, particularly in relation to ending a tenancy via a section 21 notice.
David Mackintosh
I share some of the concerns that have been raised about the timing by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. I also share my hon. Friend’s view that the LGA has put forward a much more positive response than anticipated. I agree that there should be a review of the funding formula going forward and I also agree with some of the comments by my colleague on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, that the Bill alone will not solve some of the homelessness issues. The Select Committee recently had evidence sessions with the Director General, Housing and Planning, and questioned her on some of these issues. She rightly pointed out, as I am sure will the Minister, that the Government are planning to publish very soon a White Paper on housing, which may address some of the issues that my colleague on the Select Committee raised. They are valid points, but will not necessarily be addressed in the Bill.
Moving on to the amendments, I am pleased that they have been raised. They help to prevent some unintended consequences. For example, amendment 16 will help to prevent the trauma of people and families being forced to wait for a local authority to get involved and a bailiff to knock at the door, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. In my experience, the sooner a council can start helping, the more help can be offered without a long-term effect on people’s wellbeing or credit rating because of county court judgments. We have heard about that throughout our discussions.
I worry about the effects that we see under the current rules, including tenants being served with eviction notices. I am sure that all hon. Members have dealt with families who have contacted them when faced with eviction, which often comes out of the blue, and as well as the practical challenges there is also huge trauma for people to deal with. They face having to leave their home and often their community or social support networks, perhaps without much notice, and then they face being told by the council that they cannot be helped until they have been physically evicted.
Therefore, I am pleased that amendment 17 allows those households that have received an eviction notice, even if it has not expired, to be treated as “threatened with homelessness”, thereby coming under the duty on local authorities to prevent the household from becoming homeless, as we discussed at length when we considered clause 4. This is a really positive step forwards that will make a huge difference in the future to people facing eviction.
As for the rest of the clause, when the Communities and Local Government Committee started looking into homelessness, we developed a clear idea of things that could be done to help to prevent homelessness. Indeed, other work that has been done by the all-party group on ending homelessness has also fed into the hopes and aspirations that the law will be changed.
However, I must confess that things have moved much faster than I had imagined and we now look forward to this Bill becoming law—hopefully. The Bill being chosen by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has propelled this agenda forward so much quicker than we could have hoped. I am grateful that that is happening, but I also have some questions for the Minister about how the Bill can be implemented, which I hope he can address in his response.
How can local authorities cope with this sudden change in legislation when the Bill becomes law, as anticipated? What lessons can we learn from the changes implemented in Wales and what detailed measures are being put in place to ensure that that best practice is spread as far and wide as possible? How fast can training be put in place, not only for local authority staff but for other staff in the public sector, so that they can properly understand these big changes in the legislation and any new responsibilities they might have to refer people at risk of becoming homeless? Also, I urge the Minister to talk to his counterparts in other Government Departments, to make sure that they are aware of these changes and that that knowledge filters down through them.
Michael Tomlinson
I note my hon. Friend’s comments and he has confined them specifically to section 21. I hope that he heard my suggestion about section 8 notices; it may be that there is some policy reason why it cannot be done. However, does he agree that this issue should at least be looked at again, to check that for the mandatory grounds—where possession of a property is all but inevitable—there is a good reason why those section 8 notices should not be brought back in relation to clause 1?
David Mackintosh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue and I did indeed hear the argument he made so eloquently earlier. I am sure that the Minister and his officials also heard it, and that this issue will be looked at properly before we move forward. It is important that we consider all the options available. We have spent a lot of time in Committee debating matters, but I know the Minister is still considering some of those ideas.
As for this clause, I strongly welcome the relative speed at which things have developed, from the Select Committee inquiry to—I hope—a change in the law, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s update on how he can consider implementing in the future some of the changes that we have discussed.
Mr Burrowes
This clause goes to the heart of the concern that led to this Bill, namely the reality that the Select Committee and others have identified, which is that the termination of assured shorthold tenancies has become the single biggest cause of homelessness. While we can talk about the issue of the supply of affordable homes, we must go to the heart of this problem and this clause seeks to do so, in a more flexible way than other measures.
I will just talk about where support can come from and where it can feed into the issue of the supply of affordable rented homes. The Select Committee itself drew attention to the response of the National Landlords Association to the draft Bill. The association said:
“There are numerous reasons why a landlord might be reluctant to let their property to such households, but in the NLA’s experience they can generally be summarised as ‘risk’”.
Clause 1, as amended, will provide a positive move to reduce the risk to which landlords are exposed, therefore increasing their confidence in letting to vulnerable tenants. In my borough, and no doubt in other boroughs as well, the supply of homes available for rent to those on benefits, and particularly to those who are homeless, is decreasing. Unless there is supply, we will struggle to fulfil all our ambitions for the Bill. The amendments will help.
Michael Tomlinson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support on this. If there is a substantive reason why section 8 should not form part of clause 1, so be it, but he raises an important example. He mentioned antisocial behaviour, which in fact will fall within the discretionary grounds that are often relied on alongside a lesser outstanding rent. Where two months’ rent or more is outstanding both at the time of the service of the notice and the time of arriving in court, that falls under the mandatory grounds. It is worth looking at it in the round.
Mr Burrowes
Yes, and I look forward to hearing the Minister do that for us. Plainly, the essence of clause 1 is to prevent various local authorities, advice centres and indeed Members of Parliament from being complicit in a failed system by saying simply, “Sorry, nothing can happen until the bailiffs knock on the door.” We are dealing then with crisis management rather than with any kind of prevention. The trigger is the important element. Amendments 16 and 17 seek to change the trigger from an expiry notice under section 21 to the serving of the notice. I know that that has been particularly asked for and welcomed by the Association of Housing Advice Services, which has wanted to ensure early opportunities for prevention.
It is also worth recognising that there are some noises off. Not everyone agrees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East will know. Indeed, such noises off have come his way—and the Select Committee’s way—from his local council. Harrow Council says:
“If applicants are to be considered as homeless as soon as they receive a notice, then local authorities are not going to be able to prevent homelessness…There are at least 14 reasons why a s.21 notice can be invalid and homelessness can be prevented even after a court order using the legal processes and negotiations with a landlord.”
That draws on some of the concerns about the question of a valid notice. The word “valid” was also in clause 1 as originally drafted. No doubt the advice of lawyers and others says that one has to have that word and notices have to be valid. I would nevertheless be interested to hear from my hon. Friend, because his council has expressed concern that notices can be used in a lot of ways.
I understand that notices now cannot simply be used for administrative expediency. There was a time when section 21s were served pretty much when the landlord arrived at the door, as a way of covering all bases. I understand that that has not been allowed since October 2015, but a landlord may try it on, so it is worth ensuring that that bad practice is not allowed, that landlords do not abuse the essence of this trigger and that the notice has proper validity, if I can use that word, and applies genuinely. Section 21 notices have a wide application. Obviously, such a notice being served does not necessarily mean that there is a danger of homelessness, but they will allow the prevention duties to be put in place.
I also want to highlight some of the caution expressed by Crisis, which has been involved in the Bill from an early stage. I understand that Crisis had reservations about amending clause 1. In its briefing note—this draws out the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester about his campaign against a crisis-management approach on receipt of a bailiff notice—it says that the removal of clause 1(2) will preserve
“the status quo—meaning that local authorities should follow the existing Code of Guidance which clearly states that households should be considered homeless if they approach the local authority with an expired section 21 notice.”
The amendments will therefore perhaps leave the door open for local authorities not to follow good practice and for people who are considered homeless being put back in that situation. We need to nail that down and ensure that all authorities are signed up to and delivering on the codes of guidance, empowered by their statutory form, as well as revised clause 1.
On funding, it is worth giving the Minister and the Government a little more encouragement and support. Frankly, without the Bill—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East—we would not have got the extra £48 million, which we should really welcome; it is a significant amount of money. As we have all said from the very beginning, the Bill will not solve homelessness on its own, but it is an important tool in the box and encourages the good practice that is out there to be spread among councils. As I said earlier, good councils will welcome the incentive to do more of what they have been doing with existing funding, and the councils that are not doing anything will be encouraged with a carrot and stick approach. The Minister will no doubt use his codes of practice tool as well as some carrots, including funding, to say, “Get on and do what we all say should happen.”
There should be broad agreement for the additional money, which is welcome, but I recognise the context in which the funding is provided—the LHA freeze and the benefits cap implications. I represent a London constituency that has a deprivation profile that is going in the wrong direction and does not fit in with what we await as a new fairer funding formula. We are going in the wrong direction in being able to catch up with the demands on our borough, not least given the lack of affordable housing. I recognise that context, but the funding should be broadly welcomed none the less.
A lot of figures expressing doom and gloom and fear around the funding implications of the duties in the Bill were thrown around on Second Reading, which I think was based on a reading of an old draft Bill rather than the new position. My local authority joined in with that. It is important for local authorities to be up to speed and to recognise that the Bill’s methodology is far removed from that in the Select Committee report, which was based on Bedford Borough Council’s methodology. That council said itself that:
“Using a simple extrapolation model based on the Council’s existing footfall and the range of tools currently available to the Council to prevent and relieve homelessness, the Council would see a tripling of its costs incurred in discharging the duties under the draft bill. This would see an additional £1 million of cost to the Council.”
Unless councils were looking at this carefully, they were making assumptions on funding, such as Bedford saying staffing levels would need to increase by 50%, or the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea estimating that it would cost £1.22 million to comply with the new duty to assess and £2.37 million for the duty to help secure accommodation. I know time has been short since the ministerial statement, but it is important that local authorities look at the current funding in the context of the Government’s methodology, rather than relying on their simple extrapolation model.
Michael Tomlinson
Was my hon. Friend as reassured as I that the Government looked at funding compared with Wales, which already has similar legislation, and made assumptions on that basis? These are significant figures that are based on fact, rather than, dare I say it, just plucking out figures that sound rather inflated.
Mr Burrowes
Yes, and those costs were the exact homelessness spends by local authorities taken from the data submitted by local authorities on P1E forms that are used for the Government’s homelessness statistics. Research by Shelter and Acclaim also helped to inform the costs of prevention actions and of an acceptance. That, together with recognising that there are no doubt differential costs from area to area, is an important part of the reflection in the formula.
On the assumptions, I take issue with the shadow Minister, who took a very gloomy view. He cannot have it both ways. I still expect that there is cross-party support for the principle of the Bill and the fact that it will improve prevention, advice and support for those threatened with homelessness across the country. We cannot sign up to that, but say that is not going to have any effect. It is bound to have an effect over the number of years.
The Government’s assumption is that they will not simply go along in a simplistic way, as they perhaps could have done. Wales saw a 69% decrease in homelessness acceptances in the first year of having its legislation, although I recognise that there are differences in housing supply. We are going to get somewhere near that. The assumption is that there will be a 30% decrease in homelessness acceptances over three years. If the Bill has not led to a 30% decrease in homelessness acceptances in a three-year period, we will be really disappointed. We will not have done a proper job in passing a Bill that is fit for purpose and achieves that. Aside from the funding issue, if it has not practically done that there will be some serious questions to answer.
If there is not a review by the Government, no doubt the Select Committee will be asking some serious questions. If it does not achieve that, why not? It certainly should not come from a lack of funding, so we need to ensure that that is in place. The Government’s other assumption is that Wales saw a 28% increase in costs, so the sensible assumption for England is a 26% increase. That is a fairly reasonable assumption to make.
The Chair
Before I call Flick Drummond, may I say that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has just spoken for 20 minutes? He did not rise in his place at the beginning of the debate, and it is quite difficult to run things unless one has an idea of where things are going.
This will probably appeal to Opposition Members. I will make a Chairman’s trade union point, which is to limit the amount of time the Chair can sit without having a comfort break. We have now been debating this clause for three minutes short of two hours and sitting for more than two hours. I thought we might finish at about quarter past 4 o’clock, but if not, it is my intention to have a comfort break. It does not seem as though people want to truncate their remarks. I cannot control the way in which this runs. Would the Committee like to have a comfort break now?
Mrs Drummond
Unfortunately, I have to leave at 4.15 pm because I am speaking somewhere else. I am happy to withdraw my contributions.
The Chair
I am very grateful. It is difficult if Members speak and do not have a chance to listen to the Minister’s response. In the light of that, will we finish by about quarter past 4 o’clock?
The Chair
I hope everybody is feeling suitably refreshed. For the avoidance of doubt, this Committee can go on sitting beyond the time that the House rises, so do not feel constrained, but I think it is reasonable that we take a break every now and again.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Thank you for the comfort break, Mr Chope. I think Members on both sides of the Committee were ready for it.
As has been said, the Minister’s amendments have been the subject of something of a rollercoaster ride during the deliberations on the draft Bill and the Bill itself. Clause 1 in the original draft Bill was very different from the clause in the draft Bill that was eventually presented to the Select Committee. It was then changed substantially after discussion with the Minister and officials, and we ended up with the Bill that was passed on Second Reading. At that point, many concerns were raised by a large number of groups about clause 1 in particular. I thank all those who came along to see me, particularly towards the end of last year, to discuss the clause. They expressed their concerns and were willing to engage constructively, which enabled us to reach a solution that is acceptable to everyone. They include the National Landlords Association, the Residential Landlords Association, the local government sector—the LGA, London Councils and other local authorities—and homelessness charities including Crisis, Shelter and St Mungo’s.
The process has not been easy. The hon. Member for Hammersmith alluded to that in attempting to gain advice about how to propose amendments that achieve his aims. Given the various different organisations’ requirements, ensuring that we got something that works for everyone has been like squaring a circle.
At times, some of those groups’ interests appeared to me—and, it is fair to say, to the Minister and officials—to be almost irreconcilable. Local authorities said that they want clarity regarding their flexibility to try to save tenancies at risk and to facilitate moves into alternative settled accommodation directly from tenancies that are ending. That is essential if we are going to ensure that they prevent homelessness in as many cases as possible. Landlords and charities were concerned that applicants must receive proactive help so landlords and tenants do not face unnecessary costs and tenants avoid the distressing experience of eviction. It is the custom and practice of many local authorities up and down the country—particularly in London—when they are approached by individuals or families who are threatened with homelessness through a section 21 notice to say, “Go home, wait until the bailiffs arrive and then come to see us. Then we will try to resolve your problem.” As has been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, one of the key concerns in such cases is that landlords incur court and bailiff costs, and the tenants incur costs and end up with county court judgments against them. In many cases, that also overloads—unnecessarily—the justice sector. We therefore have a real dilemma.
The concern expressed right from the start was that in many ways clause 1, without amendment, enshrines many of those bad practices. That was never the intention—it certainly was not my intention as promoter of the Bill. In this process we have therefore tried to ensure that we keep at the centre of our consideration the needs of those who the Bill will affect most: the people who are at risk of losing their home or those who have lost their home.
We have had the wide-ranging involvement of various groups affected by the Bill, in-depth discussions and consideration of potential impacts in order to determine a way forward. It is fair to say that we have looked at all sorts of ways to amend the clause to make it work in the Bill, and we have concluded that that is not the most practical way forward. The amendments tabled by the Minister offer a practical and achievable solution that I hope we can all support and which will be welcomed right across the sector.
Crisis made two points in its briefing that I will refer to. It supports the decision to remove clause 1(2) entirely, to preserve the status quo, which means that local authorities should follow the existing code of guidance that clearly states that households should be considered homeless if they approach the local authority with an expired section 21 notice. Under amendment 17, a household that approaches the local authority with an eviction notice that has yet to expire will automatically be considered to be threatened with homelessness. That will require local authorities to accept a duty to prevent the household from becoming homeless in the first place.
That is a vital aspect of the Bill. The intention in extending the timeframe in which a family or individuals can apply to their local authority for assistance is to ensure that the local authority and the applicants use that time as effectively as possible to prevent a family or individuals from becoming homeless. The risk we have with clause 1 without amendment is that some local authorities—I will not single any out—notwithstanding the fact that they could intervene, would not do so until such time as the family or individuals became homeless.
Michelle Donelan
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the amendment will simplify the Bill? The initial feedback was that the Bill was far too complicated, and we are now working towards a more simplified Bill that will be easier to roll out.
Bob Blackman
Simplifying Bills is always good news. One of the things we originally set out to do was provide detail where required but simplify processes wherever possible. It is fair to say—I ask the Minister when he responds to the debate to make this clear—that we will look at operation in practice. If local authorities are not following both the letter and the spirit of the law, in any code of practice we introduce we will ensure that there are appropriate measures to enforce that, to ensure that local authorities do honour their duties on the concerns rightly raised throughout the Committee.
Michael Tomlinson
My hon. Friend has mentioned private landlords, but he has not as yet mentioned section 8, which of course does not come within the terms of our discussion. I fear that I am pressing this too hard, but I would welcome his explanation as to why a scaled-down version of the original drafting could not be acceptable to all sides. This is obviously a balancing act: we need to cater for landlords as well as tenants. I am completely aware of that, but can he envisage a situation in which a scaled-down version of the original drafting, which just narrowed the scope to the mandatory provisions under a section 8 notice, would be acceptable to all sides?
Bob Blackman
I noted during my hon. Friend’s excellent contribution earlier his very detailed knowledge of the technical issues of housing law.
In the various meetings, we considered the different aspects of section 21 and section 8 and whether we could reach a compromise that would satisfy all parties. The drawback, if we set out all the procedures—almost a flow chart—in the Bill, is that unfortunately we cannot address every single reason why someone becomes homeless; we cannot set out every position in relation to section 8 or section 21 notices. Obviously, what we want to do is to make it clear that the position will be that on receipt of a valid section 21 notice or, indeed, section 8 notice, the local authority will treat that as a means of starting the process of combating the threat of homelessness. That is the clear message that I want to impart as promoter of the Bill. We do not want landlords to have to go off and wait and go through a lengthy legal process, which is of no benefit to them or the tenants and, in the long run, costs the local authority substantial amounts of money when it has to put a homeless family who are in priority need into temporary accommodation. This is one of the issues that we looked at in considerable detail. I will not go on too much about this issue and the various discussions that we had. What I can say to my hon. Friend is that we looked at this in detail and concluded that the way to reach a compromise was to accept the Minister’s amendments.
A planned amendment to clause 4 will also ensure greater continuity of help between the prevention and relief duties for households during the eviction process, if such a process follows. I hope that we never get to families being evicted but recognise that we cannot solve all those problems in one go.
I welcome the commitment to provide stronger encouragement for people to engage early through the forms used in the section 21 process and the “How to Rent” guide that the Department has published.
The intention is to recognise that prevention is vital to tackling homelessness. The earlier someone gets help, the less likely they are to end up in crisis. The clause works with the rest of the Bill, which should be seen as an entire package, and with current legislation in placing more emphasis on prevention, encouraging people to seek help at an early stage.
Michelle Donelan
While we continue to discuss the clause, I want to stress that it is not only large charities and organisation that have called for and welcomed the extension to 56 days. Charities in my constituency, such as Doorway, which does a great deal of work on homelessness in the Chippenham area, are delighted and have stressed how vital it is to deal with homelessness at the root and try to prevent it in future.
Bob Blackman
I acknowledge that local charities are doing brilliant work to combat homelessness. During my discussions on the Bill I have dealt mainly with national charities and some local ones which I visited. All hon. Members will be aware of the local charities that do excellent work, which is why I believe these measures are universally welcomed.
It is not logical that someone in a private sector tenancy who receives a section 21 notice or encounters the threat of homelessness should have to wait until the final 28 days before they will be on the streets. Ensuring that the clause extends that period, with a duty owed by the local authority, must be sensible to help prevent them from becoming homeless.
I trust that the provision will help increase the number of successful preventions carried out by local housing authorities. In the long term that reduces costs for them and, most importantly, the trauma experienced by vulnerable people and households.
There may be instances where the 56-day prevention duty does not work and ends, though the household is not technically homeless, as the local authority finds it reasonable for the household to continue to occupy the property. That could mean that the relief duty does not begin, potentially leaving the household without support. We clearly want to get to the position covered by clause 4 so that, in those circumstances, the prevention duty will run on until the time the relief duty begins. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that in his opening remarks.
Mr Chope, you directed that we should look at costs in this part of our consideration. I welcome the Government’s announcement of £48 million and their commitment, under the new burdens doctrine, to fund all the new costs that will result from the Bill. We have already mentioned that there will be amendments to clause 7 on Report. We have already had a debate about that; I will not reopen it. There will be a further amendment to clause 4 and, after further discussions, we might consider amendments to clause 12 as well.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was critical, not unfairly, of the timing of the release of the money. The Government have considered our detailed discussions of the Bill and its amendments because there are cost implications. It is not fair if we end up with a running budget in Committee. We have made substantial changes and it is fair to say that the proposed changes to clause 7 would lead to additional costs for local authorities. However, I hope that if there are additional costs, the Minister will commit to their being picked up as originally envisaged under the new burdens doctrine.
The LGA and London Councils have welcomed the money that will be available. I note the concerns of the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Dulwich and West Norwood about whether the money will be enough. Clearly, none of us is in a positon to say without fear or favour that the money will be sufficient. We will have to see how the new legislation operates. It is part of a package.
I have been clear from the word go that the Bill, if enacted, will not produce one more property or one more home. I look forward to the publication of the White Paper—hopefully very soon—which will set out the Government’s method for ensuring we develop more housing. One way to ensure people are not homeless is to provide more housing in the first place. There is a shortage of accommodation in almost every part of the country, and London has particular pressures, as those of us who are London MPs know. Clearly, that will have to be addressed.
Equally, how the funding is provided needs to be considered: £35.4 million in the first year, £12.1 million in the second year and zero in the third year. I have concerns about that. Will we have solved the homelessness problem in this country after three years? As an eternal optimist, I hope we will have done. I did not mention this too much when we talked about the title of the Bill, but the original title was the homelessness prevention Bill. However, I was warned by our Clerk’s predecessor that that would mean it would be illegal for an individual to be homeless, so we should be careful what we attempt to achieve.
As the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, some £633 million in 2014-15 was spent by London councils on temporary accommodation. If we can reduce that burden by a relatively small amount, that will pay for the prevention duty. I am minded of the fact that London authorities in particular have embarked on large amounts of efforts to combat homelessness through prevention duties, and that is welcome. However, there is clearly going to be a need to review the funding and review how this works.
Mr Jones
I want to respond to some of the points made during this debate. The hon. Member for Hammersmith mentioned local authorities having to judge whether section 21 notices are valid. I agree entirely that it is a complex issue, but I make the point to him that dealing with section 21 notices is already a regular part of local housing authorities’ work and is the subject of specific parts of the homelessness code of guidance. We will look again at the code of guidance in the context of clause 1 and update it accordingly. A number of other points were raised about operational issues. We will have advisers going to local authorities, and they will be able to give guidance on those issues.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned a number of impacts on welfare. We have debated them previously, and I have explained the additional £870 million that will be available for short-term issues through discretionary housing payments, and the repurposing of 30% of the potential savings from the local housing allowance, which will go back into supporting high-value areas.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that those contributions must be seen in the context of the £2.7 billion that has been taken away from housing support for this year alone, as the Library briefing of last week confirmed?
Mr Jones
It is clear that welfare changes are being made—I do not deny that. However, those mechanisms are there to try to help people with shorter-term issues so that they can deal with things as they go forward. That money from local housing allowance rate savings will help people in the highest-cost areas.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith also mentioned housing supply. I will not go into that in any great depth, but as I have pointed out, we are putting £100 million into move-on accommodation to help with that issue. We have also provided the Mayor of London with a record amount of money for new housing supply, which he has welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman and a number of other colleagues mentioned reviewing how the Bill is working. I have committed to doing that once the new duties have had time to bed in. If such a review is to work, having the right data will be absolutely critical, and I am committed to putting in place the work that is needed to ensure that we do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole has pursued with some tenacity the issue of section 8 notices and various types of tenancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and the hon. Member for Hammersmith have also raised those important points. I reassure the Committee that there is overarching protection for every applicant—they will be covered by the prevention duty if they are at risk of homelessness within 56 days, whatever the circumstances and whatever their type of tenancy. Section 21 notices are the most common circumstances, and we believe that there are specific measures that provide proportionate protection. That said, we will address section 8 notices and other types of tenancy in our statutory guidance. I entirely understand where my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole comes from on section 8, and I will take away the points he has made and ensure that they are fully considered in the work we do as a result of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood made a number of points about the costs. She mentioned the announcement being late, and I hear what she said. In an ideal world, I would have brought the detail of those costs forward more quickly. That said, I did commit to providing them by the close of the Committee, and I have done that. She asked for detail on the costs, and rightly so. I will publish the full new burdens assessment once the Bill has completed its passage through the House. That will ensure that the assessment considers the cost of the final Bill in the light of any amendments made, not just in Committee, but on Report. To reassure Members, we are discussing several amendments that need to be tabled by next week for Report. We will assess whether new burdens are created as a result, but those new burdens will need to be funded.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the distribution of funding and trailblazer amounts. It is important that we split the two issues of cost for the Bill from trailblazers, and I will explain why in a moment. We are committed to working closely with the local government sector to design the distribution of funding, because we recognise that costs are likely to be wildly different across the country. The amounts for trailblazers do not necessarily correlate with the funding implications for the Bill, given that many places, because of the freedoms we gave them in the trailblazer offer to local areas, are going well beyond the Bill in trying to help the people they serve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South mentioned how councils will cope with the changes that they will be expected to make. He made a good point. There will be a period of time, as we have discussed, after the Bill becomes an Act but before the legislation comes into operation. We will work carefully and closely with local government to ensure that we mitigate the issues that he raised.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood asked what the money will be spent on. The Bill requires local authorities to do a number of additional things. For example, all households will be provided with free information and advice on preventing and relieving homelessness. A new prevention duty will extend the period in which people have to be given advice when they are threatened with homelessness from 28 to 56 days. An enhanced duty for those who are already homeless will ensure that housing authorities will support households for 56 days to relieve their homelessness by helping them secure accommodation. That is just an example of the things that the additional money will fund.
In terms of the review, I point out that once the legislation comes into effect, there will be a period of two years, and pretty much immediately after that there is likely to be a Government spending review. I am sure that the legislation will be looked at in the round with all the other things that local authorities have to do, not just in relation to housing, but all their other functions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for his strong support on the costs and for his optimism. The same is true of a number of other hon. Friends. He was right to point out that while the hon. Member for Hammersmith expressed some valid concerns, he was showing a rather gloomy and pessimistic front. That was the front he put across, at least, but we all know that some of the talk on costs has been conflated with things that are not necessarily in the Bill.
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 15, title, line 1, leave out
“Amend the Housing Act 1996 to”.
This amendment aligns the long title of the Bill with its contents on the basis that, as well as amending the Housing Act 1996, it also amends the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 (see clause 12).
Finally, this minor amendment removes the reference to the Housing Act 1996 from the long title of the Bill. The Bill also makes changes to the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012, so the reference is incorrect.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Bob Blackman
On a point of order, Mr Chope. As we have reached the end of the proceedings, I would like to thank you for your patient, good-natured and flexible chairing of the Committee. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee both for attending these sittings and for their contributions, which have added to the Bill and to our consideration of the amendments. The discussion has been consistently conducted in a consensual spirit. We have had the odd point of disagreement, which is healthy, but I believe we have worked well together to scrutinise the Bill and ensure it is returned to the House in a good state. That follows the excellent work of the Select Committee that preceded the Bill’s coming to us.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for marshalling the full resources of the Department to ensure that the Government support the Bill, and for allowing his officials, lawyers and the Bill team to help to draft the Bill and address issues as and when they have been identified. Finally, I thank the Clerks and the Doorkeepers for managing the Committee.
I look forward to seeing all Committee members when we next debate the Bill on Report on the Floor of the House. I feel confident that Members on both sides of the House will be able to support it in good conscience. The Report stage will take place on Friday 27 January, and the administrative arrangements for anyone who wishes to table amendments will be circulated to give them proper notice. With that, I thank you, Mr Chope, all members of the Committee and everyone who has been involved in reaching this stage of the process.
Andy Slaughter
Further to that point of order, Mr Chope. I echo the thanks expressed by the Bill’s promoter to everyone involved thus far. We all agree that the sittings have been conducted with civility and, where possible, consensus. I will leave it there, other than to thank you particularly, Mr Chope, for your forbearance. Perhaps the proceedings have been a little more helter-skelter than is common in such Committees; you may have been reminded of the national lottery by the random manner in which the clauses were drawn for debate. None the less, with your usual sang froid you have kept us in order, so thank you very much.
Mr Jones
Further to that point of order, Mr Chope. I add my thanks to those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Hammersmith for your chairmanship of the Committee; you kept us in order throughout. I thank colleagues on both sides for their contributions on this important measure.
I particularly thank the Opposition Front Benchers for the spirit in which they have approached the Bill so far. It is a rare experience to be on a Committee where there is such a consensus, and I shall probably have to wait a little while before I experience another that operates in the same way. The hon. Member for Hammersmith said that there had been a bit of a lottery for the clauses, but as someone who does the lottery now and again I feel we have probably had more success with the Bill than I ever do with that—although it has not always been all that easy.
I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for the energy and determination, and at times patience, that he has shown during the Committee sittings. It is not easy to negotiate one’s way through a Bill when there are so many different interests that we understandably want to work with on getting things right.
I also thank the officials who have worked so hard on the Bill. Parliamentary counsel worked extremely hard, especially during the many periods of recess, Christmas holidays and so on. Finally, I thank the Clerks and Doorkeepers, who have done a sterling job.
The Chair
I thank hon. Members for their expressions of gratitude to the Clerks and officials, Hansard, the Badge Messengers and everyone who keeps us secure. I am sure that those tributes to them are well deserved. There have been seven sittings and despite the consensual nature of the Committee they seem to have taken quite a long time. I wish all those associated with it good luck on Report. As someone who often attends on Fridays I shall feel rather frustrated that I will not be allowed to participate. As has been said, the proceedings have been conducted with good humour.
This is actually the first time I have had the privilege of chairing a Committee on a private Member’s Bill; such Bills are soon to be called Back-Bench Bills, if the House implements the Government acceptance of the Procedure Committee’s recommendation. Chairing the Committee has been a good learning experience for me, but that was possible only because of the good humour of all involved, and their engagement. Everyone in the Committee has participated, which is unlike what happens in many Committees, so I thank Members very much.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Education Funding: Devon
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered education funding in Devon.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.
The situation for schools in Devon that will result from the proposals set out in the Government’s consultation is of great concern to us all. As a member of the f40 Group, Devon has historically been one of the lowest-funded education authorities in the whole of England. At the moment, in education funding, it stands in 143rd place out of 150 local authorities. Devon received a schools block unit of funding allocation of £4,346 per pupil in 2016-17. The national average was £4,636, which means that there is a shortfall for Devon of £290 per pupil, or £25.5 million for all 88,065 pupils in the local authority. For those listening to the debate who are not as informed as you are, Mr Hanson, it is worth pointing out that, when I speak about Devon, I exclude the unitary authorities of Torbay and Plymouth, but no doubt Members who represent both places will want to contribute to the debate.
The current situation is manifestly unfair, not only for pupils in Devon but for teachers and headteachers, whose performance will be judged against that of other schools throughout the country. Devon Members of Parliament have been campaigning for a fairer funding settlement for many years, so this is not something new. I have been a Member of the House since 2001, and other Devon MPs have served for longer. I think it is fair to say that we have all been campaigning, throughout the Labour years when money was channelled away from rural areas into Labour heartlands, under the coalition Government and under the Conservative Government. Quite frankly, under this Government, we expect better.
Cost pressures, combined with the necessary fiscal consolidation, have had a significant cumulative effect on school budgets. Let me give a few examples of such pressures—other Members will cite others. Areas such as my own, East Devon, have experienced significant population growth because of the often required growth in house building and the incentives for it that there are now. The inevitable resulting growth in pupil numbers has had and is having a huge impact. The education services grant, which previously gave authorities and academy trusts money to fund their schools’ services, has been cut. The national living wage, which has absorbed much of the increase in social care funding—we have debated how much in the House—has had the same effect on education, with an increase in staff costs. Initial analysis suggests that the apprenticeship levy could cost Devon County Council as much as £424,000. The change in the SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—code of practice, which enables people with special educational needs to remain in education up to the age of 25, has added huge pressure, especially considering the increase in the average cost of specialist independent provision. Of course all Members welcome the change, but it needs to be properly funded. Devon County Council proposes to reduce funding to all schools by £33 per pupil for two years to make up for the high needs block shortfall; Devon’s high needs block has increased from £53 million in 2014 to £61 million in 2017-18.
It is not that some of those measures and developments are not welcome—we are very positive about some of them—but it is important to recognise that schools are now expected to do more with less, which inevitably leads to cuts, redundancies or increased class sizes.
The effect of these pressures on contingency reserves is being seen in the level of carry-forwards being forecast for maintained schools in Devon. We have a huge backlog, particularly in respect of the maintenance of many of our primary schools. In 2015-16, contingency reserves were £21.1 million, but in 2016-17 the figure is estimated to be £9.6 million. That is hardly much of a contingency reserve, given the number of schools we have across the county.
A number of headteachers in my constituency of East Devon have said in letters to me that, as a result of these pressures, there is
“a very real probability that our schools can no longer continue to sustain high quality provision of education and essential support for every pupil without the urgent necessity to take some very undesirable as well as far-reaching decisions to reduce costs in order to balance the finite resources available. Sadly, the implications of these decisions will undoubtedly impact upon the children in our care, including those from some of our most vulnerable families, and these will ultimately manifest further into the wider community.”
Since they are in one of the lowest-funded education authorities in the country, schools in East Devon were looking forward to the new funding formula, especially considering the year-long delay. The review and the subsequent public consultation are certainly welcome, and I encourage constituents to respond to it. It is important to emphasise that the proposals are not final and that they are subject to the consultation, which I understand runs until the end of March; the Minister may wish to enlighten us further on that.
I do not want to get into a bidding war between different authorities, but I would like to highlight some of the misunderstandings about funding that have arisen between us and our neighbours in Cornwall. The foreword to the Department for Education’s consultation on the national funding formula notes that
“a primary school in Cornwall teaching a pupil eligible for free school meals with English as an additional language would receive £3,389, whereas if the same child was at a school in Devon the school funding would be £4,718.”
That difference is mainly explained by the amount allocated directly to schools by each authority to support disadvantaged pupils or those with additional educational needs. Devon County Council delegates a much larger proportion of funding directly to primary schools. For example, using the free school meals deprivation factor alone, Devon allocates £1,378, compared with Cornwall’s £340. However, Devon still trails Cornwall in funding per pupil; Cornwall’s average funding per pupil is £4,355, which is £9 more than Devon’s average of £4,346. If Devon got the same rate as Cornwall, we would receive an additional £792,000 for education across the county.
If implemented, the national funding formula proposals will result in 212 Devon schools, or 62%, gaining; 129 schools, or 37%, losing; and two schools, or 1%, remaining the same. The proposals will reduce Devon County Council’s overall schools funding by £500,000 for the first year, when the Department for Education proposes transitional arrangements to prevent schools from gaining or losing considerably in one year and to ensure that the national budget can cope with the changes throughout the country. When the transitional arrangements are removed, the proposed changes will result in a relatively slight increase of £1.4 million, or 0.38%, in Devon’s overall funding for schools. The Minister may point to that and say that Devon will be a net winner, but a 0.38% increase is woefully insufficient to meet the rising cost pressures. It will not even meet the 0.5% increase in the apprenticeship levy. We need to go beyond the headline figures.
Illustrative funding under the national funding formula in the first year of transition would see 15 schools in East Devon gaining funding but 20 losing out. On average, that would mean a 0% change in the amount of school funding for East Devon. That includes all my secondary schools in East Devon losing funding: Sidmouth College, Exmouth Community College, Clyst Vale Community College, the King’s School and St Peter’s Church of England Aided School. How can it possibly be fair to reduce the level of funding available to schools in East Devon, a part of the country that has been historically underfunded?
The headteacher of the King’s School, Rob Gammon, has said that these cuts would have a “considerable” impact, especially considering the other rising costs. The chair of governors at Exmouth Community College, the excellent Councillor Jill Elson, has also expressed concern. The school is already one of the biggest in Europe. It is certainly—I hope the Minister will confirm this—the biggest secondary school in England; if it is not the biggest, it is the second biggest. It has an excellent headteacher in Tony Alexander, who has done magnificent things in that place. The school has found savings of more than £l million per year over the past five years, and it has now been asked to increase its pupil numbers to 2,900 by 2020.
Similarly, the headteacher of Sidmouth College, James Ingham-Hill, has expressed his “bitter disappointment” following the publication of the proposals. He said that
“without a significant rise in funding over the next few years, class sizes will need to rise to unprecedented levels and standards are bound to fall in all underfunded areas of the country.”
He also said that the proposed formula
“leans heavily towards measures of prior attainment. Devon has a high standard of pupil attainment in primary schools, so the county’s secondary schools will also lose out from a formula that penalises this success.”
This Government talk about reintroducing or expanding grammar schools to allow those who are good to get on, but at the same time they seem to be introducing a national funding formula that penalises at secondary level parts of the country that have high levels of achievement at primary level. That seems to contradict entirely what we, as a Government and a party, are seeking to do. What they are saying is that the less an area achieves at primary school level, the more money it will get at secondary school level—in other words, let us tell all our primary headmasters in Devon to lower standards, lower attainment and lower the exam results because more money will be made available to secondary schools. That is a perverse incentive that has no place in any kind of logical, joined-up thinking.
Currently, schools in Devon face a triple whammy. One is the historical underfunding. I look forward to the speech by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). I hope that he will not be too party political, otherwise Conservative Members will need to point out the educational gerrymandering that went on under Labour and the expensive private finance initiative that has saddled primary schools, particularly in Exeter, with an almost unsustainable weight of debt. That went on for many years under “old Labour”, as we must now call it, so I hope that he will approach this in the spirit of being a Devon MP, not the only, rather diminished red beacon in the south-west.
I think that we would all agree across the House that the Minister needs to go back to the drawing board and look again at the national funding formula in order to get this right. The Government must take a holistic approach to the issue and fully consider not only the historical funding factors—I have not yet said anything about the huge amount of money that Devon County Council has to come up with every year just to get children to school. I think that Yorkshire’s bill was a bit higher than ours, but it must be about £25 million that we have to come up with to get children to school. I have not even touched on that cost this morning. I have been talking about what happens when pupils actually get to school, if there are going to be schools.
Therefore, the Government must take a holistic approach to the issue and fully consider not only the historical funding factors but the current pressures on education budgets in order ultimately to give schools in areas such as mine a real financial boost. Fairer funding has been promised by many Governments, of all persuasions, many times, and it is my hope and belief that this will be the Government who finally deliver.
Having been a Minister in the Government from 2010 to 2016, I am acutely aware of how easy it is for Back Benchers of all parties to demand more funding from the Government. I am equally aware of the quite appalling financial situation that we inherited in 2010. This country simply cannot go on a financial spending splurge, which would saddle our children and our children’s children with ever more debt, particularly at the same time as we are renegotiating our relationship with the world outside the European Union. It would be absolutely wrong, counterproductive and irresponsible in the extreme to adopt some of the spending proposals, which seem to change fairly regularly, that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition come up with from time to time. So I am not suggesting that.
What I am saying is that, within the spending envelope that the Government have set out, we want fairness. I believe that all Members in this Chamber this morning, across the party divide, would agree that, for too long Devon, as a county, has lost out in terms of educational funding. We have waited and waited and waited for the new review of the situation, in the expectation that finally that will be recognised and our children, our teachers and the other staff in education will receive a fair and properly funded settlement. On the face of it, I have to say to the Minister that that does not appear to be the position we are in. I say to him gently, as south-west MPs come together perhaps more regularly than we have in the past, that it was the south-west that delivered a majority for this Government in 2015. It is the south-west that often considers itself to be an overlooked part of the country in terms of spend and infrastructure. It is the south-west and south-west MPs who, together, will not put up with being overlooked any more. We have come together this morning to say, “Let’s look again at the review, let’s get it right and let’s get a fair deal for Devon.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr David Hanson (in the Chair)
Before I call other right hon. and hon. Members, we appear to have an abundance of time, but I intend to call the Opposition Front Bencher at 10.35 am. Five right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, so I hope that you can self-regulate in that 45 or so minutes.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) on securing this debate. However, although it is very important that we discuss and focus on the Government’s new proposed funding formula and its impact on Devon, we should not lose sight of the big picture, which is that funding for all schools in England will fall dramatically in this Parliament. The National Audit Office has confirmed that by 2020 English schools will suffer overall a cut of 8% in real terms in their funding.
As the right hon. Member has already said, huge expectations were raised when the Government said they would consult on the new formula. At the time, I warned Ministers in a meeting with them that changing any funding formula when overall funding levels are falling is a risky business, because it inevitably creates more losers than winners. My assessment of what is being proposed for Devon rather mirrors that of the right hon. Gentleman, namely that we are just fiddling around the edges here. Overall, Devon would gain a tiny amount—a 0.38% rise in overall schools funding—but many schools would lose out. As he has already pointed out, that minuscule improvement would be more than wiped out by the cost to our schools of the increase in the apprenticeship levy, although that is only a 0.5% increase and is dwarfed by the overall cut of 8% in school funding in this Parliament that I referred to a moment ago.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about a “triple whammy”. If Devon faces a triple whammy, Exeter will suffer a quadruple whammy, because—like many cities in shire counties—we are already at a double disadvantage. Devon schools are already among the worst funded in England, receiving £270 per pupil less than the England average, but Exeter schools lose out even more badly because they subsidise the huge cost of providing school transport in a largely rural county and the cost of keeping open small rural schools. Two of my high schools, St James School and Isca Academy, have each lost £300,000 a year since 2014.
Despite Exeter’s position, under the Government’s new proposed formula we will lose out by 0.14%. All the Government seem to be proposing for my constituency is to take money away from primary schools, the majority of which would lose out in the new formula, to give a tiny bit more to most, but not all, of my high schools. That is not robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is more like robbing Peter to pay Peter. The overall impact will be that by 2020 the average student in Exeter will suffer a £420 cut in annual funding compared with 2015-16, and that is after seven years of coalition and Conservative Government. That will have very serious consequences for children’s education in my constituency.
Two of my primary schools in the least well-off parts of Exeter will actually lose funding. I have been told by a headteacher that one primary school in Exeter is planning to move to class sizes of 45 to cope with the funding squeeze. Under the Labour Government, we got class sizes down to a maximum of 30. We are losing teaching assistants, school counsellors and support for children with complex and special needs at a time when the Government claim they are concerned by the deterioration in young people’s mental health and wellbeing.
Since the Labour Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown invested significant extra resources in all our schools, attainment in Exeter’s schools has risen significantly. We have also benefited from five brand-new high schools, which replaced the dilapidated schools that I inherited in 1997, and new and improved primary schools. That has given a huge boost to the life chances of my constituents’ children, and that progress has been maintained despite the funding freeze since 2010. However, that quality will not survive the sort of cuts our schools now face. As the right hon. Gentleman has already said, Conservative-run Devon County Council is proposing to raid the schools budget even further, to the tune of £2.22 million, because of the big deficit it faces in the budget for children with special needs. I am sure we all agree that Devon must fulfil its legal obligation to some of our most vulnerable young people, but that will mean a further cut of £33 per pupil to schools funding across the county.
There is widespread reporting in the media and discussion in this place about the crisis in our health and social care system, but we are also seeing the beginning of if not a crisis, then a serious deterioration in education. We have a recruitment, retention and teacher morale crisis, even in an attractive place like Devon, where people like to live and work. But the Government, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, focus on irrelevancies, such as their ideological obsession with free schools, forced academisation and the reintroduction of selection. I hope that we see real opposition from Devon’s Conservative MPs to some of those damaging Government policies, rather than just warm words. They should stand up and fight for the interests of Devon’s children and families and vote against their Government’s damaging policies.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) on securing this timely debate. After his many years on the Front Benches, it is very good for the rest of us in Devon to have him back on the Back Benches, because we face a number of challenges. His experience, energy and expertise will help us try to tackle some of these long-term challenges.
I am delighted that the Minister is in his place. He knows that I think he is a tremendous Schools Minister. In all seriousness, his rigour and commitment to increasing the academic achievements of young people in this country are appreciated up and down the country. He is making a difference, and that is tremendous. I also know that the consultation exercise on funding is genuine. I expect him to nod vehemently here. The reality is that if the funding stays as it is, it will not attract the support of a number of us here in this room, because it is unfair.
It is true to say that we have been waiting for years in Devon for a revision to the national funding formula. When the Secretary of State came to the House just before Christmas and announced that a new funding formula was about to be unleashed on the world, it seemed to be extremely good news for us in the far south-west. The expectation was that some of the overfunding of schools in other parts of the country would be corrected to improve things for those of us living in the west country. Everyone thinks it is just a place to go on holiday and have cream teas and so on, but it has genuine challenges of infrastructure, connectivity, education, social services and health that we need additional investment to help us with.
We were like thirsty men and women crossing the desert, approaching the oasis. The end was in sight. Good news was just around the corner. Sadly, when we started to look at some of the details, it was not an oasis at all—it was a mirage. That was disappointing. In the Secretary of State’s statement at the Dispatch Box, I heard her say, “Isn’t it great that over a number of years we will correct the fact that pupils in Plymouth”—I will explain the difference between Plymouth and Devon in a second—“currently receive £500 a year less than pupils in Coventry?” Coventry and Plymouth are very similar places, as they were both devastated by Hitler in the second world war and rebuilt.
We were encouraged to think that a long-standing grievance and injustice would be corrected. Even though it is true that many Plymouth schools are doing well, and I thank the Minister for that, unfortunately when we start to look at the numbers, we see how illogical they are. Schools face similar challenges with similar pupils from similar backgrounds and, as my right hon. Friend said, have transportation issues and costs on top of that, so it is crazy to learn that in many Devon schools the situation will go backwards.
My constituency is two thirds Plymouth and one third Devon, so I am partly encouraged by some of the news that the Minister has brought in recent weeks, but I am concerned about some of the outcomes in the consultation document. He will remember coming to Ivybridge Community College just before Christmas to open a new maths block. Unfortunately, I could not be there, but the reaction from the school was, “What a great man! He spoke very positively and inspired the young people.” He perhaps neglected to say that as part of the national funding review, the college—an outstanding beacon of excellence in Devon—was about to receive a cut of £203,000 from its budget. That would not have gone down quite so well in the new building opening ceremony.
Ivybridge Community College is outstanding and has been brilliantly led for many years. It is in a multi-academy trust. Three of the primary schools involved in that trust are: Stowford School, which faces a 2.75% cut, representing £37,000; Woodlands Park Primary School, which faces a 2.57% cut, representing £28,000; and Yealmpton Primary School, which faces a 1.35% cut, representing £9,000. In total, the multi-academy trust faces a cut of £277,000. It is being penalised for being outstanding and teaching kids in a most remarkable way. That simply is not good enough.
It is rumoured that the Minister carries around with him—he possibly even takes it to bed at night—a list of all the education authorities in the country, showing where they are in relation to each other and what the baseline is. It may even have different colours in it, with green for those doing well and red for those at the bottom. If he looks at that list, I think he will find—if the list exists at all—that Devon appears about an inch from the bottom of the second page. Our baseline is right down at the bottom compared with all the other education authorities in the country. We were expecting to come up his list. We were expecting to come towards the top of at least the second page, if not the first. What has happened? We are either standing still or going backwards. We are staying right at the bottom of his list of education authority funding. I am sorry to say that that simply is not good enough.
The Minister will be pleased to hear about one thing that is happening in my area at the moment. My four secondary schools in Plymouth—two in Plympton and two in Plymstock—and Ivybridge Community College in Devon are consulting with parents, staff and everyone else about becoming a large multi-academy trust over the next 12 months or so. That is what the Government are seeking to inspire. It is all very exciting and I fully support it, but the four schools in Plymouth, which are having their budgets increased, are coming together with an outstanding school in Devon that is having its budget slashed. It teaches children from similar backgrounds who are from exactly the same golden triangle of Plympton, Plymstock and Ivybridge. It makes no sense and there is no logic or reason to it.
I am afraid that the Minister, of whom I am a great fan, must look again at the formula and tweak it in some magical way. I realise it is difficult when applying such a formula. For years no one has understood what either the local government or the education funding formulae are all about. I know it is very difficult. One cannot just take £100 and put it there. I urge the Minister to look again at the formula, because the formula that we have seen and the proposed education settlement for the next two years are simply not acceptable.
I want to conclude on this point. I had a meeting with my Whip yesterday. He is a very fine man and we talked about the future and how well the Government are doing. Of course, this was on the back of a most outstanding speech by the Prime Minister yesterday, setting out a clear, strong and coherent vision for this country, which many of us can get behind. However, I said to my Whip, “There are a number of things coming down the track about which I need to give due notice.” It is wrong for any colleague to say to the Government, “I don’t like what we are about to do tonight; I am going to vote against it.” Proper notice needs to be given. That is the mature way forward, but I wish to send a clear notice, if I may, Mr Hanson, to my Whip, to the Government and the Minister, and perhaps the Parliamentary Private Secretary can take a little note and send it to the Education Whip. If the education funding settlement does not change in relation to Devon schools and if there is no significant uplift in whatever format it comes in six, nine or 12 months’ time to be voted on by the House, whether in a statutory instrument Committee or wherever else it might be, I will vote against it.
Mr Streeter
The settlement that is being proposed for Devon schools is simply illogical and unfair.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Previous speakers, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), have set out clearly Devon’s underfunding predicament and its history. I want to delve a little more deeply into some of the causes and the action that the Government need to take now.
I was fortunate. Prior to the start of this parliamentary Session, I had a meeting with the Devon Association of Primary Headteachers and the Devon Association of Secondary Heads. Their input was illuminating to say the least. The current funding formula is unfair and the proposals for the future funding formula are equally unfair. But why? The heads are concerned that the consultation is one in which they are not really being listened to. It is far from clear to them what assumptions the Government have made in coming up with the new formula. My headteachers would be delighted to meet and help the Minister in Westminster or in the constituency. Unless we can help him really understand the issues and make sure his assumptions are right, we will always get a second-rate result. We cannot simply take the old and fiddle with it. We have to fundamentally look at what it is that we need to do differently.
Part of the problem is the decisions made by central Government and those made by local government. When I sent one of my many letters to the Minister, which he swiftly replied to, he explained that I should draw comfort from the fact that the school block was ring-fenced. That sounds great, but unfortunately it does not really work. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon has pointed out, it is for the local authority to determine what goes into each school. The approach taken by Devon, as has already been explained, is very different from the approach taken by Cornwall. Partly for that reason, the statistics appear to show that Cornwall gets better funding than Devon, but that is because the local authority has chosen to adjust in a different way.
I do not think our children should be the victims of a postcode lottery, depending on which council does what. I am not in favour of prescription, but I am in favour of guidance, and we need to make sure that every child is fairly funded, whichever county they are in. So we need to look again at the school block and exactly how that is calculated. We also need to look at how the local authority distributes it. If we look at the proposed new formula, it gives some strange results. The small rural schools do better, as do the large schools, but the ones in the middle lose out. There is something strange about a formula that comes up with such results.
We also need to look again at the high needs block, because the mental health challenges—not just in our county, but across the country—are growing exponentially. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) has explained, there is no counterbalancing increase in the social care budget to meet the need, so we are really challenged. In my constituency, 17% of the cohort are in the high needs group. That is a very high number, so the high needs block needs to be carefully thought through.
Some things need to be addressed now, and we cannot wait for the new funding formula. My headteachers tell me that, come April this year, if nothing changes in the cost base that they face, they have got to the point where they will have to make teachers and teaching assistants redundant. They will also have to do away with any form of counsellor support for some of the children who have mental health or family issues, and that gives rise to a real concern not only about finance, but about the basics of safeguarding.
So how can the Minister help us here today? First, he should abolish with immediate effect through a statutory instrument the application of the apprenticeship levy to schools. It is utter madness that a public body such as a maintained school, whose wages are paid through the local authority, hits the employment legislation’s minimum level. As a consequence, the council, because it pays the wages, has to pay the apprenticeship levy, which it then passes down to the school. As has already been mentioned, that is now just short of £500,000. Spread between the schools, that is a huge problem and a challenge that could be easily resolved. The Minister should think about that. The concept of the apprenticeship levy was about commercial businesses and trying to ensure they invested properly in apprentices. Teachers are not apprentices. There could be apprentices in the administration area, but, given the pressure on schools, is that really where we want schools to spend their money? It is like having a tax credit that cannot be spent, so the levy has to be scrapped. It deserves urgent attention because the crunch point is soon: April 2017, which is not many days and weeks away.
Secondly, I want the Minister to look at the special education needs extension to those aged 25. It is right that those with special education needs should be given all the support that they need. Because of the peculiarity of the way in which the system works, an individual parent whose child is entitled can nominate the school to which they will go. The school, even if it goes above the published admission number, has to provide the support that is needed, which is extremely expensive and difficult for schools to meet, so there needs to be a way of supporting schools that are faced with that.
Although the local authority makes some provision, it is not adequate and does not work. So will the Minister look at whether the local authority should dig not just into the education pot but into the healthcare pot when trying to fund some of the new costs hitting schools that are effectively having to become social care workers at the same time?
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon referred to the removal this year of the education services grant. We should all try to live within our means, but that removal is a straight cut. It is not as if the schools are suddenly finding another way. They cannot raise business rates. Where will they find the extra money to provide those services? They can of course work together, and work differently, but a complete cut is not a viable way forward.
The coalition Government could be praised for introducing the troubled families programme, through which local authorities could help families identified with multiple social and educational problems. Under this watch, that funding now only comes into play when a child is over 11 years old. I wish I did not have to say this, but in my constituency we have to make extreme interventions for a large number of children—in some schools, up to 85%. Children coming to school today are often not toilet-trained; many of them have real challenges with some basic reading skills. In part, that is a result of changes in our society. The Minister cannot change society, and we cannot change the fact that children are glued to iPads instead of conversing with their parents and their peers, but we need to recognise the consequences, budget accordingly and ensure support is there for those troubled families.
I urge the Minister to look at the issues now. We cannot wait until the new funding review. This is crucial; it is about our children today, our children tomorrow and our country tomorrow. I urge him to consider the issues now.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) on securing this important debate. While I am doing thank yous, I want to say a personal thank you to the Minister, who just a few weeks ago accepted my invitation to come to North Devon to meet in a roundtable setting with a delegation of headteachers representing pretty much every education sector in Devon. The Minister came, I know that he listened and I am grateful that he did so.
Let us continue this positive start. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the new national funding formula and the principle that we must eradicate the unfairness of the current system. Good; that is a tick. The Government’s additional funding of £390 million to the least funded authorities in 2015-16 made a real difference, with an increase in funding per pupil in Devon of just over 4.5%. Good; that is another gold star for the Government. As I am sure the Minister will be pointing out, under the indicative figures for the new funding formula, more schools will gain funding than lose it in my constituency of North Devon—so it seems like we are getting gold marks all round for homework at the moment. However, I am afraid I have to move gently to a position where we are potentially putting the Minister in detention.
The Government are moving in the right direction—that is true—but under the indicative figures very little will be done to correct the fundamental, historical unfairness of funding in Devon, especially in my constituency of North Devon. That inherent and historical underfunding has existed for many decades, under Governments of all colours, and it needs to be put right. I thought that the national funding formula would put it right. From what I have seen of the indicative figures, I am disappointed.
As right hon. and hon. Members have said, Devon is a very poorly funded local education authority. Under the current system, funding is £290 less per pupil than the average across England, which means that North Devon schools receive just under £4 million less per year than the national average. If the proposed national funding formula changes were brought in, the cumulative change to North Devon schools funding—these figures are provided by the House of Commons Library, which is a neutral and always accepted source of facts, as everyone here knows but I note for those outside of this place—would be between 0%, no change at all, and a 1% increase across the board. Crunching the figures, that means that, at best, across all its schools, North Devon would receive an extra £40,000. Clearly, that does not rectify the imbalance and historical unfairness in the current system. North Devon would continue to receive an unfair level of funding. The principle of a national funding formula is sound only if it rectifies the imbalance that sees my constituents and those of other hon. Members here lose out. What is currently on the table does not do that for Devon, and certainly not for North Devon.
Not only does the proposed formula fail to correct the unfairness between Devon and the rest of the country, but it throws up some perverse variations between schools within North Devon. There are 52 schools across all sectors and all age ranges in my constituency. I have visited a great many of them in my 18 months as Member of Parliament for North Devon, and it is a pleasure to do so. They are fantastic schools doing tremendous work, with teaching staff and managers working really hard to get some excellent results. Six of those schools are secondary schools.
If we put those 52 schools in a league table ranked in order of the percentage change to their funding next year compared with this year, something rather worrying happens. The three schools at the bottom of that league table, which lose the most under the proposals, are the three secondary schools with the most rural catchment areas in my constituency: Chulmleigh, South Molton and Braunton. I feel sure that that was not the intention when the formula started to be cooked. It needs to be recooked, because that is the result under the indicative figures, and that cannot be right. These are schools where the teaching staff, managers, pupils and parents are already struggling because of the historical unfairness. I had hoped that the national funding formula would do something to correct that, but on the indicative figures at present, it does not.
I have been written to by the headteachers of many schools across Devon and they are all saying the same thing: “We don’t get it. We don’t understand why this historical unfairness is being allowed to continue.” Most make the extremely reasonable point that the national funding formula is a fine idea in principle and congratulate this Minister and this Government on the principle of wanting to correct the historical unfairness, but the devil is in the detail and I am afraid that the detail my headteachers see does nothing to address the historical problems.
I want to draw out two specific points that headteachers have raised with me. The first is high needs educational funding in Devon. High needs expenditure has grown rapidly, from £53 million in 2014 to an estimated £61 million in 2017-18. To meet the forecast overspend, Devon County Council has been forced to approve transferring more than £2 million from individual schools budgets to the high needs budget in 2017-18, just to bring the expected deficit down to zero. Someone else used the phrase, “We are robbing Peter to pay Paul.” That cannot be right.
The second issue, which has been raised by a number of my colleagues, is the personalised transport budget in Devon. In a largely rural, sparsely populated area such as the one I represent, that is a real challenge. The personalised transport budget for children with special needs accounts for 34%—more than a third—of the total schools transport budget in Devon. That is £21 million, and an overspend of more than £1.2 million on that budget is forecast for this year. The cost of transport cannot be taken from the high needs budget. It must be funded from county council budgets, and we all know that local authority budgets also face challenges. Those are two areas that I believe we need to look at.
Let us look again at the overall position. Devon is one of the lowest-funded local authority areas in England for education. In 2016-17, Department for Education funding per pupil in Devon is £4,346. That is £290 per pupil less than the English average, which means that DFE spending on education in Devon is more than £25 million a year less than the English average. I am afraid that the proposed indicative figures do nothing to correct that fundamental unfairness. As I am sure the Minister will tell us, this is a consultation and those are only indicative figures. I say, good, because we need to change what is being proposed. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, I am sure that it is a real, genuine consultation and that the Minister and the Government are listening. It seems to me, to the people who run, teach in and manage the schools in my constituency, and to the parents whose children go to those schools that the current proposals are unfair.
I wish I could be more elegant in my language. I wish I had a more sophisticated argument and could indulge in some fine Churchillian parliamentary oratory, but I cannot. It comes down to three words: this is just not fair. Devon was hoping for a fairer slice of the funding cake. Instead, it seems to the schools community that we have received only a few crumbs. I say gently and helpfully to the Minister—-please get on the hotline to Mary Berry and rebake this cake.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
It is a pleasure and a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) on securing this debate. I am delighted that he was my mentor when I got elected to this place, and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) was also brilliantly good at looking after me and keeping me on the right track.
I enter this debate with a certain amount of trepidation, because my constituency has done rather well out of this process, but there are some issues that I want to raise. Let me set out the context. I am one of the very few Members of Parliament on the Conservative Benches who represents a totally inner-city seat outside London. I have only one rather muddy field, called the Ponderosa pony sanctuary, in my constituency, and everything else is very much inner city.
I declare an interest: I am a governor of St Andrew’s Church of England Primary School, and in the 1980s and early 1990s I worked for a woman called Angela Rumbold, who was the Member of Parliament for Mitcham and Morden and a Minister at the Department for Education. She was very much responsible, with Kenneth Baker, for introducing the local curriculum, local management of schools and things like that. My constituency has high levels of deprivation. There is an 11 to 12-year life expectancy difference between the north-east of my constituency and the south-west. I am very concerned indeed about that. We must ensure that children who are at school in a low-wage and low-skills economy have a good education and can end up going on to university and other schools.
I am delighted that Government have provided greater education choice in my constituency. I have not only three grammar schools, which I will talk about in a second, but the creative arts school, which is doing incredibly well, and a university technical college. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his interest and for taking the time yesterday to have a conversation with me and some people from the UTC about some of the issues they face. Plymouth does not fall within Devon county’s remit. Therefore, I feel somewhat of a fraud. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon pointed out to me earlier that my constituency has done very well out of this. Therefore, I am very grateful.
We need to ensure that children are able to read, write and add up when they leave school. I do not think we talk enough about standards. I sit on school governing bodies, and I think we should spend more time talking about how we are going to help children to achieve, rather than reviewing policy. Indeed, I occasionally feel that, when I go to school governing meetings, we end up spending more time reviewing policy than people spend reviewing west end plays. I am always slightly concerned about that.
Schools in Plymouth are likely to receive a 3.9% increase, but there is an issue. I understand why the Government’s position has changed and why they are looking at deprivation, because it is an important issue. The majority of my schools have done quite well, although there are some up in Compton that have some concerns. The grammar schools have also written to me, because they do not fit into the deprivation issue, so they do not get as good a deal as possible. I am very grateful indeed to Dan Roberts, the headteacher of Devonport High School for Boys. He said that he recognises that public services need to shoulder their fair share of the burden of public debt, but he has real concerns that the latest proposals will cause serious damage to the one type of school that our current Prime Minister believes has the potential to transform education in our country. He said that this is not all children in Plymouth but
“If you happen to be an able child attending Devonport High School for Boys we are actually receiving a reduction of 2.9%.”
Other grammar schools have said that, too.
I would be grateful if the Minister were willing to meet me and some of the grammar schools to talk about how we could ensure that they can make savings and so that he can hear the case from the grammar schools, too. I think that the Government are on the right lines in talking about deprivation, but then I would because I represent a totally inner-city seat with high levels of deprivation. However, there are some issues that most certainly need to be looked at and tweaked. I very much look forward to meeting him with my school governors from the grammar schools in the near future.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) on securing the debate. He said recently in the Exmouth Journal that he would raise his concerns in Parliament, and it is good to see politicians keeping their promises—he has certainly done so today.
Under this Government, schools are facing their first real cuts in 20 years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) summed it up. We have to look at the big picture, because many rural schools are affected. We had a similar debate about the Minister’s county of Sussex, which is very poorly underfunded, a few weeks ago, and Members had exactly the same concerns. Their hopes were raised by the proposed introduction of the manifesto commitment of a national fair funding formula, but up and down the land most people’s hopes are being dashed. We must put this in the context of what was announced in the Budget: £3 billion will be taken out of our education system by 2020. That is an 8% cut. In my constituency, it is an 11% cut, so no matter what we do with the fair funding formula, it will be insignificant, given the situation that schools face.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies initially predicted the real-terms cuts of 8% that I mentioned, but the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted sharply rising inflation over the course of the Parliament, so the cuts will get even worse. The right hon. Member for East Devon spoke eloquently about fairness, but nothing is fair about that. The funding formula was supposed to redistribute a sum of money to help schools where help is inadequate and to provide our children with the excellent education to which they are entitled, as pointed out by the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones).
The National Audit Office has said that the Department for Education is expecting schools to find a total of £3 billion in savings over the course of the Parliament, but the Department has failed to communicate to schools how to do that, given the pressures pointed out today, such as the apprenticeship levy and rising costs and national insurance costs.
The Opposition support the principle that all schools should have a fair funding formula, but the answer is not simply to take money away from some schools and to redistribute it in different budgets across the country. The solution is to invest in education and to help every child to receive an excellent education, as pointed out by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter). He talked about an education oasis so, with an Oasis reference and my being a Mancunian, I should ask him not to “look back in anger”. He spoke with passion about his concerns and the consequences of Government action. A whole range of both Conservative and Opposition Members are extraordinarily disappointed.
Given cost pressures, inflation and an increase in pupil numbers, schools budgets are facing real-terms cuts. There has already been a sharp rise in the number of secondary schools that are in deficit, reaching nearly 60% of the total in 2014-15, according to the National Audit Office. According to the North Devon Gazette, only three schools in Devon are set to gain extra funding under the proposed national funding formula, as announced by Secretary of State. The changes to education funding have been branded “ridiculous” and “a shambles” by Devon headteachers. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) rightly pointed out that the Government are simply not listening at the moment, and while they are still in consultation, we have to plead with them to start listening.
Michael Johnson, the headteacher at Chulmleigh Community College, said he had received calls from other headteachers who simply did not know what they were to do. He said:
“Early indications are that all or most Devon secondary schools will receive less through the new funding formula.
I have had other secondary school headteachers telling me today ‘I don’t know what I am going to do now’.
Nationally, this formula offers the same money for more children and we have now got increased costs that we have had imposed upon us.
With the limited information available to us at this time, we believe that most secondary schools in North Devon will not be better off and will continue to face budgetary shortfalls.
So far, this exercise looks to me like the same budget has been through a hot-wash to present it differently. It looks like a shambles to me.”
That is a headteacher in one of our schools.
Mr Glenn Smith, the principal of Honiton College, said that Devon is one of the lowest-funded education authorities in England:
“Whilst the announcement in the…2015 Autumn Spending Review of firm proposals for the introduction of a new fairer national funding formula from April 2017 was most welcome, this promise of ‘jam tomorrow’ has since been delayed by 12 months and we still await further information around the detail, timing and implementation of any such policy.
Meanwhile the legacy of an unsatisfactory funding settlement has been further worsened for schools by rising expenditure demands owing to national policy decisions beyond our control, notably those associated with staffing costs.”
Mr Smith sent a stark warning to the Department that harsh cuts in Devon might see some of the smaller schools not able to produce a balanced budget, in effect putting them into special measures, so they might therefore be lost altogether. He worried:
“Maybe, when some Devon schools start to buckle under the increasing financial pressures, the government will start to make education a priority once more.”
The right hon. Member for East Devon said that we should not be too political, although he was critical in quite a party political way of the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown Governments. Mr Smith of Honiton College, however, said:
“Tony Blair’s top three priorities for government were: Education, Education and Education—God knows how far down”
the importance and fairness of education policy have gone. Schools did extraordinarily well under that Government: schools were rebuilt and they got more money than they had had in a generation.
I was beginning my teacher training in 1997, and I spent most of the time going around with buckets to collect the rain. By the time I left education, 10 or 15 years later, after the Labour Government, if the roofs had not been rebuilt, it was only because the school had been rebuilt. The only thing going through the roof were standards and attainment, so Labour Members will not stand for any lectures about our record.
On top of that, the hon. Members for Newton Abbot and for North Devon rightly pointed to the requirements for special educational needs in Devon, where there is a particular problem. “Schools Week” has done an analysis of local authorities’ high-needs budgets, which are given a set amount by the Government depending on how many special needs pupils each council caters for. Many heads are already struggling to cope.
Devon faces a £4.5 million shortfall this year, and the council is proposing to move £55 per pupil from its schools block funding—the money for pupils in mainstream schools—to its high-needs budget. Lorraine Heath, headteacher of Uffculme School, said that the reallocation would cost her school £56,265,
“which I have not budgeted for”.
That was her reaction. She said that the only way to meet the cut would be to reduce staff numbers and to increase class sizes.
In conclusion, may I praise the Devon MPs who are holding the Government’s feet to the fire on the issue? They are standing up for their constituencies and their county. I also remind them, however, that it is their party’s Government who are doing this.
Mr David Hanson (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I remind him that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) should have a couple of minutes to speak at the end of the debate.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and to follow the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). The hon. Gentleman, as a Labour shadow spokesman, defended his party’s legacy, but since this Government came to power, 1.8 million more children than in 2010 are in schools graded by Ofsted as good and outstanding—1.8 million more children receiving a higher standard of education. This year 147,000 more six-year-olds are reading more effectively as a consequence of the reforms implemented since 2010.
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) on securing his important debate. I am sure he agrees that we share the same ambition to see a country that works for everyone, where all children receive an excellent education that unlocks talent and creates opportunity, regardless of where they live, their background, ability or needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) referred to the funding levels for schools in his constituency. He is assiduous in visiting the schools in his constituency, as I saw at first hand when I joined him on one of those visits. We had a roundtable discussion with a number of his local headteachers. Overall, his schools will receive an increase of 0.7% in funding as a result of the national funding formula. As I said at that meeting, however, we are paying close attention to the responses to the first-stage consultation and to the second-stage consultation on the detailed proposals. The latter consultation closes on 27 March.
The Government are prioritising spending on education. We have protected the core schools budget in real terms so that as pupils numbers increase, so will the amount of money for schools. That means that schools are receiving more funding than ever before, totalling more than £40 billion. The existing funding system, however, prevents us from getting that record amount of money to where it is needed most. Underfunded schools do not have access to the same opportunities to do the best for their pupils, and it is harder for them to attract the best teachers and afford the right support. That is why we are reforming the funding system by introducing a national funding formula for both mainstream schools and high-need support for children with special educational needs. That will be the biggest change to school and high-needs funding for well over a decade, and means that we will for the first time have a clear, simple and transparent system that matches funding to pupils’ needs and the schools that they attend. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to introduce a national funding formula.
The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is right that introducing a national funding formula when we are still tackling the historic budget deficit that we inherited from his Government is challenging. We have protected core school spending in real terms, but I accept that there are cost pressures on schools. We believe that it is nevertheless important to use this one-time-only opportunity to introduce a fairer funding system.
In the current system, similar schools and local areas receive very different levels of funding, with little or no justification. For example, a primary-age pupil who is eligible for free school meals attracts an extra £1,378 for their school if they live in Devon but an extra £2,642—£1,264 more—if they live in Brighton and Hove. Those anomalies will end once we have a national funding formula in place. Introducing fair funding was a key manifesto commitment for this Government, and it will mean that the same child with the same needs will attract the same funding regardless of where they live.
We launched the first stage of our consultation on reforming the schools and high-needs funding system in March last year. We set out the principles for reform and proposals for the overall design of the system. More than 6,000 people responded, and there was wide support for the proposals. Building on that support, we were able in December to proceed to the second stage of the consultation and set out detailed proposals for the design of both the schools and high-needs funding formulae. The consultation period will last until 22 March, and the issues raised in this debate and others are part and parcel of that process.
Under our proposals, money will be targeted towards pupils who face the greatest barriers. In particular, support will be boosted for children from the most deprived families and those who live in areas of deprivation but are not eligible for free school meals—those whose families are just about managing. We are putting more money towards supporting pupils in both primary and secondary schools who have fallen behind, to ensure that they, too, have the support they need to catch up.
Overall, 10,740 schools—54% of all schools—will gain funding, and the formula will allow them to see those gains quickly, with increases in per-pupil funding of up to 3% in 2018-19 and 2.5% in 2019-20. Some 72 local authority areas are due to gain high-needs funding, and they, too, will see that quickly, with gains of up to 3% in both those financial years. As well as providing for those increases, we have listened to those who highlighted the risks of major budget changes for schools during the first stage of our consultation and will include significant protections in both formulae. No school will face per-pupil reductions of more than 1.5% per year or 3% overall, and no local authority will lose high-needs funding.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) mentioned my visit to the outstanding Ivybridge Community College in his constituency. It was a pleasure to see such high academic standards being delivered in that school. He referred to a list. I do have such a list, which says that under the new national funding formula, schools funding in Devon as a whole will rise from £377.2 million in 2016-17 to £378.7 million—an increase of 0.4%. Some 213 schools in Devon—62% of all Devon schools—will gain funding. I recognise that the proposals would result in budget reductions for some schools in the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon and other hon. Members, but I believe that the formula strikes the correct balance between the core funding that every child attracts and the extra funding that is targeted at those with additional needs—both children in areas of deprivation and schools that serve rural communities.
Our proposed protections will mean that schools in Devon that do not gain funding can manage these significant reforms while continuing to raise standards. All schools need to make the best use of the resources they have and ensure that every pound is used effectively to improve standards. To help schools, we have put in place and continue to develop a comprehensive package of support to enable them to make efficiency savings and manage cost pressures while continuing to improve the quality of education for their pupils.
Although Devon will not receive any additional high-needs funding as a result of the new formulae, I hope that my hon. Friends understand that the funding floor will allow underfunded local authorities to gain funding and go a long way to protect the local authorities that spend the most, in recognition of the fact that their spending levels are the result of decisions on placements taken in consultation with parents. We are also providing £23 million of additional funding this year to support all local authorities to undertake strategic reviews of their high-needs provision.
As a member of the f40, Devon has played a significant role in campaigning for fair schools funding, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government’s proposed formula is based on our assessment of needs across the whole country; it is not designed around the interests of any one area or group in isolation. None the less, and reflecting the underfunding that several f40 members have suffered for many years, most of the areas represented by the f40, including Devon, will gain: overall, funding for their schools will increase by £210 million. I understand that some f40 members are disappointed with the formula’s effect on their area. Funding reform is always difficult—many competing demands have to be balanced—and it is particularly difficult in an area as complex as education. That is why we are holding such a long consultation to gather views.
I am aware of the concern that my hon. Friends and others have raised that fairer funding for schools in Devon and other parts of the country is overdue. We agree that these reforms are vital, but they are an historic change, which is why we have taken time to consider the options and implications carefully. The new system will be in place from April 2018, but in the meantime we have confirmed funding for 2017-18 so that local authorities and schools have the information and certainty that they need to plan their budgets for the coming year.
Mr Gibb
I will give way in one moment. I was just coming to my hon. Friend’s point about funding levels in 2017-18, the year before the new national funding formula comes into effect. We have confirmed that no area will see a reduction in their schools or high-needs funding in 2017-18, and areas such as Devon that benefited from the £390 million that we added to the schools budget in the last Parliament will have that extra funding protected in their baseline in 2017-18, as they did in 2016-17.
Anne Marie Morris
That is helpful, but it does not address the cost issue that I raised. For any institution, what comes in and what goes out need to balance. I respectfully ask the Minister whether he will undertake to consult his fellow Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about these costs and how they fall on schools—particularly the apprenticeship levy. Clearly, it is not for him to slash that on a whim, but it is incumbent on him to discuss it.
Mr Gibb
We recognise that schools face cost pressures, including salary increases, the introduction of the national living wage, increases to employers’ national insurance and pension scheme contributions, and general inflation, as well as the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. The current, unfair funding system makes those pressures harder to manage. The new national funding formula will not only direct funding where it is most needed but give schools greater certainty about funding and allow them to plan ahead effectively. The Government are also providing a wide range of tools and other support to schools to improve their efficiency, and we will soon launch a school buying strategy to support schools to save more than £1 billion a year by 2019 on non-staff expenditure.
I appreciate what my hon. Friend says; in addition to those pressures, schools will pay the apprenticeship levy. The apprenticeship levy has real benefits for schools. It will support them to train and develop new and existing staff. It is an integral part of the Government’s wider plans to improve productivity and to provide opportunities for people of all backgrounds and all ages to enter the workplace. That is why we encourage all schools to employ or designate apprenticeships, whether or not they pay the apprenticeship levy.
Anne Marie Morris
Does the Minister recognise that—as I understand it—there is no such thing as an apprentice teacher? Does he agree that the most important thing to spend money on, for any school facing the pressures they are facing, is teachers, not administrative staff?
Mr Gibb
There is an employers’ group that is preparing and working on the introduction of a graduate-entry apprenticeship scheme for teachers, so there will be opportunities for schools to use that funding and indeed spend more than the money from the apprenticeship levy on training teachers and also support staff and other technical staff that help schools operate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) described his constituency as in part inner city, where there are significant areas of deprivation. The Government are seeking to tackle that, not least through improving education. Social mobility lies at the core of the Government’s objectives, and that is one reason why schools in his constituency are seeing an overall increase of some 4.4% in funding, which he was magnanimous enough to acknowledge.
We are using a broad definition of disadvantage to target additional funding to the schools most likely to use it, comprising pupil and area-level deprivation data, prior attainment data and English as an additional language data. No individual measure is enough on its own; each addresses different challenges that schools face. When a child qualifies under more than one of those factors, the school receives funding for each qualifying factor. For example, if a child comes from a more disadvantaged household and they live in an area of socioeconomic deprivation, their school will attract funding through both the free school meals factor and the area-level deprivation factor. That helps us to target funding most accurately to the schools that face the most acute challenges.
Mr Streeter
The Minister has said that this is a genuine consultation exercise, but I am not hearing too much in terms of a willingness to amend the national funding formula. I understand that that will be tricky, but will he confirm that if a sufficiently strong case is made he is prepared to look again and that changes might be made?
Mr Gibb
I am seeking to explain the reasoning behind why we place such emphasis on deprivation and low prior attainment—that is something that will affect the grammar schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—and why we place such emphasis on helping children with English as an additional language. This is a Government driven to improve social mobility.
This is a genuine consultation. I have set out the explanation as to why we produced the formula for consultation that we did. We are listening to the responses—we will be going through and reading the written responses and we will listen to debates such as this one in the consultation process—and where we can make changes that address unfairnesses revealed through that process of course we will make changes to the approach we are taking. The decisions we are taking are driven principally by social mobility and ensuring that children from the most deprived parts of our country are properly funded at their schools to ensure that they make progress and fulfil their potential.
I acknowledge the concerns about the schools block ring fence and the level of flexibility between schools and high needs raised in the debate, given that Devon has in the past moved funding from the schools block to the high-needs block to support its high-needs pressures. We recognise that some continuing flexibility between the schools and high-needs blocks will be important in ensuring that the funding system is responsive to changes in the balance of mainstream and specialist provision.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon for the important work he and the WESC Foundation do for children and young people with visual impairment. The reforms of high-needs funding and the additional funding we are providing this year and next year support the most vulnerable children in the country who are supported by high-needs funding.
In order to give my right hon. Friend time to respond, I will conclude. I am enormously grateful to him for raising this issue and to other hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Members for airing their concerns and issues about funding of schools. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends are reassured that the Government are committed to reforming school funding and delivering a fair funding system for children in Devon and throughout the country.
Oliver Colvile
May I thank the Minister very much for his response? Will he be willing to meet the grammar schools in my constituency? Would he like to comment on why grammar schools did not feature in the speech made by the Opposition spokesman?
Mr Gibb
I will be delighted to meet the grammar school headteachers from his constituency either in the constituency or at the Department. To be fair to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), this debate is about funding, but we as a Government want to create more good school places, whether those are more good grammar school places or more good school places in non-selective schools, helped by the independent sector and universities, and by having more faith schools. We want more good school places, and that is what drives our continuing education reforms.
I hope that hon. Members will be reassured about the Government’s commitment to reforming school funding. It is a system where funding reflects the real level of need and where every pupil has the same opportunities.
Mr Gibb
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I would like to give time for my right hon. Friend to respond.
A fair national funding formula for schools and high needs underpins our ambition for social mobility and social justice. It will mean that every pupil is supported to achieve to the best of their potential, wherever they are in the country. I hope that while recognising the challenges that lie ahead, my hon. Friends will give their support to working with us to achieve that vital aim.
Sir Hugo Swire
The first thing on which we can all be agreed is that we are delighted to see the Minister back in his job. At one point he had an enforced holiday from the Front Bench; his proper place is on the Front Bench, doing what he is doing for education. It may not seem like it, but he can be assured that he is largely among friends this morning.
The Opposition spokesman referred back to the halcyon days of the Governments of Mr Blair and Mr Brown. I gently point out to him—he was not in the House at that time—that Devon certainly did not prosper in terms of schools funding in those days. He talked about how a Labour Government stopped water coming through the roof. Unfortunately, they did not stop the economy going through the floor. We are picking up the pieces, and, as I said at the beginning, we must be realistic as to what we can afford, given the appalling legacy we inherited.
I think the debate has been constructive, thoughtful and indeed insightful. I agree with the Minister that we all have the same eventual aim. This is an extraordinarily challenging time for the United Kingdom, given the great educational achievements of Asia, for instance, especially in mathematics and science. If we are to turn out a generation of British people who can compete in a highly competitive world, we will have to do that better. That is informing the Government’s thinking, but we must ensure that that is fair as well as ambitious.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that west country Members of Parliament have a history of being fairly independent-minded, and I think he will have learned from this morning that that tradition continues. Indeed, there are those of us who will be looking carefully at the Government’s proposals to see whether we can back them in terms of representing the best interests of our teachers and constituents.
This is one of the rare occasions in Parliament on which we want to hear more of the C-word—that is, of course, consultation. If the consultation is genuine, the Minister would do well to meet the Devon Association of Primary Headteachers—we would like him to come to Devon, or we can bring them all here—to hear at first hand how the changes will affect us in the county of Devon. With that in mind, I will end a few seconds early to give the Minister extra time to go back to his Department, consult his officials and come up with a deal that is fairer for the people of Devon.
Mr David Hanson (in the Chair)
We have about 30 seconds until the next debate and I hope that the Minister for that debate will arrive shortly. May I say it has been a pleasure to listen to the debate? As a former resident of Plymouth and an employee of Plymouth and South Devon Co-op many years ago, I found it interesting to hear the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered education funding in Devon.
S4C
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered future arrangements for S4C.
I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and pleased to see the Minister taking his place for this important debate. Perhaps predictably, I want to set out the importance of S4C to Wales, talk about some of its aspirations and plans for the future, show how it hopes to continue playing an important role in the life and culture of Wales, and then talk specifically about funding needs and the announced review of its remit.
S4C is the only Welsh-language TV channel in the world and has made a huge contribution to the culture of Wales and the Welsh language. Indeed, it has been pivotal in helping to maintain spoken Welsh throughout Wales and develop its use in a positive and forward-looking way. Usually, in debates such as this—perhaps lengthier ones—there will be some on the Government side who remind us that the creation of S4C in 1982 was a Conservative achievement. I do not dispute the date but I will say at the outset that of course many people from all political parties were involved in the creation of S4C. A more critical point is that since 1982 the channel has enjoyed strong cross-party support, as we can partly see from attendance in the Chamber today. S4C is critical to Wales’s 562,000 Welsh speakers—and the UK’s estimated 700,000; to learners such as me; and to those interested more generally in the nation of Wales.
Although S4C has had a fundamental and primary role in helping to preserve the language, it has focused on new and innovative ways to spread Welsh-language broadcasting, which has helped its programming to extend beyond Welsh speakers and learners. Since 2015 there has been a 107% increase in S4C’s viewers from outside the UK, through its S4C/Gwylio online platform. A fantastic example of the type of content that has spread beyond Welsh-speaking communities is S4C’s innovation in drama, such as the now internationally renowned “Y Gwyll”, or “Hinterland”, which was filmed in my constituency. I should perhaps declare an interest: my 10-year-old twins came home from school one day at the end of last year and announced that they were “on ‘Hinterland’”. They are extras in one of the recently filmed editions; we shall see what happens. They have not been paid a penny, but I declare it. “Y Gwyll” has won numerous awards including the main award at last year’s New York international film and television awards.
There have been other high-quality Welsh language productions, such as the political drama “Byw Celwydd”, focusing on a dramatised version of the Welsh Assembly. The mind boggles. The production of “Y Gwyll”, which has now been sold internationally, has had a huge impact on my constituency, but also more generally in Wales. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) often reminds me, when I talk about that great advertisement for Ceredigion, that usually the plots are dark, with clouds building up, and a murder. Quite how that promotes Ceredigion I do not know, but it has done, and I celebrate that.
The programme’s impact, and that of much of S4C’s innovative content, should not be underestimated. Investment in S4C has been shown to have a huge multiplier effect on the Welsh economy. Independent research has shown that during 2014-15, every £1 that was invested by S4C in the creative industries in Wales was worth more than £2 to the economy—double the value. Using the example of the first series of “Hinterland”, its impact on the economy alone was more than £1 million in my locality; S4C’s total impact across the UK in the period was estimated at a staggering £170 million.
That has to be seen in the context of a television channel that is increasingly lean. Some members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs went last year to the headquarters of S4C in Cardiff and saw how lean the operation is, and what is achieved on limited resources: overheads of just 4.2% compared with 11.3% across the public sector, fewer than 150 staff, and a 35% reduction in the cost of commissioned content since 2009. It is indeed value for money. With the change in how many people consume content, S4C has also been successful in moving away from traditional scheduled television programming to catch-up services and social media.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He and many in the Chamber have campaigned for S4C for many years. The Minister is in charge of the digital economy; the new media that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) has mentioned are difficult to obtain in many areas of Wales, for infrastructure reasons. I welcome the Digital Economy Bill but there is a need for greater emphasis not just on rural but peripheral and Welsh-speaking areas, so that they can enjoy S4C content.
Mr Williams
I very much agree; the hon. Gentleman is right. I represent a peripheral and Welsh-speaking area, and he has hit the nail on the head. I am sure that the Minister will respond to the point.
I was talking about catch-up services and social media and want to make the point that S4C has been hugely responsive in catering for demand. In just a few months, the viewing figure for S4C video content on social media alone, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has said, has more than doubled—almost trebled—from 737,000 views in September 2016 to more than 2.235 million by December 2016. It is vital, more generally, that public service broadcasters respond to the change in demand, and S4C has been doing just that. It is with that in mind that I welcome the Government’s commitment to an independent review of S4C’s remit, funding and accountability arrangements. It is something that many hon. Members of all parties have called for. The industry has called for it, and it is important that we achieve it.
In recent years substantial cuts have been made to the funding that S4C receives through the BBC licence fee and the direct funding that it receives through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Through the licence fee, it receives £74.5 million annually, and will do until 2021-22, although that is likely to represent a 10% cut by the end of the period. The Government’s 2015 Budget made an attempt to cut the direct funding to S4C from DCMS from £6.7 million to £5 million. In view of what I have said about the lean operation, that is a substantial sum and would have had a heavy impact on S4C.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. DCMS funding is now only 8% of S4C’s funding; does he agree that people in Wales, Welsh-speaking or not, pay taxes too and that any further cut would be totally unacceptable to us?
Mr Williams
I very much agree and will develop a more extensive answer to that comment in the rest of my speech. I think that that view is widely shared, including, I am pleased to say, on the Conservative side. The hon. Lady will remember, as I do, the 2 am debate in the Chamber last January, initiated by the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). I was grateful for the opportunity of that debate, despite its being at 2 in the morning. Notwithstanding bleary eyes, we saw strong opposition from Members across the House to an attempt to make a severe cut to S4C’s funding from DCMS. We were relieved that staying up was worth while, because spending was frozen at the original level for 2016-17, pending a review into S4C’s remit. According to the then Digital Minister, the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), that would:
“ensure financial stability—”
critically, now—
“through the review process.”
Although it represents a real-terms cut, I greatly welcome, with the caveats I mentioned, the decision to give S4C stability over its funding through the licence fee for the next few years. I also welcome the freezing of the cut to the DCMS portion of its funding last year.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government could immediately grant S4C borrowing powers, which it has asked for and which would not have a detrimental effect on budgets? None of us can see any reason why that should be rejected. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that during the debate.
Mr Williams
I am not averse to that suggestion at all; it would be a positive step forward. However, I will develop how I intend to achieve for the coming year what the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) achieved last year.
There is little doubt in my mind or, I think, in the minds of Members from other parties, that cuts to S4C have been almost to the bone, not only making it extremely difficult for the broadcaster to meet the obligations of its remit, but making it particularly challenging to be innovative and to cater to the changing demands of the Welsh public. However, S4C has to date, with increasing difficulty, continued to meet its obligations and the changing demands.
With the difficulties facing the broadcaster as a result of those cuts, it is absolutely right that a review takes place to ensure that it has the necessary funding to fulfil its remit and strategy over the longer term. A comprehensive review into S4C announced in February of last year by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), along with a reversal of the cuts prior to the outcome of the review, was welcome. However, we are now in 2017, and we still waiting for that promised review. There is cross-party concern about the delay, as well as concern in the creative industries that rely so heavily on a strong Welsh broadcasting sector.
I hope the Minister will enlighten us as to the reason for the delay. Why is a statement from February 2016, made in the early hours of the morning during the debate called by the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, only now being actioned? Critically, can he also give us details about when the review is likely to take place, its timetable and when it is anticipated to conclude? With that in mind, and with the former Secretary of State’s commitment, I would also appreciate the Minister’s assurance that cuts to Government funding of S4C that were frozen under the previous Secretary of State will continue to be frozen at least until the review gives its recommendations.
One big issue that requires Government assurance is on the specifics of the review. Many hon. Members, and many people outside the Chamber, hope for confirmation from the Minister that the review will be chaired by an independent individual with a thorough understanding of Wales, the Welsh language and broadcasting. It is also important that the remit of the review considers the need to update S4C’s remit, to reflect changes in the broadcasting industry and to ensure that the channel meets the needs of its audience, both in the short and long term.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman also hope that the review will look at devolving the funding that S4C gets from this place? It might more properly be the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff, as recommended by the Silk commission.
Mr Williams
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have always regarded Sir Paul Silk’s work as a political bible—not only for members of his party but mine. As he suggested, devolution of that funding would be a good thing. It is something that should be considered as part of the review, which is why we asked the question about its remit. My concern about broadcasting being devolved to the National Assembly in its entirety—it is a different issue, but I will raise it—is whether our friends working in the Assembly would guarantee the required level of funding for S4C. However, there is merit in what the hon. Gentleman says in his question.
I am sure the Minister understands that S4C’s future funding is certainly one of its big concerns. As such, I would appreciate if he would set out whether the review will make recommendations on the process by which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport decides on the sufficiency of funding for S4C, as required by the Public Bodies Act 2011, to ensure that S4C remains competitive in the public service broadcasting market and is able to continue to meet audience expectations over the long term. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), because he was on the Public Bodies Bill Committee with me, will remember the concern expressed at the time when the funding formula for S4C was abandoned and replaced by a clause stating that the Secretary of State would decide on the sufficiency of funding. That is why this fits in neatly with the DCMS element of the budget.
Will the review consider the most appropriate mechanisms by which S4C should be funded? It is important that that includes the UK Government’s direct contribution to S4C. Security and visibility of funding for S4C over a reasonable period to prevent unnecessary uncertainty and to allow it to plan for the future is vital. Will the Minister ensure that that is reviewed, both in the context of the funding it receives directly and any potential governance and accountability changes to the BBC that could have an impact on S4C’s funding through the licence fee?
I have had many concerns, as has, I think, almost every Member here, about cuts to S4C’s funding over the years. However, that is not the subject of the debate. On a positive note, I still—as I did in the early hours during that debate in February 2016—welcome the review and the budget being frozen. However, we need answers to those questions. Many questions have yet to be answered, and I know that it will help to clarify the situation if the Minister is able to provide those answers to Members today. S4C is too important a working, practical, achieving institution to have any more delays in these matters.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate on the importance of S4C and its future. Although I grew up on the Welsh borders, I am still in the early stages of learning Welsh. My vocabulary runs to only a few words, most of which were learned from road signs—“Araf” is something I will never forget. This is something that is close to my heart and to the Government’s heart as well. Mae’r iaith Gymraeg ac S4C yn bwysig iawn i’r Deyrnas Unedig. I hope the record will show that I said that the Welsh language and S4C are very important to the United Kingdom.
I will respond to the questions from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and from elsewhere. On his comments about S4C’s origins, it was of course a Conservative Government who brought in S4C. I acknowledge that success has many fathers, and there was a lot of support at the time for S4C’s introduction, but that its introduction was a Conservative achievement shows the heritage of the Government’s support for the Welsh language and for S4C.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned borrowing powers and asked when the review would take place. It will take place shortly. We are aware of the issues around borrowing powers and we are looking at options. The TV licence fee funding for S4C is being protected in cash terms. That means it will be flat over the spending review period. The advantage of that is, first, that it is not being cut and, secondly, that there is certainty over a long period to allow for planning. I hope that that helps.
I have read the transcripts of the debates on this issue before I came into this post. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who has really led the charge. While awaiting the review, the funding was frozen rather than cut last year, essentially after the lobbying of a large group of people, led by my hon. Friend, who stands up for his constituency so powerfully.
We will be announcing the review shortly. We will certainly take into account the comments that my hon. Friend and others have made as to what the review should consider. I can commit to the reviewer having a thorough understanding of Wales and an interest in the Welsh language. Of course, the review needs to look into how S4C can succeed in the short term and long term. The licence fee now contributes the vast majority of funding—more than £74 million. The direct funding from DCMS is currently just over £6 million, which, as the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said, is a relatively small element of the overall funding. We are aware of the commitments given by a predecessor on timing, and the Secretary of State is currently considering that issue.
Simon Hart
I thank the Minister for his kind comments, but in his letter to me on 14 December he said:
“this year the Government gave over £6 million and we will be giving over £6 million next year.”
Can he be a bit more precise? That could mean £6.9 million in 2016 and £6.1 million in 2017. If he could tighten that up, we would be much relieved.
Matt Hancock
That is an incredibly tempting invitation. In this financial year, the DCMS funding is £6.762 million, and the funding next year is set to be £6.058 million. I know that my hon. Friend is suggesting that those two figures ought to be closer—
Matt Hancock
Or, as my hon. Friend says, the same.
In terms of timing, we always said that the review of S4C would follow the BBC charter renewal, which is now complete. In fact, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport today announced its support for the new chair of the BBC unitary board. That decision now needs to go to the Privy Council. It would be unusual and constitutionally interesting should the Privy Council not approve that decision. We are now in a position to push on with the S4C review shortly.
Albert Owen
I did not quite hear the figures that the Minister read out. My understanding was that it is a cut, not a freezing, of the budget from this year to next year. Will he confirm those figures again?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. The figures set out in the spending review 2015 are £6.762 million for this financial year and £6.058 million for the next financial year. It is thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire and others—not least those who called this debate today—that the Secretary of State is looking at that issue.
We are considering the question of borrowing powers. The Silk commission said that we should consider the devolution of S4C. Of course, all broadcasting is a reserved matter, rather than a devolved one. That is the basis on which we have been operating, but we accepted that Silk review recommendation, so that consideration will happen.
On the overall question of the link to the licence fee, moving the funding from direct taxpayer support to licence fee funding was controversial at the time. However, since the S4C-BBC link started after 2010, it has been a huge success, not least because S4C can use some of the BBC’s digital technology. For instance, its content is now on iPlayer, and I understand that viewing figures have increased by over 3,000%.
As was mentioned, the impact of digital technology is incredibly important in this area, not least so that we can get broadcast material to people who live outside Wales where S4C is broadcast, in the rest of the UK and the rest of the world. For lovers of the Welsh language, that link-up and the fact that S4C can partner with the BBC in getting its content out are very positive. It is reasonable to say that the decision to move the majority of S4C funding over to the licence fee has generated further partnerships and been a success.
The S4C’s economic impact was a big part of the case made by hon. Members. The contribution made by S4C to the Welsh economy is not only through the direct impact of the broadcasting but through its work with the TV production industry. The success of Welsh TV production has been impressive in the past few years, in both the English and Welsh languages. We heard a few examples. Welsh-made TV shows and formats are now sold worldwide. As well as being the home of dynamic independent producers, Wales has become a hub of creativity and a desirable place to make programmes. For instance, Wales is the production centre for “Dr Who” —an iconic British success, aired in 200 countries around the world. Children’s programmes such as “Ludus” are shown on CBBC, with the spin-off app winning a BAFTA Cymru award. S4C’s “Fferm Ffactor” is now licensed and produced in Denmark, Sweden and China. “Y Gwyll”, or “Hinterland”, is screened in both Welsh and English, showing the innovations and economies of scale by using both languages.
When I was in Los Angeles the week before last, some of the film producers there were at pains to point out to me what an innovative, powerful and increasingly impressive TV and film production system there is in Wales and how they are looking to Wales to expand into some of the new areas of production—so Hollywood goes to the Welsh valleys. We have seen some of that theme in the past few years, and I hope that we will see much more of it. S4C plays its role in developing that TV production centre. Wales is home to more than 50 TV and animation companies that collectively generate around £1 billion for the Welsh economy, of which S4C alone directly contributed £114 million in 2015-16.
As well as the impact on the Welsh language and economy, the other reason to support S4C is its importance in Wales’s media plurality, which ensures that the public have access to a wide range of views, news and information about the world in which we live, while specifically focusing on what is happening in Wales. While the media landscape and technology change, our support for S4C remains resolute and will continue as we hold it in its place in Wales’s broad landscape of media and TV production and in the hearts of the Welsh people. I hope that we can continue this dialogue and can continue across the House to support S4C.
Question put and agreed to.
DWP Estate
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Given that Margaret Ferrier may speak for 20 minutes, the Minister may wind up for 10 minutes and there are eight speakers, each speaker will have about eight minutes. If any Member goes over that time, I will have to impose a time limit, which will reduce the time for everyone else, so perhaps Members will bear that in mind as a matter of respect and consideration. If time restrictions are introduced, I will let Members know.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the DWP estate.
It is an honour to serve under your Chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and a pleasure to see so many Members here to discuss this important issue. I am sure there will be plenty of excellent contributions and that the Minister will be given plenty of food for thought.
The Minister will be aware that this is a major issue in the Glasgow area, particularly at the moment owing to the announcement by the Department for Work and Pensions of the closure next year of half the jobcentres in the city, which is a morally outrageous plan. I hope that today’s debate is an opportunity for Members not only to discuss this serious matter, but to engage in a frank discussion about the DWP estate across the UK. I also hope the Department will listen intently to what is said here today.
This debate is not about cost considerations, spreadsheet figures or departmental proposals drawn up by people who are likely never to have visited the centres earmarked for closure. In essence, it is about how changes to the DWP estate will impact on lives, not in some abstract way but in a real sense. What might seem entirely rational and reasonable on a sheet of paper will have a profound impact on people’s lives, including those of my constituents in Cambuslang who use the jobcentre there, which unfortunately is one of the eight set to close.
My immediate concern is Cambuslang and the seven other jobcentres in Glasgow that are set to shut their doors. However, it is clear that the city is being used as a guinea pig for the reduction of DWP offices elsewhere. This matter is not just for me and my hon. Friends who represent Glasgow constituencies to worry about: all Members should be concerned. The closure of half of Glasgow’s jobcentres will be a troubling precursor to a brutal round of cuts in jobcentres across the UK. The Government will implement them without any consideration of the far-reaching and in some cases devastating implications for low-income families. In Glasgow alone, about 68,000 people who are in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance, employment support allowance and universal credit will be impacted by the closures. The cuts are so harsh and so brutal that they have achieved something that does not happen as often as it should: political consensus and almost cross-party condemnation.
At the weekend, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) co-ordinated a letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland calling on him to take action on the jobcentre closures. I signed that letter with every other Glasgow MP; Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon; Scottish National party Members of the Scottish Parliament; Scottish Labour Members and Scottish Green party Members, as well as Labour and SNP leaders on Glasgow City Council. Despite voicing concerns on social media when the closures were first announced, Glasgow’s two Tory MSPs decided not to sign the letter.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon Friend on securing this debate and apologise for not being able to stay owing to commitments in the Procedure Committee. Will she join me in hoping that tomorrow Glasgow’s Conservative MSPs will have an opportunity to put on the record their opposition to the closures, especially that of Maryhill jobcentre, which is not far from their office and is in my constituency, when our colleague Bob Doris MSP leads a debate on the issue in the Scottish Parliament?
Margaret Ferrier
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We hope that there is consensus across all parties, including the Tory party in Scotland. I congratulate our colleague in the Scottish Parliament on again bringing forward this important debate in the Holyrood Chamber tomorrow. The decision is for Tory MSPs to make, but it is regrettable that they seem to have chosen to adopt an ideological party line rather than to lend their voice and support to the people they were elected to represent.
The Public and Commercial Services Union has also condemned the closure proposals, saying they represent a slash and burn policy by DWP. I want to put on the record my appreciation for the Evening Times, which has diligently reported the jobcentre closure story from the start and deserves recognition for its “Hands off our jobcentres” campaign. The cuts are so worrying that the Church of Scotland has intervened, condemning the effect they will have on people as fundamentally wrong and unjust, while our Catholic Archbishop, Philip Tartaglia, has expressed his concern and called on the Department to reconsider the proposals in a way that respects the dignity of claimants and meets their needs.
The concern of Members, which is demonstrably shared by civic society, is not political bluster or point scoring; it is born of genuine and legitimate concern for some of our most vulnerable constituents. I hope the Minister will listen properly today. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here. His absence from today’s debate reflects his handling of the issue so far. I have asked him a series of written questions about when he learned of the proposed cuts to Glasgow’s jobcentres. Yesterday, in response to one of them, he was forced to admit that the DWP did not discuss the specific plans with him in advance of its announcement. This was no doubt an embarrassing confession by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it raises an important question: why did the DWP keep the Scotland Office in the dark about the plans?
The Scottish Secretary has admitted that he met DWP representatives in July, but they provided only an overview of the Department’s estates process in general without detailing specific plans. The Minister must address this matter in her response today. Why were proposals of such huge significance kept secret from the Scotland Office, and why was a decision made to keep a Cabinet colleague uninformed, particularly given the embarrassment that would cause him when the truth came out? I can empathise with the Scottish Secretary because it seems that none of us was deemed important enough to be consulted or even informed by the DWP prior to the story breaking in the press. Indeed, it took the Department another seven hours thereafter to get round to sending affected MPs correspondence about the plans.
It is completely outrageous that the Scottish Government were not consulted on the proposals. That point specifically raises serious concerns about the UK Government’s commitment to paragraph 58 of the Smith commission’s report, which recognised that Jobcentre Plus will remain reserved, but called on the UK and Scottish Governments to
“identify ways to further link services through methods such as co-location wherever possible and establish more formal mechanisms to govern the Jobcentre Plus network in Scotland.”
The Scottish Minister for Employability and Training has written to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asking how the change will reduce access to services and perhaps increase the risk of sanctions that may be applied in relation to the need to attend such facilities.
The Scottish Minister has also asked for urgent advice on the future of Jobcentre Plus facilities across the rest of the country. I want to ask the same question today. Tens of thousands of people in the Glasgow area will, unacceptably, have to travel further and incur additional costs to access their social security entitlement and support. They deserve full and frank answers to these questions.
The PCS has said the closures will have an adverse impact, particularly on women, vulnerable children and people with disabilities, who are already hardest hit by Government cuts. The Government must be mindful that people travelling to jobcentres are seeking work or employment support and are doing so on very low incomes. One in three children in Glasgow last year were living in poverty—that is consistently the highest rate in Scotland according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Making it more difficult for people to reach jobcentres will surely further exacerbate the problem. Indeed, the Tory Government continue to peddle the line that they want to help people into work, but continued cuts to benefits, and now these planned closures, only serve to push people further into hardship.
The Poverty Alliance has raised concerns that this reduction in face-to-face support could put people off claiming support that they need. The current sanctions regime has made accessing social security almost impossible for many people, particularly the young, and this move is likely to put people off claiming the support that they are actually entitled to. The Minister must realise that the jobcentre closures are seen as yet another callous attack on the disadvantaged and the vulnerable. They will create more hoops to jump through and increase the risk of sanctioning as a result.
I appreciate that the Minister’s response will probably seek to justify the rationale behind the closures, and I would therefore be obliged if she could also address my next points. We have been told that fewer jobcentres are needed because more people are in employment. The Fraser of Allander Institute has estimated that a hard Brexit could cost as many as 80,000 Scottish jobs. Following the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, it now appears that we are facing not only a hard Brexit but, indeed, the hardest Brexit. Given that fact, and the significant potential for economic volatility ahead of us, what sense does it make to close the doors of jobcentres, let alone half of all the Glasgow jobcentres? Surely we should be cautious in our approach. The approach that the DWP is taking is like leaving the house in the morning wearing shorts and a T-shirt when snow is forecast later in the day. There is a shocking lack of foresight here, and I ask that the potential impact of Brexit be given proper consideration as a reason to halt these plans.
The other point that I would like to make regarding the rationale for closing the centres concerns savings. We are told that the financial benefit to the taxpayer is sufficient reason to close these centres. What we have not seen is any proof that other avenues were explored. Closure seems to have been the desired and only option on the table, rather than the one of last resort. Is the Minister able to tell us today what other options were considered for each of the eight centres marked for closure? Were alternative premises sought? Was the option of co-location fully explored for each of them?
The Minister must understand the lack of faith that we have in this process. This is particularly the case because of the shambolic manner in which another Government Department recently handled the closure of offices in Scotland. In total, 137 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices across the UK are closing, with potentially thousands of job losses in Scotland. The Government say they are prioritising closing the tax gap and getting people back into work, but the closure of HMRC offices and jobcentres could seriously compromise both. The National Audit Office recently released a report on HMRC’s estate changes, showing that up to 38,000 staff will be expected to move large distances as part of a reorganisation, with some having to relocate by up to 174 miles if they want to keep their jobs. Now, although the Government have said that no jobcentre staff are expected to lose their jobs as a result of DWP estate changes, the HMRC changes have set a worrying precedent. We need to be clear about how many staff will be affected, and whether there will be a guarantee of no redundancies—I repeat, no redundancies.
We in the SNP are concerned that this is a slippery slope—a move to downsize with a view to making savings that will ultimately lead to job losses as well as having a negative impact on service delivery. We are calling for progress on plans to close the sites to be halted immediately until a full equality impact assessment is carried out. We remain concerned that the proposed exercise will not consider the vast impact that these closures will have across Glasgow. Only three of the eight proposed closures are going to consultation, while the others will not be consulted on. That is completely inadequate; the consultation must look at the entire package of closures. Will the Minister, in her response, undertake to widen the scope of the consultation to look at the broader picture right across Glasgow? We are disappointed and worried that only carrying out an equality analysis post the consultation period will fail to identify the devastating hardships that these closures could cause our communities in Glasgow. We must have a proper guarantee that the results of any equality analysis will be considered in the eventual decision, and assurance that the Government will amend their plans accordingly. It is vital that a full equality impact assessment is conducted by the DWP urgently; I seek assurance from the Minister today that she will give that very serious consideration.
In summary, I would like the Minister to tell me why the Secretary of State for Scotland was kept in the dark about the planned closures in Glasgow. How might these changes reduce access to services and possibly increase the risk of sanctions, which are applied around the need to attend these facilities? What future changes are being discussed within the DWP for Jobcentre Plus facilities across the rest of the country? I would like the Minister to address the points that I made regarding our uncertain economic future due to Brexit, and the wisdom of closing the centres at this time. Also, what other options were considered for each of the eight centres that are marked for closure? Finally, will the Minister commit to widening the scope of the consultation and carrying out a full equality impact assessment?
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Dorries. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for securing this debate on the future of the DWP estate and the opportunities that it presents us across the UK. Although I cannot pretend that I agree with everything she said, it was absolutely clear throughout—it was thoughtful, detailed and she had her residents’ best interests at heart. I hope that she gets suitable responses at the end of the debate from the Minister.
We are in a time of record employment in all areas and we are now very close to full structural employment. The reality is that those still seeking work are often the ones who need the most help. In that context, the announcement of the health and work Green Paper gives us a real opportunity to shape the future of the DWP estate so that it delivers on the core principle of a personalised and tailored approach. That is supported by employers, charities, organisations and Work programme providers. Therefore, this is a timely debate on the thrust of seizing those opportunities across the UK.
As a former Minister, I saw this at first hand when I visited the Shaw Trust Hackney community hub. It tries to do things differently. It is a one-stop-shop—a community hub—where jobseekers receive a bespoke service that is tailored to their specific needs to help them to overcome the barriers that are holding them back from finding employment. People can access not only direct support in looking for work, but counselling sessions and support from healthcare professionals. There has been a significant increase in performance, an increase in staff and customer satisfaction levels and better Work programme participant engagement.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The key word in the hon. Gentleman’s speech is “community”. What we are talking about is the heart being ripped out of our communities.
Justin Tomlinson
We have to deliver the best opportunities for all people who are looking for work. I am setting out what I believe to be the best way to equip those people who are trying to seize the opportunity of the growing economy. The Shaw Trust has provided me with a number of examples, including that of Kazeem, a 23-year-old, who arrived with very low confidence, experiencing depression and anxiety. With the bespoke support that he was given in that community hub, he was able to secure jobs at both Amazon and his local cinema. It was not just the Work programme providers, but employers such as ITV, Barclays and Michael Page that worked within that hub, which brought together those healthcare professionals and external employers as well as the Work programme providers. They made a huge difference, and there are many other examples.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
Could the hon. Gentleman clarify, if he is talking about Kazeem getting a job with Amazon, whether Kazeem is from Glasgow, because Amazon is in Dunfermline, which is an hour away by bus?
Justin Tomlinson
This was at the Hackney community hub run by the Shaw Trust, so it would have been at Amazon there. This debate is on the future of the DWP estate, which covers the whole of the UK, but I wish any Kazeem in the hon. Lady’s constituency the best of luck with finding work, whether at Amazon or somewhere else.
Understandably, a lot of people who arrive at a jobcentre lack confidence and are nervous. I have seen that at first hand when I have supported my own constituents. All too often, I am afraid, people are greeted by a security guard, who is probably the last person that somebody wishes to see when they are nervous. Some jobcentres are drab buildings from the ’60s, ’70s or ’80s. They do not celebrate success stories. There are no posters or videos that show people who have gone through the same challenges, faced and overcome them, come through at the other end and benefited from work. The staff are too often fixed to the facility. I suspect most other hon. Members who speak in this debate will highlight the challenge of getting to jobcentres; sometimes the solution is taking the jobcentre directly to people.
One of the most important parts of the universal credit roll-out is that, for the first time ever, people entering work will continue to get support. I hope that support will extend to those coming into the workplace. A lot of those people will be entering work on the national living wage, at the beginning of a career path. They will need support in work to secure additional hours and to get promotion when they lack the confidence to push themselves forward. We are all confident here—we all push ourselves forward and we all wish to seek to improve ourselves—but not everybody has that ability. That is an example of why we need to take people out of jobcentres.
When I visited an award-winning job coach, who was doing a great job, I saw another example of why a fixed location should not always be the solution. There was a young lad who was incredibly enthusiastic and desperate to do bar work, which we have a chronic shortage of people for in this country. I used to work in the industry; I remember thinking that, if I still worked in it, I would have snapped him up. His issue was that he was so confident that he would sometimes talk for too long in an interview and talk himself out of a job. Each time, the jobcentre staff would say, “Go off and apply for some more jobs”, but he would come back two weeks later and he had talked himself out of another job. All it needed was a job coach to go with him to an interview to explain to the employer, “When you have had enough of him talking, just say stop”. He would have secured work straight away. Yet the system meant that he kept returning at his inconvenience every two weeks on a continuous loop, when it just needed somebody to go with him to the interview.
Rightly, we have started piloting a small business employment scheme. Too many employers do not want to engage with their local jobcentre—I was the same when I ran a business for 10 years. We need to get jobcentre people going out to small and medium-sized businesses and saying, “What skills gaps do you have? Can we identify them?” The DWP has been running a small business pilot, in which staff go around retail, industrial and business parks and find people. It was so successful that the DWP ran out of people, either at the jobcentre or in the Work programme, to fill all those roles. That is exactly the sort of challenge that we need to take on. Again, it saves time for the claimant. We also need to organise job fairs.
In an ideal world, the jobcentre would be a hub. It would be a co-location, so that we are not sending claimants from building to building. We need health support. My point about being close to full structural employment is that the vast majority of people are now looking for work. More than 50% of people on employment and support allowance have a health condition or a disability; having instant health support on site will make a huge difference.
For some bizarre reason, rather than letting Work programme providers use our space, we send them off to find their own facilities, for which they secure a contract for a number of years. They spend a huge amount of time finding facilities, settling into them and getting to know them before having to renew the contract. It also gives claimants the inconvenience of having to go from the jobcentre to the Work programme provider and to health support, spending all their time travelling rather than looking for work. That is something that we need to address.
A jobcentre should be a hive of activity. It should have job fairs in the evenings and it should get in external employers, charities and mentors. That should all happen in a brightly coloured, constructive hub that supports people.
Margaret Ferrier
The hon. Gentleman talks about hubs. Is he suggesting that there should no longer be any security staff in jobcentres?
Justin Tomlinson
Absolutely not. Experienced organisations such as the Shaw Trust have dealt with that issue. Their security staff are also meeters and greeters. They have blurred those roles so that, instead of somebody in a uniform who will make people even more nervous, there is somebody who can act as a security person if they need to, which I am afraid they sometimes do, but who also make people welcome when they arrive. That is so important for people who have a number of barriers to overcome.
We need to be mindful of those with disabilities. Representatives of Action on Hearing Loss came to Parliament today to meet a number of MPs; it reminded me that it is often the hidden impairments that people do not take account of. I urge the Minister to consult with disabled people whenever we consider future facilities. We need to ensure not only that staff are trained but that, when we build facilities, we make them fully accessible. We can embrace technology such as the video relay service that DWP has trialled, the pilots for which were so successful that it will continue for evermore. We need to ensure that that technology is used in the rest of Government facilities and by those who provide contracts to them. I know from visiting SSE that the private sector has embraced that. It allows those who rely on British sign language to get instant access to facilities, rather than having to wait for an interpreter. It is an absolute must for all Government facilities to have hearing loops and for staff to be trained to use them. I could say much more on disabilities, but I am conscious of the time.
What I have said applies not just to jobcentres but to assessment centres for benefits such as the personal independence payment, which are often soulless places. There should be videos in the waiting areas to advertise other support offered to people who have a disability or a long-term health condition. The Government often do pilots, but people often do not know about them, so let us advertise them. Mental health is a really good example: there is cross-party support for improving support to people with mental health conditions and considerable additional money is being spent, but, all too often, those who most need that help simply do not know about it.
I know that the Minister is extremely constructive and engages regularly with Work programme providers, charities and people with experience. We have a real opportunity to build on the Green Paper. I look forward to her response.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thoroughly congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on her fantastic speech and on securing the debate.
The Government must feel as if they are in a film. I certainly feel as if I am in “Groundhog Day”, because we keep repeating the same arguments. We will be back again and again until the Minister and the DWP stop, listen and recognise the error of their decision. In the last debate before Christmas, the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) said, like a modern-day Arnold Schwarzenegger, “We will be back.” Here we are again, and we will not tire of making the same arguments, because we are right and the Government and the DWP are wrong. We know our areas, we know the people and the geography, and we know the challenges they face.
Glasgow East is not a dot on Google Maps; it is multiple communities with amazing characteristics but many unique challenges. The Government’s plans to rip jobcentres from the people who need them most, in some of the most deprived areas of the country, are bereft of logic, bereft of evidence and completely bereft of compassion. If the jobcentre closures go ahead in Glasgow, 50% of our jobcentres will close—half of them! That is in spite of the DWP’s plan to reduce its estate by only 20% across the country. Proportionally, Glasgow is being hit hardest. I am at peril of repeating myself here—groundhog day again—because, like many of my hon. Friends, I raised precisely that point in a previous Westminster Hall debate and in a number of meetings with the Minister before Christmas. No adequate answer has been forthcoming on why Glasgow is being singled out for such swingeing and disproportionate cuts. The only thing close to an answer was the statement that the DWP believes that Glasgow
“is in a unique position within the DWP…Estate”.
I cannot but feel that the Government believe that Glasgow is in a unique position to be useful in an ideologically driven cost-cutting exercise—a test subject, so to speak. Well, they have picked the wrong fight with the right people, because, as I am sure they are fast learning, we are not the strong silent types.
For entirely different reasons, I agree that Glasgow is, for want of a better phrase, in a unique position. Almost half of Glasgow’s residents live in areas that are among the 20% most deprived in Scotland. The city has been labelled the jobless capital of Europe. That is not a title that I claim with any satisfaction, but unfortunately it is the reality. Just today, we have all received the most recent figures on unemployment. In my constituency, it is at 4.9%, which is more than double the national average and is the 36th highest of the 650 constituencies in the UK. The so-called “unique” position that Glasgow finds itself in, through no fault of its own, illustrates that the UK Government should be doing more to help my constituents, not less. Instead, if the proposals go ahead, they will affect over 74,000 people across Glasgow and will create more barriers to employment and support for people seeking work, rather than breaking them down.
In the previous debate, I raised the issue of territorialism and the historical gang culture as unique issues in the east end of Glasgow. The Minister and the DWP flippantly dismissed those serious concerns by pointing out that Shettleston served as a youth hub jobcentre for four years. They ignored the extensive preparation and engagement work that was done with the police, stakeholders and the jobcentre. I said that the same work had not been done in this situation, when it is more critical, given the ages of the claimants, the historical nature of gang violence and the levels of unemployment among the mainly men involved.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is right to point out that Ministers trumpeted the youth hub as a success, but I have had discussions with local organisations on the ground and they pulled away from participation in the hub because they were not prepared to submit to using conditionality and clients making young people travel every day for something they were not obliged to do.
Natalie McGarry
That is a fantastic point, which I no longer need to make. The response from the Government that, in extreme cases, remote sign-ons would work will not satisfy me or the people I represent. Like the hon. Lady, I have gone further and spoken to former senior members of Shettleston jobcentre, who were there at the time. They told me that not only impact assessments, but multiple risk assessments were carried out to prepare for that. That experiment has failed. It is not here now for the reasons that the hon. Lady mentioned, and also because, I am told, the resources at Shettleston were not adequate for the demand, yet Shettleston will now replace three jobcentres. It beggars belief. I will not be papped off or shooed away on this. I want answers and I demand that that is properly considered as part of the consultation.
Another barrier is additional transport and the costs and logistics of it for the people we represent in Glasgow. If the plans go ahead, many of our constituents who are already on meagre incomes will incur additional costs and extra travel with no confirmed support from the DWP. With all due respect, the Government’s response has been woeful thus far and many questions remain unanswered. Does the Minister honestly and wholeheartedly believe that this situation is fair? Given that two thirds of households in deprived areas of Glasgow do not have access to a car, what assessment has she made of the impact this decision will have on jobseekers reliant on public transport?
If the plans go ahead, will the Minister ensure our constituents are reimbursed for extra travel costs? Will she give us a commitment today that no jobseeker will be sanctioned for delays caused by public transport? What assessment has been made of the impact the closures will have on additional travelling for people with caring responsibilities and those with a claimant commitment? What provisions will be made to assist people with mobility problems and people with caring responsibilities? Why did the Government fail to conduct and publish an equality impact assessment before the consultation period began? Such an assessment is surely key to informing those who participate in the consultation. Does the Minister not agree that the closures would undermine the Government’s commitment to halving the disability employment gap by 2020, and what assessment has been made of that?
Another issue that the Government must seriously address, but have thus far failed to, is the increase in demand for the reduced number of jobcentres in Glasgow. The jobcentre in Shettleston currently serves 1,025 people. However, when we add in the caseloads of Parkhead, Bridgeton and Easterhouse, that figure more than triples to 3,210. Shettleston would become one of the largest jobcentres in the entire UK in one of the areas with the highest levels of deprivation and unemployment. As I have said before, it would add insult to injury if the Government forced people in Glasgow to travel further at additional cost only to be inconvenienced in longer queues to receive a poorer service. What assessment has the Minister made of the potential delays for service users? What provisions would be put in place to ensure the quality of service did not deteriorate under the plans for closure?
The harm resulting from the Government’s plans to close the jobcentre in Easterhouse is potentially eye-watering. The communities of Easterhouse are strong and resilient, but that does not mitigate the impact that the closures would have on them. Isolated on the edge of the city, suffering from poor public transport and feeling the effects of high unemployment, Easterhouse cannot afford to lose its jobcentre. The plans destroy any kind of joined-up logic. Moreover, the journey from the jobcentre in Easterhouse to the jobcentre in Shettleston, if one of my constituents takes the 60 or 60A bus, which are the only buses available for that journey, is just over 3 miles. Yet Easterhouse has not been included in the consultation—perhaps Google did not identify it.
Margaret Ferrier
Is it the case that nobody has thought to travel north at all to find out the proper distances and how the plans will affect our constituents?
Natalie McGarry
That is an excellent point. I believe the Minister for Employment, who took part in the previous debate, is visiting Scotland. We have invited him to travel to Glasgow, but so far he has not taken us up on that offer. I am happy to ride a bus from some of the areas in my constituency, but will have to take two buses at additional cost to get to the new jobcentre.
I will conclude soon because I am aware I am slightly over time. Easterhouse has not been included in this consultation. That appears to contradict the DWP’s own guidelines. It undermines the Department’s consultation and absolutely fails to serve the interests of my constituents. The plans to close half of Glasgow’s jobcentres are cack-handed and are being done in the most cavalier way. The case for closures is cruel and contradictory. The Government cannot spout the rhetoric of,
“all in this together...for hardworking people”
and
“not just for the privileged few”
if they then pursue such ideologically-driven, ill-thought-out decisions. I implore the Minister and the Government to listen to local people and organisations across Glasgow and to hear the warnings from me and hon. Members. We are consulting our constituents and they will feed into the consultation process. I hope that the Minister will listen to the people who know Glasgow best.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Owing to the number of lengthy interventions, I now have to impose a time limit of five minutes on speeches.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Ms Dorries. This will test me.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on bringing this subject to this place again. As the MP who represents Glasgow North East, which has the 16th highest unemployment rate in the UK—at 5.9%, it is 2.5 times the UK average—I couldn’t not be here, but I will cut out huge swathes of my speech.
I have used my personal experience in this place on previous occasions. I have spoken about my own experience of being unemployed and how I was treated and how I responded. When I have spoken about it, it has elicited empathy from Members of all parties, with everyone agreeing that I did not deserve to be treated in that way, but I am aware that many here will think that what I speak of is my experience alone and that I am different, but I am not. When I have talked about the pain of being unable to find work and desperately wanting it, people have said to me, “But you are probably the exception to the rule”, but I am not. When I talked about being treated like a child by some—though not all—jobcentre staff and about that having the reverse effect in terms of getting me into employment, I was told that that was a one-off, but it was not. I am no different from any of my constituents. I have family, friends and constituents who all wanted to work, worked hard to find work and needed help, not punishment. I am saying this because I am coming to a suggestion as to what we can do with these jobcentres.
The small minority who do not put effort into finding work are those who need the most support. It is more often than not a deep lack of self-confidence that stops them, as has been said previously. We need to support, encourage and empower them, not criticise, ridicule and punish them by cruel sanctions and by making it far harder to get to the jobcentre. Here is my suggestion for using the excess space that we have heard about within the earmarked jobcentres. The DWP work services director for Scotland, Denise Horsfall, said earlier this week:
“In Glasgow the buildings are between 20% and 40% under occupied. When you go in you will see a floor fully occupied but there are floors above which are empty”,
so why not use that space to provide room where people can utilise services that will actually assist them to gain employment? I am thinking of the difficulty I once had when I had no printer and I was required to print 20, sometimes more, CVs: a total of 60 pages at a cost of 10p a photocopy every week. That was £6 that I honestly could not afford, so I asked the jobcentre staff if they would print them for me. The answer I got was—I paraphrase, but this is the sense of it: “Don’t be ridiculous. We can’t do that sort of thing here.” I am thinking of the times when I could not afford credit for my phone, but I needed to make phone calls about employment opportunities. I wanted to be proactive. Why not use the space that is said to be leading to jobcentre closures, and provide office equipment and anything that people need for support in their search for work? Why not provide space for people to come together and support each other, build their confidence and get advice when they want and need it? The Minister will say that that happens already, but it honestly does not. There are areas of good practice, and we have heard about some of them today, but on the whole the DWP’s approach is completely wrong.
Many years ago as a young graduate I was offered the opportunity to attend a group that was for some reason called the executive job club. It was not compulsory, so I did not feel like a naughty schoolchild in detention. It was respectful: the group co-ordinators made it clear that they believed everyone would work, given the opportunity, so none of us felt as if we were being judged. Peer support was encouraged, which meant that we spent time with people who were also struggling to find work, and felt useful because we could advise each other. One-to-one coaching, group sessions, pair work and drop-in were available; and it was all voluntary. It was therefore well attended, and the atmosphere was supportive and respectful. The turnover was high, because most of us got jobs. For me it removed a huge blockage. I was there only a few weeks, but it had a big impact on me. It changed the way I viewed myself and my professional skills. It gave me confidence and got me into a well-paid, challenging job, which put me on the path to a fairly successful career. The Government could learn from that and from other groups, including the numerous unemployed workers centres around the country.
I am suggesting that there is something missing in the experience of a person who is unemployed. Without any facetiousness I want to say that I would be happy to meet the Minister to talk some more about what I have outlined. Now that we have the space in the jobcentres in Glasgow, why, instead of closing them down, do we not consider using that space to provide the sort of services I have described? It would require more resources, but if it works it is surely worth it.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing the second but, I am confident, not the last Westminster Hall debate on the jobcentre estate, with a focus on Glasgow.
On 28 October 1977, that great chronicler of local news the Barnet Press published an article following a visit to a local jobcentre by the then Member of Parliament for Finchley. It was of course the late Mrs Thatcher. At the time, the jobcentre was serving 1,066 people in the constituency, and even Mrs Thatcher remarked at that point how overrun and busy it seemed to be. We have heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) that one of her jobcentres will be expected to serve 3,000 people—three times the number that shocked even the late Mrs Thatcher. It is often said that the present Government are positively wet, by comparison with her ideology, but they have gone where even she would not.
It was excellent to hear from the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) about all the excellent things that there can be in jobcentres to support vulnerable people—particularly, as the hon. Gentleman noted, those with mental health challenges. It is a wonderful idea, which is why we should not close Glasgow jobcentres, or reduce their number from 16 to eight—halving it, when there is supposed to be a 20% reduction elsewhere in the country.
I and my colleagues have submitted a range of written questions to Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions, and I want to run through some of the answers. I am sure that if a jobcentre in your constituency was closing, Ms Dorries, you would, as would any Member, look for some basic, elementary information about how the Government had reached the conclusion that it was a good idea. You would want to know how many disabled people used the jobcentre. That was what I asked about both Castlemilk and Langside jobcentres in my constituency, which the Minister wants closed. The answer was that the Department does not have that information and it would be too expensive to find out. I asked how many people from both those jobcentres had successfully found part-time work: the Department does not have that information, and to find out would incur a disproportionate cost. I asked the same question about full-time work and got the exact same answer.
The Government have a plan that is so upside down and ill-thought-out that it is starting to make the Trump transition look positively orderly. There is no equality impact assessment, so the Minister cannot tell Members of Parliament at the end of the debate that she is confident her Department will not break her public sector equality obligations under the Equality Act 2010. That is because it has not bothered to work it out. You will not believe it, Ms Dorries, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West mentioned, the Department works with travel distances and refers to bus services that Google Maps has told it about. In some cases those bus services and routes no longer exist. The result, I promise, will be that people will be late to the jobcentre and will be sanctioned. That is the decision that the Government have taken.
There are two jobcentres in my constituency that the Government want to close. Castlemilk, a community in my constituency, is geographically the largest in Glasgow, and it used to be bigger than Perth. There are almost 20,000 people in just that area, and the Minister will force them to take an eight-mile round trip. The Langside jobcentre serves the second most densely populated council ward in Scotland. It is across the road from a college. I cannot think of a better place for a jobcentre than the second most densely populated ward, across the road from a college. The Minister needs to think again. The Government picked the fight, and until we get the right answer and the closures are scrapped, we shall keep fighting.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for securing today’s debate. We have had a number of debates on this issue, as my colleagues have mentioned. During the Westminster Hall debate on 20 December, I raised concerns about the planning application with respect to Anniesland jobcentre in my constituency, whose closure is planned. It turns out that the planning application was made in February 2016, which came as a surprise to the Minister for Employment, when I informed him. The go-ahead has been given to convert the building to private flats, so the DWP has had a long-term plan. The decision did not happen just before Christmas.
Like my colleagues, I submitted some written questions after that debate, including one about
“how many jobcentre offices in the UK are subject to live planning applications”.
The answer was:
“It is not known precisely how many Jobcentres are subject to planning applications across our entire estate at this time. This is because any party can make a planning application for a change of use for a building without the involvement of either the landlord or current tenants.
DWP will identify this information as part of conveyancing activity on buildings it is planning to retain or acquire.”
So the DWP has no idea which jobcentres or even which buildings will be affected. That has implications for constituencies throughout the UK, as I have said, and it is quite disappointing that other areas are not as well represented in this debate as Scotland. I did a simple check to find out the plans for Anniesland; surely the same could be done with respect to the other jobcentres that are part of the DWP estate.
Increasingly, therefore, it looks as though the planned closure of Anniesland jobcentre is not to provide “value for money” for the taxpayer, as we have been told, but because the DWP does not own any of the properties that it occupies and in fact has no say over what the future use of those properties will be. More worryingly, the DWP does not seek any sort of resolution when its current offices are threatened. It should be trying its utmost—as we Glasgow MPs are, here today—to work with landlords, to ensure that there can be continuity with these offices, but that is just not happening.
The DWP simply expects that claimants will go elsewhere, transferring to another jobcentre. As some of my hon. Friends have already said, a distance of three miles seems reasonable, but of course these jobcentres have much wider catchment areas. We have repeatedly asked for those catchment areas but we have repeatedly not been given that information, so we actually have no idea just how wide-reaching these jobcentres are, and, frankly, that is information we need to know.
My colleagues and I have done what no Government Minister has done—we have visited the jobcentres and spoken to those affected by these proposals. I visited Anniesland jobcentre, just as my colleagues have visited their local jobcentres. I spoke to service users there, and it is clear how important Anniesland jobcentre is and how wide its catchment area is. I spoke to one person who is travelling nearly 10 miles to attend that jobcentre, so it is crucial that the UK Government understand the implications for claimants in the communities that will be affected before any changes are made.
Finally, I will mention the consultation. It has been promoted by us through social media, leafleting and local campaigns, and not by a letter that could have been sent out to claimants at these jobcentres. There are many important questions to be answered and my colleagues and I will continue to ask them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Madam Chair.
First of all, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on presenting her case so very well. When I saw the title of this debate, I felt that I had to come along and make a comment, primarily because the future changes to the Department for Work and Pensions estate will affect my constituency. The changes are a devolved matter and I will explain some of the issues for us in relation to it. Perhaps the Minister will find herself with a direct role in this if things do not go according to plan in the elections.
I remember my time as a councillor and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland, when the idea of a private finance initiative was first brought to my attention, with regard to building a new hospital at the Ulster hospital site. It must be the Ulster Scots in me, but I just could not bring myself to see how that could be value for money and I opposed it on that ground, and on the ground that it was putting local people out of work. I have a great problem with PFI. The fact is that we are scrambling to find people now that the contract has finished, and we cannot do anything because we do not own anything. Of course, as you will point out, Madam Chair, PFI is not directly the issue that we are considering today, but it is one that we cannot ignore and I wanted to make a point about it on the record.
I know that, on paper, the people to office ratio may allow for an office to close, but we do not live on paper; we live in the real world, where transport systems, and rural and urban issues, come into play. Let me give a Northern Ireland perspective. I say again that the Minister’s responsibility is clearly to the mainland of the United Kingdom, but if the elections in Northern Ireland in two to six weeks do not deliver the democratic process that we wish to have, direct rule will become a reality. If that is the case, responsibility for this issue will fall upon the Minister’s shoulders.
Ballynahinch social security office is out to consultation, with a view to the closure of the premises. The office is long overdue an upgrade, to both its interior and exterior, but it seems that the Department responsible simply cannot afford it, or at least that is what it is telling us. It is impractical to expect or insist that all claimants who use the Ballynahinch office should instead use the Lisburn office or the Downpatrick office, which on paper are less than 20 miles away. That does not seem far, but in reality it is a journey that many find difficult to make. In addition, both those offices are already oversubscribed and fully utilised.
The public transport links to Downpatrick or Lisburn already have problems, and for many people on benefits making such a journey would be another cost and another outgoing that they do not need. Some of those who attend Ballynahinch have severe mobility and access issues, and it would be harmful to their needs if the Ballynahinch office closed.
Let us look at some of the finer detail of the Ballynahinch SSO. Last year, it had 6,172 referrals for jobseeker’s allowance not including phone call inquiries, which could easily double that number. There were also 7,406 jobcentre referrals, and it is imperative that that figure is highlighted in the consultation process. Very often people say that a jobcentre only provides benefits, but it does more than that: it is training people for jobs, as a number of hon. Members have already said.
All those who have an interest in this service must take the time to do their part, in order to see the retention of this office in Ballynahinch. In the four months prior to the start of the consultation, JSA inquiries were as follows: in May 2016, there were nearly 500; in June 2016, 596; in July 2016, 448; and in August 2016, 550. All those cases were dealt with by the Ballynahinch jobseeker’s allowance staff alone.
The jobcentres in my area also have close contact with three local high schools. The point about schools is an important one; it has already been made by others and I make it in relation to my area. Those schools will be affected by any potential closures of jobcentres.
The new personal independence payment system is coming in. Staff need to be trained to use that system, and the increase in workload is quite phenomenal. I cannot speak for others, but I can speak for my own office and its staff—the number of PIP referrals that the office is getting is incredible. The staff’s workload has probably doubled as a result, and I cannot say any more than that. People applying for PIP need to speak to staff who understand their problems, and who have both compassion and a good knowledge of the system. We also have to address the issue of those people who may not have educational achievements or the ability who come to the office. There is also the issue of the reduction in footfall for local businesses; there is a knock-on effect for them as well.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) referred to the equality impact assessment and I will, too. Thought must be given to the equality impact assessment, as the rural town of Ballynahinch cannot afford to have the local jobcentre moved. That cannot be considered as “rural proofing”.
On paper, this decision about my jobcentre may be a no-brainer, but in reality we will leave hundreds of people without the support they need to find a job or to access other help, or to get advice about benefits. I am sure that this case is replicated in many ways in other hon. Members’ constituencies, which shows that, while we must cut outgoings, in doing so we cannot and must not cut people off from the help and support they need.
Again, I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West for raising this issue, and I ask the Minister for a reasoned opinion on what is being proposed for the DWP estate, and to ensure that, when it comes to making these decisions, we are there for the people who need us most.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
I call Chris Stephens to speak. Mr Stephens, you can have an extra minute or so.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for a barnstorming speech in protection of jobcentres.
Perhaps to continue the theme of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), I have also researched not only my own written questions and the answers that I received but the written questions put by my hon. Friends. The answers we have received put me in mind of the infamous press conference by Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Defence Secretary, when he used that memorable term:
“There are things we don’t know”.
That phrase reminds me of the answers that we have received from the Government. When asked about the actual travel time for an individual to get to a jobcentre, they “don’t know”; as for the number of benefit claimants using each jobcentre, they “don’t know”; regarding the catchment area for each jobcentre, they “don’t know”; when asked about the bus routes to jobcentres, they “don’t know”; regarding the planning application that has been made in relation to Anniesland jobcentre, they did not know about it; that the landlord of the property housing Castlemilk jobcentre had offered to reduce the rent on the site, they did not know; and as for the impact of these changes on disabled people and women, they “don’t know”.
All these points are important, because if the Government do not know all those things, why are they so certain that jobcentres should close in Glasgow? And why is it that no other announcements have been made by the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the closures of jobcentres? Is it because of the public backlash that the DWP has already seen in Glasgow, or is it because the DWP now knows, through the Glasgow experiment, that there is a lack of evidence to close other jobcentres across the UK? Or is it because the information that the DWP does not have for Glasgow is required elsewhere?
Yesterday, we were told in the main Chamber that work is the way out of poverty, but what consolation is that to the people in Glasgow who will find that the very places to find work are no longer there to support them?
If the Government do not have the information that I referred to at the beginning of my remarks, why are they only consulting publicly on three of the eight jobcentres earmarked for closure? If the closure of a package of eight jobcentres is announced, the whole package should be consulted on. What consolation is that consultation for those working in other Government Departments who are being made redundant? Is the Government’s vision to reduce the workforce in other Departments and for that workforce to then find that they cannot find a jobcentre, because they have been closed? That seems to be a perverse vision of ensuring that work is a way out of poverty.
The plan to close 50% of the jobcentres in Glasgow is a moral outrage. Some 68% of the people in Glasgow in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance and universal credit will be impacted by the closures. These closures will result in more people having to pay the telephone tax—the premium rate charges to call Departments. There is support among Members on the Government Benches and the SNP Benches for ensuring that the telephone tax is ended.
The cost of the jobcentre closures will be borne by the people the Government should be assisting. I recommend the submission from Parkhead Housing Association, which makes the very point that travel will impose extra costs
“on people living off of the minimum the government states is required for day to day survival.”
It is the people on low incomes who will be affected. It is unacceptable that tens of thousands of people will now travel further and incur additional costs to access social security. These individuals are seeking work or employment support. As the civil service trade union, the PCS, has said, the impact will be
“on women, vulnerable children and people with disabilities already hit hardest by government cuts.”
There must be an equality impact assessment. We must have a guarantee from the Government that the results of any equality analysis will be considered in the eventual decision. The Government have behaved in a disgraceful manner. They did not consult the Scottish Government before the announcement, nor did they consult the local authority. There have been inadequate responses to written questions, with that familiar answer “Information can only be provided at disproportionate cost” often being given. What is disproportionate is to close 50% of the jobcentres in Glasgow when the expectation is that that figure will be 20% elsewhere.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Mr Stephens, you were allowed 10 minutes as the SNP spokesman. If you want to go on, you can.
Chris Stephens
Okay, I will.
As well as impressing the comments of Parkhead Housing Association on the Minister, I want to raise the comments of the Glasgow citizens advice bureau. It said:
“The increased numbers will put pressure on staff who have no leeway if someone is five or ten minutes late. They will be recorded as missing an appointment and sanctions will be applied. Some people have to sign on weekly and in some cases people can be called in daily. Even at once a week the bus fare is almost 10% of a young person’s Jobseeker’s Allowance.”
That is a true cost of closing the jobcentres in Glasgow for those who seek the support of the state.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. This is yet another debate on this important matter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on bringing the debate to the House and on the real clarity and focus that she showed in the course of her remarks. I commend everyone who has taken part. We have had particularly interesting contributions. The hon. Lady referred to the comments made by PCS condemning the closures. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) talked about the “moral outrage” of the proposals. That view was shared by many people in the Chamber today. Numerous other important contributions have been made.
The debate is on the future of the DWP estate, but the focus has clearly been on Glasgow, which is facing the closure of half of its jobcentres. In today’s debate and in preceding debates, Members have rightly focused on the huge range of issues that impact on claimants, including increased journey times; the complexity of the journeys and the impact that will have, particularly for those with mobility problems, those with young children and older people who might find it more difficult to travel on public transport; the cost of those journeys, which can be considerable for people on benefits; the increased likelihood of claimants being late as a result of public transport failure; and the increased risk of claimants being sanctioned, with the attendant risk that that will push people further into poverty.
From one single error, we can see such a process having devastating effects. That is most clearly exemplified in Ken Loach’s film, “I, Daniel Blake”, which tells one such story with immense power. The film has picked up five BAFTA nominations this year. I feel sure that that is not just because it is such a powerful film, but because the story that it tells is so highly relevant for today. [Interruption.] I am not quite sure what the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) is saying from a sedentary position. It is such a powerful film.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I wish to help the hon. Lady. Perhaps the comments from the hon. Member for North Swindon were that the director, Ken Loach, has publicly backed our campaign to save the Glasgow jobcentres.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. The comments from the hon. Member for North Swindon were totally relevant, then.
It is immensely important that the DWP estate is managed with due respect for the impact that any changes might have on claimants, their families, their communities and those who work there. For those who work there, the concerns are about job losses, the down- grading of posts and increased case loads. Will the Government comment on how they will manage the estate for the future? What are their plans for future technology, the changing roles of DWP staff and the introduction of in-work conditionality, which will require that those in work demonstrate that they are searching for more work? How will that will impact on the people in Glasgow who are having their jobcentres removed?
The changes are important for the people of Glasgow, but they are also important for the rest of the country, as has been clearly stated. I am short of time.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Ms Greenwood, you have 10 minutes for your speech as a Front-Bench spokesperson.
Margaret Greenwood
Thank you. There have been several comments on the level of unemployment in the area. The latest claimant count shows that 5,810 people are registered as unemployed at the eight jobcentres threatened with closure. I would be interested to hear what will happen when those centres close. I understand that the remaining jobcentres in Glasgow will have to deal with twice the volume of claimants as a result. That is especially a concern for the Shettleston jobcentre, which will take on the case load from three of the jobcentres that will close. Can the Minister provide us with a breakdown of the expected increase in case loads for those jobcentres that will remain open? What will be done to help the DWP staff who have to deal with that increased workload?
Alison Thewliss
Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the jobcentres at Easterhouse, Parkhead and Bridgeton all have citizens advice bureaux nearby and other support services wrapped around those jobcentres? The Shettleston jobcentre does not, and that will make it even more difficult for clients to seek help when they need it.
Margaret Greenwood
That is an important point. Several Members have spoken about the difficulties people face when they approach a jobcentre. I have spoken to people in my constituency who feel frightened and intimidated about going to the jobcentre, so having that kind of support is invaluable. It is particular invaluable given that for universal credit people are being asked to make and manage claims online. Many find that very challenging.
In that regard, can the Minister update us on the work she has done to identify the number of people who struggle to fill in those online applications and maintain their claims online? I know the 2011 skills for life survey found that 14.5% of people have below entry-level skills for word processing, 30% had below entry-level skills for email, and 38% had below entry-level skills for spreadsheets. I have taught on a programme to get women back to work, and I have worked alongside adult learners who have difficulty reading and writing and even handling things about their name and address. What is the Minister doing to support those people, particularly with the move to the digital environment?
Natalie McGarry
The hon. Lady is making a very interesting point and I wonder if she shares my concern. Many people in my constituency suffer from digital exclusion, which means that they use additional services that are near jobcentres, such as libraries, putting those services under additional pressure. I hold my surgeries in libraries and have heard from library staff how much pressure they are under to assist people with digital and online application systems.
Margaret Greenwood
That is a very important point. There are also issues of confidentiality and people being put in a position of presenting deeply personal information in a public environment, which I feel is inappropriate and makes vulnerable people more vulnerable.
There has been plenty of comment on the increase in time it will take people to travel and the cost of that. As we know, the DWP used Google Maps to determine travel times and we have been told that they will be increased by 2 or 3 miles or 15 to 20 minutes of public transport time. Will the Minister specify the mode of transport that they are talking about? Is it buses or trains, which are a lot more expensive, or cars? These things make quite a difference to claimants.
Concerns about the impact that the closures will have on employment support services have already been mentioned. Any reduction in employment support in Glasgow will deepen hardship in many areas of the city. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) pointed out, some of these areas are the most deprived areas. Will the Government explain how they will maintain levels of employment support for those people?
The DWP’s plans for the estate seem to be based on the expectation that unemployment will remain low. I hope that that is the case and that the roll-out of universal credit, with claims increasingly being made and managed online, will reduce the need for jobcentres in the long run. However, that is a very ambitious approach. I would reflect the comment made earlier about the uncertainty of the future we face. We do not know whether the unemployment level will remain this low. What contingency arrangements have the Government made in the event that we see an increase in unemployment in the Glasgow area?
It is vital that full regard is given to the impact on claimants, jobcentre staff and local communities before the closures take effect. The Government say that they want to halve the disability employment gap—I cannot see how closing jobcentres will help them to do that. Will the Government publish the impact assessment of the proposals on equality issues, with particular reference to the impact on women, children and disabled people? Will they also tell us what the impact will be on jobcentre staff? I would like some detail on that. Our communities need an employment support service and a social security system that we can all be proud of and that people can have confidence in. I believe that the people of Glasgow deserve better than to be treated in this manner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing this debate and to all hon. Members who have contributed to it. We have had quite a geographic spread—obviously, the majority of hon. Members who have spoken are from Scotland, but the south-west, the north-west and of course Northern Ireland have been represented. I thank those hon. Members for their comments.
Our network of jobcentres is absolutely at the heart of Department for Work and Pensions services. Across the country, jobcentre staff work hard to help people to access the support and assistance they need to move into employment and into better and more employment—and it is working. The claimant count has dropped from almost 1.5 million in 2010 to around 800,000 now. Unemployment is down by more than 900,000 since 2010, as the economy has grown. We are at near record levels of employment across the country.
As the needs of our claimants have changed, so have our jobcentres, and rightly so. The way that the Department is delivering its services is changing in response to significant societal trends. The Department continues to make the most of the opportunity technology brings and more services are moving online, reflecting that increase in digital capability and accessibility. Eight out of 10 claims for jobseeker’s allowance are made using digital channels and almost 90% of universal credit claims are currently made online.
There are several examples where the Department is working in shared Government facilities or with local authorities and other local partners. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) both mentioned co-location and talked about hubs where we can bring services together and make local arrangements that bring—
Caroline Nokes
Everyone wishes to intervene at once. I give way to the hon. Lady.
Natalie McGarry
At a meeting we had before Christmas with members of the DWP, we were told that co-location would not happen in some of these cases because the jobcentre was a “toxic brand”. I wonder whether the Minister can answer that.
Caroline Nokes
When I have been visiting jobcentres up and down the country, I do not recognise a toxic brand. In fact, I recognise very hard-working staff who champion the successes that they have had and the jobs that they have helped people into.
Chris Stephens
If co-location is such a good thing, why was there no consultation with the local authorities and other public bodies in Glasgow before the announcement of the jobcentre closures? Co-location could have been a solution to the issue.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course the DWP works hard with the Scottish Government and other local authorities to ensure that we investigate opportunities. I am conscious that, in Glasgow, outreach and co-location services are already provided at Anniesland College. I want to see more of that. Outreach provides one of the solutions to helping jobseekers where they are, rather than expecting them to travel to centres. The working environments are good, more of the services that customers use when there is co-location are in one place and it can cost considerably less to run services. We are building on partnerships with local organisations to expand that range. As I mentioned, in Glasgow, we work closely with Anniesland College to offer services, including helping claimants with their job searches and offering benefit advice.
Carol Monaghan
Of course, Anniesland College no longer exists—it is Glasgow Clyde College and has been for a number of years.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Lady for pointing that out to me.
A key ambition of the DWP is to enable claimants to access our services in ways that suit them. At the heart of our reforms is a digitally-focused approach, which is more secure, more accessible and more efficient. We need to have a modern welfare system that is fair while providing good value to the taxpayer—a welfare system that ensures we are not under-utilising space in our buildings. That is the best way of making sure that the Department is delivering value for money, both for those using its services and the taxpayer.
We need a modern welfare system that is not only fair but simple to use and takes full advantage of the opportunities modern technology and communication channels afford us. Universal credit is absolutely at the heart of that, allowing claimants to manage their claims online. It is the key that unlocks the flexibility and the modern support that we want for people, not just to help them into jobs but to help them progress in work, too. They can manage claims online and receive the personalised support they need in order to find more work and better paid work.
Since coming into this role, I have seen the positive impact of personalised work coach support for myself. I have been struck by how work coaches are committed to helping the individual claimants they work with to find more hours of work and better paid work. At the heart of that is the principle of ensuring easy online access, which allows households to make claims and report changes securely, without necessarily having to travel to a jobcentre. It is right that the future of the DWP estate reflects not only the fundamental changes in the welfare system but the near record levels of employment across the country.
Caroline Nokes
I will give way to the Opposition spokesperson, but this really must be the last time.
Margaret Greenwood
I may be pre-empting what the Minister is going to say. She has talked about online access several times. I would appreciate it if she could answer my question about the assessment that she has made of the difficulties that people who are not IT-literate have in accessing things online and the kind of support that is provided for them.
Caroline Nokes
As I said at the outset, 90% of UC claims are now successfully managed by our claimants.
Caroline Nokes
I am sorry; I am not going to give way.
After 20 years, the private finance initiative contract that covers many DWP offices is nearing an end—it expires on 31 March next year—which provides us with the opportunity to review which offices we will need in the future and to save the taxpayer money, while ensuring all our claimants are able to access the support they need.
There was a question earlier about planning permission. Under a PFI contract, we are not the leaseholder. Planning issues are entirely separate to the contract that we hold on the buildings. In every case, we are seeking to minimise disruption, moving existing jobcentres into nearby sites and co-locating wherever possible. The UK labour market is in the strongest position it has been in for years, but we cannot predict the future. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West was right to mention Brexit. That is one of the reasons that we continue to ensure that we retain sufficient flexibility and spare capacity in the system. Our aim is to reduce floor space, not the workforce, who are so important in supporting claimants back into work. Indeed, there are now 11,000 work coaches across the country, and we are planning to hire 3,000 more staff.
When a jobcentre closes, the Department will consider what outreach services we can expand and what facilities may be suitable to provide those services. Outreach is about ensuring services are flexible and accessible for the people who need them. For claimants who are unable to attend a jobcentre owing to their vulnerability or who have difficulty completing the process required by the Department to claim a particular benefit, we have robust procedures in place. DWP Visiting undertakes home visits or occasionally visits to an alternative agreed address if that is more appropriate. Travel expenses are refundable under certain circumstances, including where claimants are required to attend a jobcentre more frequently than every two weeks. Under some conditions claimants are able to maintain their claim by post, including where they have caring responsibilities for a child and it is not possible to make arrangements for short-term childcare. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) mentioned catchment areas. Claimants can also choose to attend an alternative jobcentre to the one allocated to them if it is more convenient, easier and less costly to travel to.
A number of Members mentioned the equality analysis, which is part of the detailed planning for service reconfiguration. That will include the feedback from the public consultation process, which is still ongoing. We are committed to complying with our public sector equality duty, and we take account of the feedback from our public consultations. The equality analysis will help to establish any impacts that additional travel will have on customers and inform decisions about additional provision, such as outreach services.
Caroline Nokes
I am sorry, I will not.
Equality analysis involves us considering the likely or actual effects of proposals on people with protected characteristics as part of our decision-making processes. Employment is, of course, the joint responsibility of the UK and Scottish Governments. As hon. Members mentioned today, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment is travelling to Scotland, where he is meeting members of the Scottish Government. We welcome the chance to work with them. Indeed, DWP officials have been working closely with them on this process.
We are building contingency into the system, building on lessons learned in 2008. More flexible arrangements and new contracts are being brought forward. Last night, we debated DWP policies in the main Chamber. It was a wide-ranging debate, which included the question of Glasgow jobcentres. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) stated, and I cannot disagree with her,
“There is too much clinging on to bricks and mortar when the real questions should be what works and what will get more people into work.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 888.]
Hon. Members would do well to reflect on that. It is about the service we deliver—[Interruption.]
Caroline Nokes
The claimants must come first in the service we deliver to them. We must also deliver value to taxpayers in Scotland and across the rest of the UK.
The Department’s services always have and always will adapt to social trends, and it is right that we reflect the digital revolution. These proposals are the result of careful analysis and planning. I appreciate the concerns of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West about the proposed closures, and I thank her again for securing the debate. I think the rationale for the proposals is clear. The overall number of people claiming the main out-of-work benefits has fallen by more than 1.1 million. The changes are about reducing floor space, not the number of dedicated frontline staff helping claimants back into work.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. There are six minutes left because the official spokesman for the Scottish National party did not take his full 10 minutes to speak. I call Margaret Ferrier.
Margaret Ferrier
Thank you, Ms Dorries. I would like to thank—[Interruption.]
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. I will address the chuntering from your Back Benchers. Time limits on speeches are limited to Back Benchers, not official spokesmen or Front-Bench representatives.
Margaret Ferrier
Thank you, Ms Dorries. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to my debate. However, I did not get any answers to any of the questions I asked, and I am not sure whether any other hon. Member did either.
Ronnie Cowan
Talking about not getting answers to questions, I did not get the opportunity to put my question. I was going to ask the Minister whether she would guarantee that the closures in Glasgow are not the opening salvo in a widespread closure of jobcentres across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency. It would have been nice to have had the opportunity to put that question.
Margaret Ferrier
I think my hon. Friend has just put that question very succinctly. He has two jobcentres in his area, and there is a rumour that one of them may close. They are not close to one another—they are in Port Glasgow and Greenock—so there will be a lot of travel for claimants.
The Minister made much of co-location, which was not considered before the announcement of the closure of these jobcentres. On the point about digital, Glasgow is one of the highest areas of digital exclusion. I urge everyone to sign the change.org petition to save the eight Glasgow jobcentres. As the shadow Minister said, this debate has focused primarily on the Glasgow jobcentre closures, but next week or next month it could be North Swindon, Cardiff, Sheffield or Belfast—in fact, any town or city up and down the country. This fight is not over. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) said, we will be back to speak up for all our constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the DWP estate.
East Suffolk Railway Line
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered future investment in the East Suffolk railway line.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.
I am pleased to have secured this debate, which provides a timely opportunity to highlight the important role that the East Suffolk railway plays in the local transport network. It is the line that runs north to south and links Lowestoft in my constituency to Ipswich via 10 intervening stations. The line has a fascinating and in many ways illustrious history, including many great moments, some sad times and a fight for survival. At present, things are going well. With the right investment we can do even better and provide local people with a high-quality railway service to play a key role in bringing jobs and growth to the area.
The East Suffolk opened on 1 June 1859. At the time it ran from Ipswich to Yarmouth South Town, in Great Yarmouth, with branches to Framlingham, Snape, Leiston and Lowestoft. Further branches were subsequently built to Southwold and Felixstowe; the former has long since closed, but is remembered with affection, while the latter remains and is a key national freight route from the port of Felixstowe to the east and west coast main lines. Today, the East Suffolk runs for 44 miles from Ipswich to Lowestoft through four parliamentary constituencies: Ipswich, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, Suffolk Coastal and my own, Waveney. Much of what I say will highlight the importance of the railway to my constituency, but it would be remiss of me not to think strategically and to consider the whole line and the opportunities that it brings to the wider east Suffolk area.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), are not able to be here because of their ministerial duties and commitments, but I am pleased to be joined in the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). He will no doubt highlight those issues to which I do not give sufficient weight and will pick me up if I get anything wrong or wander too far off track.
The East Suffolk faced its darkest hour in the 1960s when Dr Beeching earmarked it for closure. A strong local rearguard action was mounted and, ultimately, the East Suffolk dodged the Beeching bullet, with Barbara Castle reprieving the line in autumn 1966. Much of the credit for that victory must go to ESTA, the East Suffolk Travellers Association, which formed in 1965 and continues to campaign today for improvements to the line and the bus services that link to it. I am a member, and I commend it for its work. ESTA campaigns are properly researched and evidence-based.
It is appropriate to consider the role that the East Suffolk line plays in linking the county’s two largest towns, with stations along its route in market towns and villages. John Brodribb commented in his 2003 book, “An Illustrated History of the East Suffolk Railway”:
“The East Suffolk had never been promoted simply for private advantage or pecuniary profit: it was a public utility serving a rich cultivated district.”
The East Suffolk is still very much a public utility, and although I do not wish to be downbeat and say that the area is no longer rich and cultivated, things were very different in the mid-19th century. Agriculture dominated the local economy, and Lowestoft, owing to the entrepreneurial flair of Sir Samuel Morton Peto, was a flourishing resort and port with a new harbour. Today things are different. Agriculture is still important but not as significant, and Lowestoft has, like many coastal communities, been hit hard by the decline of the fishing industry and the challenges faced by much of British manufacturing at the end of the 20th century.
Good communications are one of the keys to secure an economic renaissance and to bring prosperity back to an area. Along with improved roads and superfast broadband, the railways have an important role to play. Improving the East Suffolk line would benefit the industries and economic centres so important to the area’s future: ports and logistics, with sidings into Felixstowe and Lowestoft ports; the energy sector, with freight access to Sizewell via the former Leiston branch, where planning is stepping up for the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear power station, and to Lowestoft which is a fast-emerging hub for the offshore renewables sector; and tourism, with stations providing gateways to Suffolk’s historic towns or the potential of bus connections to a wide variety of attractions such as the broads, Framlingham Castle or the Latitude festival.
The past few years have been good for the East Suffolk line. That renaissance is under way, but we need to nurture, sustain and encourage it. As a result of the reintroduction of an hourly service following the construction of the £4 million Beccles loop, in 2011-12 to 2015-16 passenger movements at East Suffolk line stations averaged growth of 29%, compared with average growth of 13% across the rest of Suffolk. The growth figure varies from station to station: at Beccles it is 38%; Brampton 43%; Wickham Market 34%; and, way out on its own, Oulton Broad South 134%. The one blot on the landscape is Westerfield, where passenger numbers have declined by 42%, although that can almost certainly be attributed to the previous half-hour service for the station, at the junction with the Felixstowe branch line, being reduced to an hourly one. That highlights the need for specific work at Westerfield, to which I shall return.
It is also appropriate to mention improvements carried out by local community groups. For many years the Halesworth and District Museum has been located in the station. Last year an inspiring and highly imaginative redevelopment of Beccles station was completed. Previously the station was an eyesore; now it is an inviting and attractive gateway to the town. The East Suffolk also has the advantage of a proactive and visionary Community Rail Partnership, which has worked up a wide variety of schemes to increase and broaden the line’s appeal to passengers.
Last October a new franchise was granted to Abellio Greater Anglia. Many of the new arrangements rightly focus on improving the main line, the Great Eastern from Liverpool Street to Norwich, but many elements of the package will have direct benefits for the East Suffolk, such as brand new trains on the line from 2019-20. The new trains will have air-conditioning, wi-fi and plug points, and they are particularly welcome because for too long East Anglia has been the elephants’ graveyard for old trains. Also from 2019, there will be four trains a day between Lowestoft and London, which is important and highly symbolic. One of the disadvantages that Lowestoft faces is its perceived remote location. For me, personally, with a heavy suitcase in tow, to stagger up the steps from the underground to the main concourse at Liverpool Street and to look up at the display board to see there in lights through trains to Lowestoft is so very important.
Those improvements are welcome but must be the beginning and not the end of investment in the East Suffolk line. We must not rest on our laurels. The work that has been carried out so far and the positive outcomes that have resulted show the great potential for further investment to promote economic growth. The Great Eastern line is the spine of the East Anglia rail network. The need now is to focus on the feeder lines, of which the East Suffolk is one of the most important. There are pressing reasons and a strong case for pressing ahead for further improvements to the East Suffolk line.
The first reason is Sizewell C. EDF is consulting on its plans for a new nuclear power station at Sizewell near Leiston, with a view to submitting a planning application next year. The railway could play an important role in delivering aggregates for an enormous construction project to the site in a way that causes minimal disruption to local communities. EDF is working with Network Rail to carry out a governance for railway investment projects, or GRIP 2, study of the alternatives. Additional line capacity would need to be provided between Saxmundham and Woodbridge, and the various options must be carefully analysed. Those options include a passing loop at Campsea Ashe, a longer section of double track to the south, or complete redoubling of the track between Woodbridge and Saxmundham. Any improvements must take place well in advance of construction starting at Sizewell, which is scheduled for three years’ time, and the case to get on with the work as quickly as possible is very compelling. Welcome funding was provided in the autumn statement for a business case to be worked up for upgrading the A12, with specific reference to the four-villages bypass, and a similar appraisal for the railway should be twin-tracked at the same time.
The second reason for further upgrading the East Suffolk line is the port of Felixstowe. The branch line from Westerfield to Felixstowe plays an important role in enabling people to commute to work and get to and from what is a popular seaside resort, as well as facilitating the working of the port by getting more freight on to the railways, thereby relieving pressure on the A14 to the midlands. As I have mentioned, there is a capacity bottleneck at the junction at Westerfield that constrains such plans, and we must address now how best to resolve that problem, which would bring significant benefits to the area and allow Felixstowe to maintain its position as a leading global container port. That is so important as the country seeks to build new trading arrangements around the world. Additional capacity should be provided on the Felixstowe branch, which should be part of an electrified bespoke freight line between Felixstowe and Peterborough.
The third reason for further investment is Lowestoft station. In 1961, Sir Nikolaus Pevsner commented:
“The railway reached Lowestoft in 1847 and the station was built close to the harbour. It is Italianate, of yellow brick, asymmetrical and picturesque”.
I am afraid that I have to report that Lowestoft Central station is at present not picturesque. The building and its surrounds are in a sorry, dilapidated state. The good news is that the Lowestoft station partners, with whom I am working closely, have come together with a visionary set of proposals to refurbish the station and revitalise the surrounding area. They presented those plans to the Minister at a meeting in his office in November, and he has kindly given his support to them and agreed to visit the station to view the situation for himself.
Lowestoft Central is Britain’s most easterly railway station, occupying a unique location in the town centre within walking distance of the blue flag south beach. It was built by Lucas Brothers, which also built the Royal Albert Hall, Alexandra Palace and York station. Its refurbishment can act as a catalyst for the regeneration of the surrounding station square. That will be facilitated by the third crossing of Lake Lothing, which will divert through traffic away from the town centre.
The fourth factor behind my request for further investment is the need to promote growth and, linked to that, improve journey times. An improved service on the East Suffolk line can play an important role in helping to attract more business, new jobs and more visitors along the entire length of the line and its surrounds. That is recognised and is being promoted by the Suffolk chamber of commerce, the Lowestoft and Waveney chamber of commerce, Suffolk County Council in its rail prospectus, Waveney District Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council.
At present, the journey time from Lowestoft to Ipswich—a 44-mile journey—is more than 90 minutes. For a lot of people, that is a major disincentive to let the train take the strain. When the through service to Liverpool Street is reintroduced, it is likely to have a journey time of more than 160 minutes. That is longer than it took in 1904 to make the same journey on one of the seaside specials that ran on Saturdays in the summer. Speeding up that journey will also help to get traffic off the A12, and it will be achieved in four ways: through the faster trains that are on their way, more dual tracking, track replacement and a review of which of the numerous crossings of the line, many of which are private and pedestrian, are absolutely necessary. That work, particularly on the last issue, will require thorough consideration and wide-ranging consultation, but we need to get on with it straightaway.
My fifth point is that there is a need for better bus connections at stations. The new interchange facilities at Lowestoft station are welcome, and good arrangements are in place at Halesworth, where buses to Southwold meet the trains, but these need to be extended to other stations. We need a network of virtual railways along the entire line, whereby trains and buses seamlessly serve the market towns and coastal resorts that do not have stations. I have in mind such places as Bungay, Aldeburgh and Orford.
In conclusion, I see a great future for the East Suffolk line, which can help to bring a better quality of life, jobs and prosperity to the whole east Suffolk region. However, that will not happen on its own; we need to kick-start it. We need to plan for it and have a business plan in place. Time is of the essence, particularly with Sizewell C and the need for better freight facilities serving the port of Felixstowe. We must start that work now. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how best we can secure the funds for a study. Once the plan has been completed, we can set about delivering the improvements that I have outlined. That said, we should start work straightaway on the refurbishment of Lowestoft station and improving bus connections, and I would be most grateful for the Minister’s support for those schemes.
If it is acceptable, Mr Bailey, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) would like to say a few words.
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
I had not actually received any indication that Dr Daniel Poulter wanted to contribute to the debate. However, if you are in agreement, Mr Aldous, as I gather you are, and if the Minister is also in agreement—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
indicated assent.
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
I will permit that, but we need to give the Minister at least 10 minutes to respond, so please bear that in mind, Dr Poulter.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing the debate. He rightly highlighted the importance of the East Suffolk line in bringing jobs and growth to the east of England, but particularly the east Suffolk coast, which is the energy coast and has a growing tourism industry of which we are very proud.
I will not speak for long, but I want to reiterate and emphasise a couple of points that my hon. Friend made. He rightly talked about the importance of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton freight rail link and Westerfield junction, which is in my constituency, and the improvements that are needed there to support that freight rail link. I am sure that the Minister is aware that 46% of the UK’s container traffic goes through Felixstowe port. It is important that we support that port, particularly as we look to our position in the world post Brexit.
My hon. Friend eloquently covered those points, so I intend to talk briefly about the importance of improving capacity and service frequency on the East Suffolk line. We are struggling to some extent with what is a single-track railway for the majority of its length. The ongoing discussions with EDF are a welcome opportunity. We must ensure that we get the best possible deal from those negotiations for improvements in infrastructure—both the building of the power station and, more broadly, improvements to support the energy coast and the tourism industry in Suffolk.
There are few passing points on the track. As my hon. Friend outlined, the ideal solution would be to improve the track through greater dualling—I would welcome additional investment to dual the stretch between Woodbridge and Saxmundham—but we need at the very least improved capacity on the line, and in order to have that, we need more passing points. A passing point at Wickham Market or Campsea Ashe must be a minimum requirement for what comes out of those negotiations. As the Minister is a Transport Minister, that is not to say that those measures should be pursued to the detriment of some of the road improvements that we need from our engagement with EDF, but it is vital that we see improvements to the East Suffolk line as a result of those negotiations. I hope that the Minister can be relied upon to help to hold EDF’s feet to the fire and ensure that it provides the money that is required to build that infrastructure on the East Suffolk line.
The final point I will make in the time available to me is about the importance of having a proper through service from Lowestoft to London—
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but the Minister must be given 10 minutes to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I have deleted five minutes’ worth of material, so I think I can just about fit my speech in. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) not just on securing the debate but on eloquently putting forward the case for his constituency, as he always does. I join with him in congratulating the East Suffolk Travellers Association and the local community rail partnership on all the work they do to sustain this important line. I well recall his visit to my office to show me the delights of Lowestoft Central station, not least because that was only last November—my memory is not that bad. I recall a more favourable impression of Lowestoft station than the one he portrayed in the debate. If the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), were here, he would cite it as an example of the beauty he wishes to see in all our stations for the work he does on the physical appearance of the network. I think my hon. Friend was a little harsh about his station.
My hon. Friend will not need me to tell him that the East Anglia region is a major economic engine. That is reflected in the amount of investment we have put into infrastructure across the whole of East Anglia, not least the £151 million for river crossings at Ipswich and Lowestoft, which I know he has been a champion of for a long while, and £1.1 billion going into road improvements, including to the A47 and A12. It is however right and proper that we focus on the East Suffolk rail line to which he referred. I understand how important it is to balance the needs of all passengers in the region with the opportunities that he rightly mentioned are coming up in the future.
There are many lessons from the past about how to balance affordability and deliverability when prioritising what we do across the region as a whole. My hon. Friend will know that a useful and important document has been produced in recent months in terms of the Anglia route utilisation strategy that has come from Network Rail. That was put together with the help of many stakeholders including Suffolk County Council and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership. While it found no immediate case on demand alone for the improvements he seeks on the line, it pointed out—as he rightly did—that the immense amount of work that will be ongoing at Sizewell C changes the parameters of the debate. He was right to raise that issue.
We must also remember that the East Suffolk line is part of the much wider Abellio Greater Anglia franchise, on which we are seeing almost a revolution. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it used to be the graveyard for old carriages, but that is certainly not the case any longer, given the amount of investment that will go in. He rightly listed many of those improvements.
I for one entirely understand the importance of arriving at a terminus station and seeing one’s constituency or town in lights on the destination board. I get that thrill on the one occasion a day that Blackpool North appears at Euston station—it is only once a day; he will have far more services than me. I recognise why that matters to a town’s sense of place and purpose and where it sits in the wider world. In addition, we will see increased services from Cambridge and Norwich to Stansted as well as to Ipswich, so there are all positive things going on there.
That does not mean that there are not small, local improvements that we can make on the line that will help to improve journey times and line speeds, as well as the many other points my hon. Friend raised. Take what we have done at the level crossing at Halesworth: that is an example of a relatively small-scale investment that can make a meaningful contribution by speeding up the line, removing temporary speed restrictions and enhancing the service for local residents. That is a good thing.
We also have to take the longer term view. There have been many calls by local stakeholders, not least both of my hon. Friends in the debate, for improved transport links in east Suffolk ahead of the proposed development at Sizewell C. In particular, such improvements could help to accommodate the considerable increase in heavy goods vehicle movements expected once construction of that major infrastructure project commences. The focus of such movements to date has been on the road network, and I certainly acknowledge that local partners see the A12 as a key local route within Suffolk and vital for the planned growth within that corridor.
The A12 will see a substantial increase in traffic if the proposed power station gets the go-ahead. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney rightly pointed out, we recently awarded £1 million of funding for further development work on the business case for the project. Improving rail links has to be part of that project. It is entirely in line with Government policy on freight to encourage use of more environmentally friendly means of transport wherever feasible, not least—as both my hon. Friends pointed out—because of the proximity of the major port of Felixstowe on which so much of our wider maritime strategy is crucially dependent. Any steps to move heavy vehicles off the roads of Suffolk are likely to improve road safety radically as well, which is also important as we consider how to move forward. I am personally keen to ensure that future development at Sizewell also supports rail development.
I must be clear that my Department would not be involved in any rail proposals being put forward in advance of construction at Sizewell C. Planning consent has not yet been granted, and we would expect that rail costs directly linked to construction would be included as part of those construction costs. I urge the promoter, EDF, to enter into dialogue with the rail industry on future plans for rail freight movements: for example, to discuss expected loads and frequency, and how the network can manage any increase in freight during the construction of Sizewell C, if it goes ahead. I would be more than happy for my Department to help to facilitate such discussions if my hon. Friend would like us to play a role in that.
The existing spur off the East Suffolk line to Sizewell B is currently used for freight, but opportunities may also arise for new passenger services. In addition, any wider upgrades associated with Sizewell C may deliver benefits that could also be used by passenger services. Once the promoter’s plans are clear in that regard, I will be happy to commit that my Department will work with it and the rail industry to consider what enhancements to passenger services can be delivered in parallel with the freight plans.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the issue of bus services and their interaction with the local rail network. The ultimate goal is the integrated transport network that transport planners always talk of and we always wish to see. He will be aware that the Bus Services Bill will shortly come before the House. It will give local authorities new partnership powers that could enhance services at stations. In many areas, local authorities and operators have created such partnerships, which have led to improved bus services. The Bill will build on the success of those partnerships by allowing local authorities and operators to develop specific sets of measures to improve bus services in their areas. That should include better connections to rail stations.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of improvements to Lowestoft station as well as improving journey times along the line. As we discussed at our meeting last year, no funding is currently identified for the level of improvement he seeks. Indeed, given that the line serves a local, regional market, it is unlikely at this stage that we would be able to agree any funding from the national rail enhancements budget. However, local authorities and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership are funded and well placed to assist with that work and facilitate funding on the basis of potential wider economic impacts. I urge my hon. Friend to engage with them, as I know he has done, and the wider rail industry to develop a case for those improvements.
My hon. Friend is right that we have to both nurture and sustain the existing line, to use his words. I hope he agrees that the many improvements already committed to in the new franchise will deliver significant benefits across his constituency. I look forward to hearing from him in the near future on how plans at Sizewell C can act as a further catalyst for new developments on this important railway line.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered future investment in the East Suffolk railway line.
Leaving the EU
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the process for the UK to leave the EU.
I am pleased that you are chairing the debate, Mr Bailey. I drafted the wording of the motion with a purpose. We have come to use Brexit as shorthand for our country’s extricating itself from the EU, but Brexit does our friends and neighbours in Northern Ireland a grave disservice. It is not Britain that will be leaving the EU, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Technically, if we are to use a shorthand at all it should be “UKexit”.
I applied for the debate before the Prime Minister’s excellent speech yesterday, in which she set out her objectives for the negotiations that will take place with the EU during the next couple of years. I wanted a debate because some of my constituents are confused. Like me, they are simple souls who believed that they knew exactly what they were doing when they voted to leave the EU in June 2016. The more knowledgeable among them even knew the process for achieving our withdrawal.
However, they are now confused, because they see certain hon. Members who apparently do not understand what is meant by democracy, such as the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who seems to think that a referendum result is only democratic if he is on the winning side. My constituents do not understand why, having voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, their wishes are dismissed as only “advisory” by many remainers. They also do not understand why some MPs do not themselves seem to understand the process for leaving the EU, so I called the debate to allow the Minister to clarify that process. Let be me clear: that does not mean I want him to reveal any of the Government’s negotiating plans. I will explain more on my reasoning for that later.
My understanding of the process of leaving the EU is probably an oversimplification of the situation, although, as I said before, I am a simple soul. I believe that the first step is to notify other EU members that we intend to leave, by invoking article 50, and that nothing can be done until that happens, including negotiating with our EU partners. Article 50 is also bandied about as shorthand for setting the ball rolling, but I wonder how many people have actually read what it entails. I will enlighten those who do not know by reading it out:
“1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3.”—
this is important—
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.”
That seems pretty clear to me: the United Kingdom will leave the EU two years after invoking article 50, whether or not an agreement has been reached. That is my understanding of the process. I would like confirmation that I am right, and that article 50 of the Lisbon treaty will be triggered by the end of March.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree with my interpretation of the triggering of article 50: once triggered, it is an irrevocable process that nothing—not even Parliament—can stop either that being completed or Britain’s leaving the European Union?
Gordon Henderson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it allows me to emphasise again that not only is that his interpretation and mine, but it is the EU’s interpretation. What he says is quite true: once we have invoked article 50, that is the end of the matter —we will be leaving the EU. That is my understanding of the process, and I would like confirmation that I am right.
I would also like the Minister to clarify what will happen should the Supreme Court uphold the High Court’s ruling that Parliament should have a vote on any decision. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, leaving the EU will entail divorcing ourselves from all of the EU’s institutions, rules and regulations, including the single market, the customs union and the free movement of people—except under terms negotiated between the UK and the remaining member states. That is what my constituents understood, and it is what they voted for by a large majority in last year’s referendum.
Nationally, the United Kingdom voted by a margin of 52% to 48% to leave the EU. Some Members have said that that result is indecisive and should be ignored, but most of those Members were elected to this place with a lower percentage of the vote than 52%. Does that mean that we can ignore their opinion? I should add that, in my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey, the margin in favour of leave was 62% to 38%.
I also add that my constituents who voted to leave are absolutely livid that some professor at Cambridge University called Nicholas Boyle is reported to have said:
“The referendum vote does not deserve to be respected…Like resentful ruffians uprooting the new trees in the park and trashing the new play area, 17 million English, the lager louts of Europe, voted for Brexit in an act of geopolitical vandalism.”
That is a disgraceful slur on my constituents and the rest of the 17 million decent people who voted to leave the EU—many of whom were Irish, Welsh and, indeed, Scottish.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman may have anticipated my point. I was going to say that, although he correctly pointed to the respective statuses of the United Kingdom and Great Britain earlier, there is clearly a massive flaw in the quote he read out. It was not 17 million people only from England; sadly, there were some in Scotland who voted to leave as well—although not very many.
Gordon Henderson
It was not my quote; it was by a professor of German from Cambridge University. He is a far more intelligent person than I am, but I understood that it was not only English people who voted to leave. I should add—the hon. Gentleman will probably realise this from my name—that my father comes from Glasgow. He is a proud Scot, but has lived in this country for 69 years. He is first and foremost British and considers himself so. Not only are those people called lager louts and vandals by this two-bit academic, but they are accused by other remainers, including Members of this place, of not understanding what they were voting for last June and of not being aware of the implications of an out vote. In addition to being insultingly patronising, that accusation simply does not stand up to even the flimsiest scrutiny.
Before the EU referendum campaign even started, the then Government sent every household an expensive leaflet, funded by taxpayers, setting out why people should vote to remain in the EU. Let me quote verbatim from that leaflet. It said that voting to remain would
“protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country—a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.”
That was a pretty clear warning, but still 17 million people voted to leave the EU.
The remainers also tell us that although a majority voted to leave the EU, they did not vote to leave the single market. Let me quote from the Government leaflet again:
“Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.”
That, too, was pretty clear: a vote to leave the EU was also a vote to leave the single market. But still 17 million people voted to leave.
Having lost the referendum, some remainers are attempting to change the rules of the game. They are now saying that the referendum was only advisory. That is twaddle. Let me read another couple of quotes from the Government leaflet. The first is this:
“This is your chance to decide your own future and the future of the United Kingdom. It is important that you vote.”
That is reinforced by a second quote:
“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
Voters in the United Kingdom as a whole decided to leave the EU. It is now for the Government to deliver what was promised and get the process started by invoking article 50. They should not be preventing from doing so by those remainers who are unable to come to grips with the result of the referendum.
Some remainers argue that article 50 should not and cannot be triggered without first obtaining the approval of Parliament. I do not remember those people pointing out during the referendum campaign that the Government’s promise to implement any decision taken by voters was illegal. Instead, it is only now that they are trying to subvert the will of the people.
Peter Grant
On a point of order, Mr Bailey. I do not think I have ever raised a point of order since becoming a Member of Parliament. Is it in order for us to comment on the merits of a case that is sub judice before the Supreme Court? Should we not wait for the Supreme Court to decide before we comment on whether or not article 50 needs parliamentary approval?
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
I do not really feel legally qualified to give a ruling on that, so I will permit the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) to continue with his contribution.
Gordon Henderson
Thank you, Mr Bailey. My comments were in no way designed to influence whatever the Supreme Court decides, but it is fairly common knowledge that it will give its ruling. My views are irrelevant to it.
The people I was talking about dress up their subversion with weasel words that would do credit to a used car salesman. They claim not to oppose UK exit, but their actions belie those words. I have no respect for those who say they want to abide by the referendum result but are desperately trying to find ways to somehow delay triggering article 50, in the hope that a way can be found to have a second referendum or a general election. As it happens, I think they are clutching at straws if they believe that voters would change their minds. In my view, if there was another referendum, the result would be an even more resounding vote to leave, because the “Project Fear” fox has been well and truly shot. In addition to realising that they were lied to by some remainers, the voting public do not like cheats and whingers, as those with a long political memory will know.
Dr Poulter
There is a point of view—I think a legitimate one—that as it took us passing an Act of Parliament to enter the European Union, Parliament will also legally be required to pass an Act of Parliament to take us out. That does not mean those of us who take that position in any way want to override the desire expressed by the British people to leave.
Gordon Henderson
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, but he will not be surprised to know that I do not agree. I believe that when the Government hold a referendum in which they make it clear, as the then Government did, that the will of the people will be listened to, and when this Parliament—of which he and I were both Members at the time—decides to allow a referendum and for the British people’s view to be heard, we should hear it.
I talked earlier about those of us with a long political memory, and I want to remind people what happened in Winchester at the 1997 general election. The Conservative candidate lost by two votes to the Liberal Democrats, but after a successful petition, there was a rerun of the election, at which the Lib Dems won by a majority of more than 21,000. It is ironic that it is the Lib Dems leading the charge for another referendum. They appear not to have learned anything.
I mentioned the Government’s negotiating position. There are repeated calls from all sides of the House for Ministers to allow Members to scrutinise their plans in advance and vote on them. In my view, that would be quite ludicrous and could only be suggested by people who have little experience of business or absolutely no experience of negotiating. I have experience of both.
I left school at 16 and worked in the real world of business and commerce for almost 50 years before being elected to this House. For some of that time, I worked as a senior contracts officer for GEC-Marconi Avionics, which was then bought by British Aerospace. In that role, I negotiated with various customers, including the UK Ministry of Defence and McDonnell Douglas in America. There are no circumstances on earth that would have enticed me to reveal to those with whom I was negotiating information in advance about my negotiating stance. To have done so would have been akin to committing commercial suicide, so why should Ministers let our European neighbours know in advance what the Government’s strategy is? That would be stupid.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I am listening carefully to the great detail he is going into and, indeed, to his business experience. Could he tell us whether, in making any business decisions that would mean going through a significant period of change, the companies he worked for consulted the board or its employees? How would he compare that to how the UK Government consulted people on the detail of their plans in the run-up to the Brexit vote?
Gordon Henderson
I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention, and I have a very easy answer for her. My experience in business is that shareholders elect a board of directors. The board of directors then employs people to manage the business, including negotiators, and does not expect to be kept informed of what is going to happen. If a negotiator messes up on a deal, they get the bullet. It is exactly the same thing here: if the Government mess up on this deal, they will not get re-elected at the 2020 election. That is the deal.
One thing I learned as a contracts officer was never to enter into any negotiation without a line beyond which I was not prepared to go, and to be prepared to walk away rather than cross that line. The Prime Minister said yesterday that in her view, no deal is better than a bad deal. I hope our negotiators remember her words and are prepared to walk away rather than accept a bad deal.
We often hear remainers talking about hard Brexit and soft Brexit. No one has explained to me exactly what those terms mean. I am assuming that by “soft exit” the remainers mean we should remain in a single market, even if that means we have to accept the free movement of labour in exchange. I also assume that they are happy for us to continue paying the EU billions of pounds a year for the privilege of having full access to the single market and accepting all the obligations that come with being a full member. If that is the case, soft exit means no exit and they should be honest enough to admit it. As for me, exit means exit. Full stop.
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I want to inform hon. Members that I have sought legal opinion on the point of order raised by Peter Grant. The situation is that even if the House sub judice resolution did apply to the case before the Supreme Court, I judge that the risk of any prejudice from this debate be so small that I would waive the sub judice resolution. Members should, of course, refer respectfully to the judges involved in the case.
Two Back Benchers have indicated that they wish to contribute to the debate. Ordinarily, the Front-Bench spokesperson would have five minutes and the Minister would have 10 minutes. If the Back Benchers are so generous as to give a little more time to the Front-Bench spokesperson, I will enable them to have more time.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on what is a hugely important issue—the issue of our generation.
It is fair to say that, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) said, we should put the various political platitudes and soundbites of hard Brexit, soft Brexit and red, white and blue Brexit to one side and realise they are pretty meaningless to voters and the people who elected us. We must stop patronising the people of the UK and letting this Tory Government off the hook by trivialising or minimising this complex issue to pitiful political platitudes. It is hugely important to have debates such as this as we go through the process and to remind ourselves that exiting the EU will be hugely complex and time-consuming; in fact, to quote the now Chancellor of the Exchequer, it could take
“longer than the Second World War.”
That is why it still seems to me—and, I am sure, to many people across these islands of the UK—incredible that ahead of the EU referendum vote the Tory Government had no plans and nothing written down about the options and plans.
For a number of years before coming to Parliament, like the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, I worked in the oil and gas sector, particularly in areas of business change. Like any business, when we embarked on large-scale change we drew up a road map of where we wanted to go. We started with where we were, what we wanted to do and how we would do it. Along with that were extensive details of what departments of the business would be affected, who might lose their jobs and how we could mitigate and protect any threats to our business. I can almost see the coloured Post-it notes and the mind maps.
I am pretty certain that every business person, organisation and individual across the UK looked at the proceedings and the details that came out in the press in the run-up to the Brexit vote—or, it would be fair to say, lack of detail—and assumed that at the very least the Tory Government had a basic analysis of the impact of exiting the EU and what the processes would be. However, it seems that the nation was mistaken. The press reported:
“Civil servants will be secretly working on ‘Brexit’ plans but not writing them down”.
Can anyone imagine a CEO going to the board of a company and saying, “Don’t worry. Our company won’t fail. I have been doing lots of thinking and it’s all in my head. Success means success, it will be red, white and blue and you can all now vote on whether you are with me or against me”? They would be laughed out of the boardroom.
Even the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, thought the former Prime Minister was pulling her leg when he said that he did not have a plan for the UK if it should vote to leave the EU. However, he was not kidding, and we now know what happens to Prime Ministers who do not have a plan.
By contrast, when we held a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, we did have a plan. We consulted people the length and breadth of the country. We even wrote things down. We may not have had all the answers, but we engaged and prepared, and presented a pretty extensive White Paper that people could read, digest and consider before they were taken to the polls on such an important issue. We felt that we had set the gold standard for referendums. When the then Prime Minister bumbled into Brexit without any proper forethought, he put the economy of the United Kingdom, people’s livelihoods and our international reputation on the line. I hope that as the Government enter into the process of exit from the EU they will reflect long and hard on how badly they have failed the people of the UK with respect to a proper planning process.
There are questions that are important to people and businesses across the nations of the UK, about the working of the process but also about what it means for their lives and livelihoods. We so often get caught up in technical jargon and doublespeak. Brexit has been the ultimate case in point. People and businesses need to be able to plan for the future, and the Tory Government need to be open and transparent about what they are doing and how they are doing it, and to ensure that, as they promised, they will consult all the nations of the United Kingdom.
To use my own constituency as an example, Livingston was a new town, built in the 1950s and designated in 1962. It attracted significant EU structural funding. I have heard from people in my constituency who came from other parts of Europe to set up homes and businesses in Livingston, where business relies particularly on workers from the EU. The town is Scotland’s third major retail hub, with the McArthurGlen outlet drawing in thousands of shoppers every week. The retail sector employs no fewer than 2 million workers in the UK, many of them in my constituency; and many of them are worried about their status.
My constituents and local businesses are not the only ones with concerns. The report published by the Exiting the European Union Committee earlier this month, entitled “The process for exiting the European Union and the Government’s negotiating objectives”, warns of an urgent need to
“provide certainty and reassurance to the individuals, their families and the businesses and services that rely on them.”
JP Morgan commented yesterday, after the Prime Minister’s Brexit speech, that not to have clear details, particularly for trade, was “very dangerous”.
The Prime Minister said yesterday:
“Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe.”
In Scotland, EU membership supports more than 300,000 jobs directly and indirectly. The Fraser of Allander Institute has predicted that Scotland could lose up to 80,000 jobs.
I know from the cases that come through my constituency office that the Home Office has rules and new regulations coming out of its ears; they change every week. It is so disorganised that there are no proper, efficient systems for dealing with immigration. As the UK sets out the process for exit from the EU, I want to ask the Minister specifically, will the Government review the current processes? It is apparent that those processes are not working and therefore, instead of looking to review and improve them, they are going to close the door and not let in anyone else from the EU. The Minister shakes his head, but the fact is that people do not know what their status is going to be.
Just before we returned from the recess, both the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses expressed serious concern about the lack of clarity as to EU workers, their status, and the impact on business. As we look forward, it is essential that the Prime Minister should stick to the commitment that she gave today in Prime Minister’s questions to work with the devolved nations. She made specific reference to the Scotland plan and gave a commitment to working with the Scottish Government on the way forward. That is welcome news but the process is complex and Scotland’s position and the result of the EU vote in Scotland must be respected.
The Scottish National party strongly believes that the best way to build a more prosperous and equal Scotland is to be a full member of the EU, and certainly advocates staying within the single market, even if the rest of the UK leaves. According to the UK Government’s own analysis, leaving the single market could lower Scotland’s GDP by more than £10 billion. Furthermore, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that Scotland’s exports could be cut by more than £5 billion if we lose access to the single market. The EU is the main destination for Scottish exports; it receives 42% of Scotland’s international exports. As the negotiations take place, it is vital that there is a more transparent process than we have seen today and that there is greater detail.
Triggering article 50 will directly affect devolved interests and rights in Scotland. The UK’s current constitutional arrangements are underpinned by membership of the EU. Leaving the EU therefore requires reconsideration of the devolution settlement. Critically, the Exiting the European Union Committee report commented on the work that the Government still need to do before triggering article 50. It stated that
“it is essential that all the devolved governments, and the different regions of England, are duly involved in the process and have their views taken into account.”
Separately, there is a need to devolve more powers to Scotland, in order to safeguard current EU rights and social protections in areas such as employment and to allow the Scottish Parliament to protect Scotland’s wider interests, including any differential relationship with Europe.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told me directly in the Chamber yesterday that he wanted to ensure that there was no detriment to workers in Scotland from other parts of the EU. Yet the Tory Government have pursued pernicious and damaging policies such as those set out in the Trade Union Act 2016. Many of us wonder what they will do when the powers are transferred from Europe.
Of course any proposal to remove Scotland from the EU will need legislation from Westminster, but the First Minister of Scotland has made it crystal clear that any such legislation would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The people of Scotland voted, by a majority, to remain in the EU. As we go through the process of exiting the EU, the UK Government must take account of what the people of Scotland voted for. They must not take us off a cliff edge into a hard Tory Brexit. They must do everything they can to accept the will of the people of the devolved nations by considering the plans that have been put forward.
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespersons by 5.10 pm.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on setting the scene very well. He and I are of a similar mind, as are other hon. Members in this Chamber, but it is always good to give a balance to the debate, which is on a major issue for us all.
I have been vocal in my desire to see our sovereignty restored. I was overjoyed to learn that the Vote Leave campaign had been successful and that the will of the people, as demonstrated in the democratic vote, was to be followed. I have been disheartened by those, most often in the media, who have perpetuated the belief that there is still some way in which that may not happen, as the hon. Gentleman said. All the challenges that have arisen in the law courts are a vain attempt to circumnavigate the will of the people.
The same thing is happening in Northern Ireland at the moment, as Members following events over there will be aware. The will of the people was to elect a strong Democratic Unionist party team, and because the strength of that team was too overwhelming for Sinn Féin, it collapsed the institution, to take power back and change that outcome. I do not believe that that should be allowed to happen on the European question: we must stand fast on it. Our leave process must begin. Article 50 should be triggered. I congratulate the Prime Minister on her statement yesterday and on her clear and firm control of the steering wheel, which is in good hands as we move out of Europe.
I am not so simple-minded that I do not understand the massive intrinsic complexities that these steps bring with them. We need to be certain of what is achievable and how we achieve it. The bitter grapes of wrath against people who dared to exercise their democratic right by voting to leave must be put away. We must all work together to secure the best possible outcome for each and every constituent, regardless of how they voted. I have spoken at length to those who are preparing our strategies and policies for Brexit and I have been incredibly vocal about the need to ensure that the needs of Northern Ireland are taken into account, especially in the light of the events of the last week in Northern Ireland that have prevented those in our Assembly from being able to do their job and have input.
I am grateful for our party’s team here in Westminster. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) continues to work closely with the Government and with Ministers in a very positive and direct fashion. He recently met Michel Barnier, the EU chief Brexit negotiator, privately in Strasbourg, to ensure that he, too, was informed of the distinctive challenges faced and the special arrangements required by Northern Ireland.
There is a need for flexibility to ensure minimal disruption to existing border arrangements under the common travel area, which predates the EU continuation of trade, with the Republic of Ireland. As my right hon. Friend has said, stability around those arrangements will be key in helping to secure the continuation of good relations and the peace that the EU has assisted in fostering. Article 8 of the Lisbon treaty outlines the European Union’s desire to
“develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries”
in the interests of
“prosperity and good neighbourliness…and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.”
Being positive about how we are moving forward and taking people with us must be the character of the Brexit process. It must be in the best interests of all the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
A withdrawal agreement will set out detailed transition provisions that should state the future relationship with the EU. Despite that, there are particular concerns about the UK’s trading relationship with the EU. My concerns lie in such areas as the agri-food industry. EU exporters have been known to price competitively. Those who depend on imports from the EU face higher costs for some things. Our process and negotiations must ensure that fair costs in the import and export of goods from different countries are maintained. There are negotiations in place to allow New Zealand to supply lamb with zero duty. Those arrangements are in place. They are possible and they must be made available to us. Interestingly, in the news today, we heard the Government’s statement that many countries are queueing up to sign trade contracts with us outside of Europe. That is an indication of the confidence that the rest of the world has, and it shows why we should be confident in what we are doing, too. That was good news.
Fishermen are not able to fish or work in their own waters, but Brexit will enable them to reclaim their rights to fish sensibly under sensible guidelines, with a sound business plan that will increase viability, create jobs and lead to a better future. The fishermen in Portavogie in my constituency and across Northern Ireland and the whole United Kingdom, including Scotland, want to have control. We have to have that.
There has been talk of changes to workers’ rights due to a change in regulations, but I believe that the small and large businesses in our counties often go further than the European rights, such as by making enhanced and longer periods of maternity leave available. We are doing many things better than Europe intended. I am positive about workers’ rights. I had the opportunity to meet the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. That was not by my invitation alone, but I was one of those who invited her. We had the opportunity to meet some companies to talk about workers’ rights, some of the problems they have and how the Secretary of State sees the cross-border trade working.
After hearing what the Secretary of State said, I am confident that our agri-food industry will be able to co-operate and do business in the Republic of Ireland. I am also confident about the workers we have in our factories and their futures. Many have married, integrated, bought houses and are living in our areas. I have had parents express concerns to me about university places in Europe and the availability of placements, but I point to the reciprocal arrangements that countries such as Switzerland and Norway have in place. We are already doing it. People should not get alarmed about what is happening. Arrangements are already in place that we can take advantage of.
I have raised many issues. I put it on record yesterday, and I will do so again today: I have faith and confidence in the Brexit team, in our Prime Minister and in those negotiating to deliver Brexit for us. We must trigger article 50 when our confidence in how we are achieving our goals is strong. I believe that the Secretary of State and the Brexit team are aware of that, and I have faith and confidence in their timing.
The onus on each Member in this House is to respect the democratic will of the people, to get involved in the process and to help to secure the best advantages for this country. They should stop creating roadblocks and putting up legal challenges that go against the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. We need to deliver on what the people said, and they want out. They want a constructive relationship with Europe, and that is as it should be. There are advantages to having trading partners, but there are more advantages to being out of Europe, and I look forward to that. We need the knowledge to foresee the bumps in the road and to help smooth the obstacles. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the economy and expand our trading relationships with other countries. I am very confident about the future, and all those who voted out are also confident. Many of those who voted remain are also looking forward to those opportunities. Let us get it right and let us do it together.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am pleased to sum up on behalf of the Scottish National party in this debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) for securing it.
In his opening speech, the hon. Gentleman reminded us that the requirement of the UK Government is to deliver and implement article 50 in accordance with the United Kingdom’s own constitutional requirements. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for reminding us, among other things, of the very special—indeed, unique—place that Northern Ireland has in the constitutional requirements of the United Kingdom. I hope that, whatever else happens, nothing in the implementation of article 50 will jeopardise in any way the very fragile and tenuous peace process that is still, thankfully, just about in place in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey quoted some figures and made some assumptions about the percentage of the vote that various MPs received from the electorate. I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) actually bucked the trend that he referred to, because she got just under 57% of the vote in her election. Modesty forbids me from telling the House that I got just under 60%. Members will have worked out immediately that both those numbers are higher than 52%; indeed, they are also both higher than 55%, which is a number that is quite significant for some of us. Admittedly, though, they are far short of 62%, which is the percentage that matters most to me in this debate, because 62% is how many of my people said they wanted to stay in the European Union.
Gordon Henderson
I will just point out that 62% was also the majority in my constituency here in England.
Peter Grant
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his great persuasive powers in achieving that result. I delicately remind him that I did not say 62% in my constituency; I said 62% in my country. There is an important difference.
The final comment that I will make in relation to the hon. Gentleman is that I share his distaste and despair at the tone of some of the debate before, during and after the referendum, and I certainly completely distance myself from the description that he referred to, which was used against all of the 17 million people who voted to leave the EU. I respect the right of people to take their own decisions. I may sometimes be horrified, dismayed, appalled or disappointed by the decisions that they take, but I will respect the decision that the people of England have taken and I also respect the decision that the people of Wales have taken. I ask Members to respect the views that have been expressed by the people of Scotland.
However, I gently have to remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not the first time in the last few years that opponents of change have told packs of lies to the population during a referendum, and I also have to say that I do not remember him protesting as loudly the last time it happened, which was in Scotland.
The debate is about the process for leaving the European Union, but it would be foolish to try to talk about the process without talking about where we want to be at the end of it, because knowing where we want to be can have a huge impact on the process that we choose to follow, and the way that we implement the process can significantly affect our chances of getting the results that we want.
What are the objectives and how have they been arrived at? Well, we have got some clarity on the first question, but not a great deal of clarity on the second. We now know something about the objectives. We now know that the Prime Minister’s objective is not to have free movement of people, but we do not know exactly what she wants instead. We now know that the Prime Minister does not want to be part of the single market; we just do not know what she wants to be part of instead. And we now know—well, we knew already—that when we negotiate this avalanche of new trade deals with everybody and their dog, who, according to the Foreign Secretary, are queuing to do deals with this wee pocket of land in the north Atlantic, those deals will not be subject to adjudication by the Court of Justice of the European Union; we just do not know whose jurisdiction they will come under. In other words, we know a great deal about what the Prime Minister does not want, but we are not an awful lot further forward in knowing what she does want.
Shortly after the referendum, the Liberal Democrats—yes, they do sometimes have their uses—came up with the phrase that the referendum result told us that people wanted to leave but we did not really have any idea about where they wanted to go, and I am not convinced that things have changed very much since then.
We cannot even get reliable and consistent answers from the Government about how they will decide on their objectives. Yesterday, in answer to my question about the Scottish Government’s paper, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told the House:
“I gave him”—
That is, Mike Russell MSP—
“an undertaking that we would debate that paper at the next JMC (EN), as it is known in Whitehall jargon, and that is what we will do. I have been very careful not to comment publicly on it”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 798.]
He was referring to the Scottish Government’s paper—
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this important and timely debate, as well as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) on their powerful contributions. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey was forceful and direct in making his argument, and I will try to be the same.
I will start by saying that Labour accepts and respects the outcome of the referendum. It was the largest exercise of direct democracy in our country’s history and more than 33 million votes were cast. It was a lengthy, wide-ranging campaign that culminated in a high public turnout and a close, but clear, outcome. Throughout, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the public were led to expect that the result would be honoured and implemented, and it should be. Labour accepts that we are exiting the EU and we therefore have no intention, should the Supreme Court uphold the High Court’s November ruling on 24 January, of frustrating the start of that process by voting against the triggering of article 50 out of hand.
However, Labour believes that the Government have approached the matter in the wrong way by arguing, as they have done and continue to do, that Parliament should have no say in the matter. All the effort and cost that will have been incurred by 24 January could have been avoided if Ministers had simply assured the House at an early stage that a plan setting out the Government’s basic negotiating terms would be forthcoming, and had proceeded with a vote on the triggering of article 50 on that basis. That is an approach that we would have welcomed.
Once article 50 has been served there will—I agree with the hon. Gentleman—be a hard two-year deadline within which to conclude a divorce settlement. However, the question of how long reaching that settlement and agreeing a new relationship with the EU 27 will take will be determined by the complexity of the negotiations to come. I agree, in this respect, with the hon. Member for Livingston—I am staggered that the Government did not do even the most rudimentary planning prior to 23 June.
From the speech that the Prime Minister delivered yesterday we do, at last, have some much-needed clarity on how the Government intend to approach the negotiations. I have to say to the Minister, however, that I find it extraordinary that it has taken this long, and that the Prime Minister chose to make her announcement in a speech rather than in a statement to the House. Nor does Labour view that speech as a substitute for a detailed published plan of the kind that would allow parliamentary bodies and devolved Administrations to conduct effective scrutiny. With regard to the substance of the speech, it was disappointing to learn that the Government have walked away from the single market, whatever the cost to our economy, jobs and trade, before the negotiations have even begun and, in doing so, have put at risk our barrier-free trading relationship with the EU. It was also irresponsible and counterproductive of the PM to threaten the EU 27 with the prospect of turning Britain into a deregulated offshore tax haven if she falls short in her negotiations.
However, we acknowledge that the Government have accepted many of the demands that we have been making for months, and will now seek full access to the single market, free of tariffs and unencumbered by impediments, and something short of complete withdrawal from the customs union. They are also working towards a co-operative and collaborative relationship with the EU 27 on a range of issues including security, defence, foreign affairs and science and research. However, let us be clear that in aiming for each of those objectives—the ones that we have been pressing for, as well as her own red lines on immigration and leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—the Prime Minister has set her Government and the Brexit team a herculean task. It will certainly be far tougher and more complex than the more cavalier Members on the Government Benches would have us believe.
What is more, for all the clarity that the speech did provide, it also had significant gaps. We have no idea, for example, what the basis is for the Government’s conviction that there is a middle way on the customs union that will not fall foul of World Trade Organisation rules. I do not hold out much hope, but perhaps the Minister might like to enlighten us this afternoon. Nor are we any the wiser as to where the Government will come down when confronted with the difficult choices that will inevitably arise in the negotiations. We do not know, for example, whether they will prioritise the reduction of immigration over the economy and jobs, should the EU 27 not agree to give the Prime Minister the type of single market access that she seeks and we on this side believe is essential for our economic prosperity.
We have made some progress in that Ministers now clearly recognise how complex the negotiations will be and have therefore conceded, contrary to what the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union argued for many months, that an agreement on a new relationship is not likely to be completed before the end of March 2019. As such, as we have long argued, some form of transitional arrangement now looks likely, but we are still none the wiser about precisely how long the Government expect that transitional arrangement to continue. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. He said that he was a simple soul, but he went on to demonstrate a grip of the facts and an erudition that rather belied that comment. He did a good job of not only representing his constituents but sharing the benefit of his commercial and negotiating expertise, which we welcome.
After the Prime Minister’s speech and the Secretary of State’s statement yesterday, I agree with the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) that it is a good thing that we debate these matters and the process of exiting the European Union. This is not the first time that I have stood in this Chamber in a debate while another debate on this process is going on in the main Chamber. That demonstrates the degree of parliamentary attention and scrutiny that the process is receiving.
Hannah Bardell
On a point of clarification, I am pleased that we are now debating the detail, but I hope that the Minister shares the view—I am sure it is held by many people across the country—that it would have been great if we had had that detail in the run-up to the vote so that people had the full information about what this Tory Government are taking us into through this process.
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady expresses an opinion about the past and the arguments that we had during the referendum. I think it is important to focus on the future and the process.
In the time that I have, I will make some brief remarks about the Government’s key objectives. First, in answer to the direct question that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey asked, I want to clarify that the Government are committed to respecting the will of the British people and delivering on the referendum result. That is why I welcome this debate and the opportunity to focus on the process and how we can get the best deal for the UK. As the Prime Minister has said, we will trigger article 50 and begin the process of leaving the EU by the end of March. That timetable has given us a bit of time to prepare the negotiating strategy and engage constructively with stakeholders. Yesterday’s announcements about our aims were informed by that consultation, which is ongoing.
We want a smooth departure from the EU and a new, positive, constructive and equal partnership for Britain and the EU—a partnership that will be good for Britain and good for the rest of Europe. That is why in her speech yesterday the Prime Minister set out a serious and ambitious vision of a new partnership with the EU for a global Britain, including a comprehensive plan covering our 12 negotiating objectives. I will not repeat them all, because all hon. Members will have followed that speech closely, but it is important that I reiterate their importance and, with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in the room, say that one of the key principles is to maintain the common travel area with Ireland. In answer to the hon. Member for Livingston’s point—[Interruption.] I will not give way, because I have limited time to deliver quite a lot of detail, but in answer to one of the points that the Scottish National party has made regularly, the Prime Minister put an emphasis on protecting the rights of EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU.
To deliver those objectives, officials in my Department and Ministers have carried out a programme of sectoral regulatory analysis and engaged with every devolved Administration and regions across the whole UK to identify the key factors for businesses, communities and the labour force that will affect our negotiations. We are also building a detailed understanding of how withdrawing from the EU will affect our domestic policies to seize the opportunities and ensure a smooth exit process.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey said clearly, the way to start a negotiation is not to tell the people we are negotiating with exactly what we plan to do. Indeed, the House agreed without a Division on 12 October last year that nothing we do or say should undermine the UK’s negotiating position. That was supported by a majority of more than five to one in a Division on 7 December. I welcome the support of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford, and indeed that of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, for the article 50 process. My hon. Friend is right that we must leave the EU in accordance with the process set out in article 50 of the treaty on European Union, which he read out. That is the only lawful route for withdrawal from the EU under the treaties.
We expect the process to follow three stages: notification, negotiation and conclusion. First, we will notify the European Council of our intention to leave the EU under article 50. The Prime Minister has been clear that we will trigger article 50 by the end of March, and the House backed that timetable by a large margin in December. Triggering article 50 is the first step in making the United Kingdom a fully independent, sovereign country, free to make our own decisions. Our position remains that triggering article 50 is a matter for the Government, but as the House knows, we await the Supreme Court’s judgment, which I note is expected to be handed down next Tuesday. I do not want to comment on possible scenarios until that judgment has been made, but let me be clear: whatever the outcome, the Government remain committed to triggering article 50 by the end of March.
Secondly, once article 50 has been triggered, we will then negotiate a withdrawal agreement with the EU. Article 50 makes it clear that there are two years to negotiate such a withdrawal agreement. The Prime Minister has been clear that by the time the two-year period ends we also aim to have reached an agreement about our future partnership. Article 50 itself, as my hon. Friend pointed out, talks about taking account of that relationship in the withdrawal agreement. From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation in which Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements will exist between us.
The Government’s priority is to ensure that we get the best deal for the UK. The UK is leaving the EU, but we are not turning our backs on Europe. If we approach the negotiations in a constructive spirit, as we intend to, we can build a partnership for a strong UK and a strong EU. Although we are confident that a fair deal along these lines can be achieved, we are clear that, for the UK, no deal with the EU is better than a bad deal. My hon. Friend has made his support for that approach very clear.
Thirdly, the precise timing, terms and means by which we conclude the process will be determined by the negotiations. However, the Prime Minister has confirmed that the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU will be subject to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force.
Matthew Pennycook
Will the Minister confirm that the vote that Parliament will have will be a take-it-or-leave-it vote, with “leave it” being the hardest possible exit on WTO default terms?
Mr Walker
The Prime Minister has made it clear that Parliament will have a vote. There will be plenty of opportunities during the process for Parliament to exert its views and to influence the process. I want to come on to some of those.
As I have already described, we have had a huge amount of parliamentary scrutiny. I do not have the time to run through all of it, but it is important to reiterate the commitment that the Secretary of State has made to keeping this Parliament at least as well informed as the European Parliament as negotiations progress. He has set out that he will provide as much information as possible, subject to that not undermining the national interest. It is clear that negotiations will be fast moving and will cover sensitive material, so we will need to find ways of engaging with Parliament throughout the process. We are working through the practicalities of that and will say more when the work is complete.
Parliament’s role will not be restricted to scrutiny and making recommendations. Leaving the EU will require legislation. In particular, the Government will be bringing forward legislation in the next Session that, when enacted, will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and ensure a functioning statute book on the day that we leave the EU. In considering that great repeal Bill, Parliament will have a crucial role to play in determining the future legal framework of our country.
My hon. Friend made a very good point about the slang of Brexit and the fact that it should be “UKexit”, and the Prime Minister was very clear in her speech yesterday that we must deliver for the whole United Kingdom. The Government will continue to engage fully with the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive to get the best possible deal for all parts of our United Kingdom as we leave the EU. We will give the devolved Administrations every appropriate opportunity to have their say, and we will look at any suggestions that they put forward. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union confirmed yesterday, and as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said, the Joint Ministerial Committee will be discussing Scotland’s plans and proposals when it meets tomorrow.
The UK Government have made it clear that we intend to fully involve Gibraltar, Crown dependencies and overseas territories as we prepare for exit, to ensure that their interests are properly taken into account. As such, the first meeting of the UK-Gibraltar Ministerial Forum took place on 7 December. My very first debate in this Chamber was on Gibraltar. I have committed to quarterly meetings with the Chief Ministers of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and we meet again next week. UK Ministers and leaders of the overseas territories have committed to taking forward future engagement through the creation of a new joint ministerial council. Having those processes in place will ensure that we take into account the views of all parts of the UK and the territories whose interests we represent in the negotiations to come.
It is clear from today’s debate that there remain a wide range of views about the Government’s plans for leaving the EU. However, the process for leaving the EU is clearly set out in article 50. The Government are determined to respect the will of the people by invoking article 50 and beginning the process by March, and we must do that in a way that delivers for 100% of the people of this United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the process for the UK to leave the EU.
Written Statements
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingencies Fund
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced that additional funding would be made available to the Department for Exiting the European Union for the 2016-17 financial year. However, as is normal in machinery of government moves, full legal and financial responsibility does not transfer between Departments until the legislation related to the relevant Supply estimates receives Royal Assent. Until then the main exporting Department for the function, the Cabinet Office, must seek an advance on behalf of the new Department.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £42,700,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate. Pending that approval, expenditure estimated at £42,700,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS421]
Hillsborough
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
In April 2016, at the conclusion of the fresh inquests into the deaths which resulted from the Hillsborough stadium disaster on 15 April 1989, Bishop James Jones was commissioned by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to produce a report on the Hillsborough families’ experiences.
Since then Bishop James has met many of the Hillsborough families and discussed his review. Those discussions have helped shape the terms of reference for the review, which I am publishing today.
It is envisaged that Bishop James Jones will complete his review and produce his report in spring 2017. This report will then be published.
The Terms of Reference can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-01-18/HCWS419/.
[HCWS419]
Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Levy) regulations 2014 require active employers’ liability insurers to pay an annual levy based on their relative market share for the purpose of meeting the costs of the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (DMPS). This is in line with the commitment by the insurance industry to fund a scheme of last resort for sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma who have been unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer.
I can announce today that the total amount of the levy to be charged for 2016-17, the third year of the DMPS, is £40.4 million. This includes £5.2 million to accommodate a levy shortfall last year. The amount will be payable by active insurers by the end of March 2017.
Individual active insurers will be notified in writing of their payment amount (i.e. their share of the levy), together with how the amount was calculated and payment arrangements. Insurers should be aware that it is a legal requirement to pay the levy within the set timescales.
I am pleased that the DMPS has seen two successful years of operation, assisting many sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma. The second annual report for the scheme was published on 29 November 2016 and is available on the gov.uk website. I hope that members of both Houses will welcome this announcement and give the DMPS their continued support.
[HCWS420]
House of Lords
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Passport Applications: Digitisation
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have received from the Photo Marketing Association and the Imaging Alliance about their proposals to digitise the passport application process, and what consideration they have given to enhancing and protecting passport security as part of the digitisation process.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Passport Office has been working closely with the Imaging Alliance and previously with the Photo Marketing Association to consider their proposals to further enhance HM Passport Office’s digital passport application process. HM Passport Office works alongside the International Organization for Standardisation to ensure that the UK passport remains a highly secure and trusted document. System developments will enhance security and keep ahead of any evolving threats of fraud.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but when I met the Imaging Alliance four weeks ago it did not feel that it was being as fully consulted as she suggests. As I understand it, the Government are seeking to arrange that any of us can send what is essentially a selfie to the Passport Office to form our passport. The passport is the gold standard as far as identity assurance in this country is concerned. Why is the opportunity not being taken to prevent a situation in which people can Photoshop images and to make sure that there is proper certification about when an image has been taken, that it was taken in a proper way and that it is a secure and viable basis on which we can prove our identity?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right that security standards are paramount, whether under the old system, as we can call it, or under the new digital system. I reassure the noble Lord that security standards are exactly the same under both systems. The USA and New Zealand allow people to take their own photograph. A photograph identified as a selfie that does not meet those security standards and requirements is rejected in the examination process. As the noble Lord is right to point out, that gold standard is paramount for the robustness of and the confidence in this very important document.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Does this Question not take us straight back to the issue of authenticity of information in national identity documentation? Do Ministers realise that once an amateur takes a photograph, we could end up with civil servants arguing about whether that photograph is an exact image, whether it is dark, whether it was taken at the right angle, and whether it presents an image of the quality necessary to be put into an official document, with the result that they may end up having to return it to the sender for the sender to resubmit it? Is that not a waste of Civil Service time? It will cost the state money.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord points out precisely the criteria that are used to measure quality and are required for photographs. Those security standards are no different in the online application process than they were in the old paper process. There was no more risk of the customer getting it wrong under the old system than there is under the new system.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, under the old system, as it is called, somebody has to certify on the back of the photograph that it is a true likeness of the passport holder. How is that going to be achieved if it is a completely digital application process?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the current service, which has been in place since April last year, is available only to adults over the age of 26 who have previously held a British passport. That is where the rigour is in the new process.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, what is the difference between a dodgy selfie and a genuine selfie?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, a dodgy selfie is one that does not meet the rigorous requirements of a passport photo.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, with the increasing threats of terrorism and of identity theft, does the Minister agree that the Question highlights the need for a proper biometric identity card?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Government have rejected the idea of an identity card, but noble Lords will notice that when they go through passport gates now their face is compared with the photograph on the passport. The machines that do the face recognition, which is a form of biometrics, are very accurate indeed.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, is it not a fact that a photograph is merely a rather unsophisticated form of biometrics and that the only safe way of doing this is for the biometrics of any individual to be held centrally? When a person seeks to be identified, the person trying to identify them can, online, compare the biometrics of the person in front of them with those held centrally. That means that you cannot use a fake card or anything else. You need not an identity card but a number, with the biometrics attached centrally to that number.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
There are a number of biometrics through which a person can be compared—it could be a photograph or fingerprints. The biometrics that we use on the British passport are very robust.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I almost get the impression that the noble Baroness is saying that we have identity cards, but we simply call them passports. To go back to the Question, she seemed to give the Answer that the new system is exactly the same as the old one. I am not knocking the advances, as with facial recognition you have an electronic means of verifying that the individual in front of you is the person they say they are. However, that was clearly also true with old-fashioned photographs, which were much more difficult to manipulate. The problem surely is that digital photographs are much easier to manipulate and the possibility of fraud rises. I do not believe they are exactly the same, and if she wants to persist in that argument—I am sure it is what her brief says—I would be grateful if she would write to us with a little more explanation of the security measures that guarantee the validity of the electronic image.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord suggests that a passport is the same as an identity card, but actually it is a form of ensuring that the person’s identity is what they say it is.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
A passport is a form of identity document. Whether you want to call it an identity document or a passport, it is a form of identity documentation. The noble Lord is absolutely right that digital photographs are easy to manipulate, but paper photographs are actually as easily manipulable, should someone wish to do so. That is the point that I am trying to make.
Tax Avoidance
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further steps they intend to take to stop aggressive tax avoidance schemes by individuals and companies.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, during this Parliament we have announced that we will legislate for over 30 measures to tackle avoidance, evasion and aggressive tax planning. This includes a package of changes that close down avenues for tax avoidance by multinationals. We have also announced a new penalty for the enablers of tax avoidance that targets all those in the supply chain of tax avoidance arrangements.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I very much welcome the Government’s legislation to make international companies more transparent, and in particular to reveal the real centre of their economic activity and any possible misalignment between that and where they declare their profits for tax purposes. However, given that multilateral action is now less likely as a result of the decision to leave the European Union, will the Government take the lead on this legislation and ensure that companies have to reveal these data as part of their accounts, beginning with the next financial year?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble and right reverend Lord is right that we have very much been at the leading edge in this area. Our principle is that we should tax companies on where their activities take place. The OECD base erosion and profit-shifting projects, which we have been very much leading on, avoid strategies that artificially shift profits to low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions where there is little economic activity. That seems vital. Transparency is also important, as the noble and right reverend Lord says, but obviously that is something we have to tackle by acting together internationally. Our international work on tax avoidance and evasion continues, quite apart from anything that is going on at EU level.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are not at the leading edge of collecting taxes. They are in the process, over a five-year period, of implementing agreed EC tax avoidance measures. The Government expected that that would raise a certain amount of money but at present the total is £2.6 billion below what they had anticipated. Are the Government aware of how this looks in Europe? Do we not really need to reassure Europe on these matters? Otherwise, the sense Europe has that we might go for low taxation and look to be an offshore tax haven will strengthen their negotiating stance across all Treasury matters in the forthcoming negotiations.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I really do not see things that way at all. Actually, the UK tax gap is one of the lowest in the world. We are investing in work on avoidance and evasion, with an extra £800 million for HMRC, while the work we have done to bring in accelerated payments has yielded £3 billion in extra tax since 2014. The noble Lord talks about tax havens. I think the Prime Minister made it quite clear yesterday that Britain wants a new partnership with the EU and is hoping that we will get a good deal. The point about tax havens was the need to change the economic model if that was not possible. I am hopeful that, with that new agenda she set out, we will get a very positive agreement in this area.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend understand the concern of many of those who have to advise on statute law? Does she understand that it is undesirable to give to the courts a power to strike down an arrangement which complies with the letter of the law on the grounds that it does not comply with the spirit of it? The trouble with that is that it produces unpredictability and therefore injustice. Better by far, if Parliament is unhappy with the interpretation of law, to amend the primary legislation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am always very interested to hear from my noble friend on such issues. This is a complex point which, as a new Treasury Minister, I look forward to talking to him about to understand the implications in this important area of evasion and avoidance. Since the coalition, there has been a lot of agreement on the need to move forward sensibly, whether by statute or the intervention of the courts.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, many of us have been very confused as to why the Government put so little effort into persuading the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies to lift the secrecy that covers tax avoidance. Are we now finding that the answer, as the Chancellor expressed to the German Government, is that he sees a tax haven as a potential economic model, even if by default, for the UK economy—in contravention, I suggest, with long-held British values and the basis of our economy?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I think I have already made clear the context of the Chancellor’s remarks. We are seeking to get a good agreed deal, but clearly, you cannot forecast that. The CDOTs have now all signed up to the common reporting standard and started exchange of information in September last year. This is a result of the sort of international discussion and agreement that we need on these abuse issues, where I believe this country has led the way and, if I might say so, the coalition did some ground-breaking work.
Health Workers: Training
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Crisp
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the number of training places for doctors, nurses and other health workers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, on 4 October the Health Secretary announced that from September 2018, the Government will fund up to 1,500 additional undergraduate medical places each year. Reforms to the funding of nursing, midwifery and allied health preregistration training will come into effect on 1 August 2017. The reforms will enable universities to offer up to 10,000 additional training places by the end of this Parliament.
Lord Crisp (CB)
I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome him to what I think is his first parliamentary Question. I am sure that the Government recognise that there is a growing shortage of health workers globally that comes about as countries, particularly in Asia, expand their workforce enormously. There is a global market and global competition for health professionals. The UK was going to be affected by it regardless of Brexit, but the uncertainties of Brexit make it worse. First, what assessment have the Government made of the scale of the risks from those two factors? Secondly, what assessment have they made of the opportunities? The UK is a world leader in the education of health professionals. What are the Government doing to help universities and others take the opportunity to train more health workers both here and abroad to meet both the UK’s and the world’s demand for increased numbers?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome. The WHO has identified a global shortage of medical staff of more than 2 million, so clearly there is a big need and, as he says, it is being driven by the development of countries, particularly those with large populations, and the need to grow their own staff. At the moment, about 25% of NHS staff in the UK come from abroad and, like all NHS staff, they do a fantastic job for us. Clearly, given the problem that the noble Lord identified, we will need to become less reliant on overseas staff, which is one reason driving our desire to increase the number of training places for doctors, nurses, midwives and others.
In answer to the second part of his question, I think something like 10 of the world’s top universities are based in the UK. We are a world leader in education; that is a great strength of ours and something that we want to continue. Healthcare UK is the government body responsible for working with universities to unlock partnerships with other countries, and there have been a number of successful examples of where that has happened.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, if we are such a world leader in education, it is disappointing that the Government are doing everything they can to stop overseas students coming to our universities to study. On the NHS, the Minister will know that it is under the most extreme pressure. Cancer operations are being cancelled, people are dying on trolleys waiting for beds, and all the Government can do is attack general practitioners. Has the noble Lord seen the NAO report this month which shows that, since 2010, almost as many GPs have left the service as joined and that falling retention and increasing retirement rates put the target of 5,000 extra GPs at risk? The Minister says that the Government hold NHS staff in high esteem, so why do they not talk to and work with GPs to put this right rather than slagging them off?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I do not recognise the description of “slagging off”. We know that GPs do a fantastic job and we are recruiting more of them—5,000, as the noble Lord said. More money is going into general practice as part of the five-year forward view. The Prime Minister in her statement paid tribute to the work that GPs do and said that there were obligations around extended hours and the provision of out-of-hours healthcare—and it is quite right, with the pressures we face, that every part of the healthcare system steps up to fulfil its responsibilities just as others are doing, in order to meet the pressure we are under.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, in the past I have raised the issue of the standard of training for nurses and the fact that they have to have five A-levels to get in. The answer from the Government is that they are about to introduce training that will not require five A-levels and therefore will produce many more nurses. Can the Minister tell us what is happening with that and whether there is any real progress?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
There are two routes into nursing. One is the university route, and because of the changes we are making, there will be the possibility for universities to recruit up to 10,000 more nurses. That is why we are removing the cap. We have also introduced an apprenticeship route, which does not involve going to university but follows the apprenticeship route practised in other fields. That will have 1,000 places in its first instance.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Data in December showed that applications for midwifery and nursing degrees and other allied health university courses in England had fallen by more than 20% since the Government’s announcement of plans to scrap the NHS bursary in favour of loans for student midwives and nurses. Given that we are already extremely short of nurses and midwives, what will the Government do, first, to reverse the removal of the bursary given that most of the courses are on the wards, learning on the job, and, secondly, to encourage the recruitment of more nurses and midwives?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. We are recruiting and creating conditions for the recruitment of more nurses. Something like 37,000 applications were turned down for those wishing to take on nursing, midwifery and allied health professional degrees in 2014-15. That was one of the reasons for removing the cap and equalising the funding arrangement that goes to nurses on other courses within higher education. That will allow universities to provide more places for trainee nurses. We are still early in the cycle and are moving to a new system. I think the UCAS applications have just closed and it is certainly true that in the past when fees were introduced by whichever Government—Labour, coalition or whoever—there was sometimes a small dip in take-up in the first year. But following that, in all those cases across the system, there was a strong rebound in interest in higher education places.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches, but they will have to work out who is going to speak for them—and then we will have the Labour Benches.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, my profession of psychiatry is the medical specialty which has recruited the most specialists from outside the United Kingdom, with 41% of trainees coming from overseas. It takes something like 14 years to train a consultant psychiatrist. Can the Minister confirm whether it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to allow doctors, nurses and other health and social care professionals to remain in the United Kingdom after Brexit?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The Prime Minister has been incredibly clear on this point—and was again yesterday. It is our intention to do so, and to agree that early with our EU partners. But that is something that needs to be reciprocated.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, we certainly need more doctors and nurses. The problem is that we are not retaining as many as we should, and there is no doubt that they feel denigrated and devalued. They really need to feel appreciated rather than kicked around all the time. Are the Government going to help them in any way whatever, or are they going to be constantly criticised?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I do not believe that we are criticising. To take the noble Lord’s point, he is right that there is often negativity in the media about the performance of health professionals. But it is worth pointing out that in a recent poll earlier this week, those who believe that the NHS provides a high standard of care is now at 71%, up 13% since 2013. That is a huge testament to the amazing work that our NHS does.
Northern Ireland: Devolved Powers
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what provision has been made for the continuing operation of devolved powers in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
My Lords, following the resignation of Martin McGuinness last week, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has proposed a date for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 2 March in accordance with his responsibilities under relevant legislation. As the Secretary of State made clear in Parliament yesterday, Northern Ireland needs strong and stable devolved government to continue implementing the Belfast agreement and its successors and to respond to the opportunities and challenges ahead.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, this is a grave moment for part of our country—our precious United Kingdom, as the Prime Minister described it yesterday. The people of Northern Ireland must surely be at the forefront of our thoughts on all sides, in both Houses of Parliament, at this time. Will the Government confirm that it is within the framework of the union, and that alone, that the rebuilding of political stability in Northern Ireland will take place? Will this Conservative and Unionist Government now give a clear commitment that the Irish Republic, a close and respected neighbour, will not be given an enhanced role in Ulster’s affairs, and there will be no moves whatever towards joint authority over Northern Ireland?
Lord Dunlop
My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to wish John Hume a happy 80th birthday today. As the House will know, he, along with my noble friend Lord Trimble. was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the 1998 Belfast agreement. My noble friend Lord Lexden raises an important point. I can confirm that the Government remain fully committed to the Belfast agreement, including the principle of consent governing Northern Ireland’s constitutional position. It is on that basis that Northern Ireland is, and remains, a full part of the United Kingdom. Clearly, any form of joint authority would be incompatible with the consent principle. The Government’s priority remains to work intensively to ensure that, after the Assembly elections, strong and stable devolved government is re-established in Northern Ireland.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Why is it that the Government give the distinct impression of being hands-off rather than hands-on during this escalating crisis? Clearly, the parties, since their relations have deteriorated so terribly, are not going to sort this out on their own, even after an election. It is vital that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister convene meetings—whether summits or other gatherings—to bring the parties together, and that they do so with the Taoiseach as well. Regardless of joint sovereignty arguments, which are irrelevant in this, the Irish Government are very influential, must be brought in, and are a partner in the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Dunlop
I do not accept the premise of the noble Lord’s question. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have been very actively engaged in talking to the Taoiseach and the parties in Northern Ireland. We will continue to leave no stone unturned to ensure that we are in the best possible position after the election to re-establish a fully functioning Executive.
Lord Bew (CB)
The Minister will be aware that just before this major crisis broke, the Northern Ireland Office issued a document on the issue of the donations to political parties, which are private and secret matters in Northern Ireland, for very good historic reasons. It is now calling for a consultation, giving the impression that it wants to review policy in this area. Does the Minister agree that, in fact, it is the suspicions in and around donations related to this great financial scandal which complicate the matter? Will the Northern Ireland Office carry on this work despite the fact that there are many other grave matters at this time?
Lord Dunlop
I agree very much with the noble Lord that this is an important matter. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote recently to all the political parties in Northern Ireland to seek their views on it by 31 January, so that we are in a position to move forward with this once we have had the election.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a well-known fact that it can never be too early to start discussions regarding problems and issues in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding the fact that an election will now take place, can the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is willing to consult with all political parties in Northern Ireland during the election process, so as to pave the way, hopefully, for that Assembly to operate, once it is elected?
Lord Dunlop
I do think that it is important to keep open the lines of communication with the parties throughout the election period for precisely the reason that the noble Lord gives. We need to have an open dialogue so that we are in the best possible position to re-establish a strong and stable devolved Government after the poll in a few weeks’ time.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, will this hiatus allow the Government to take forward in any way the legacy package of the Stormont House agreement? Former police officers went out to serve in Northern Ireland to protect both sides of the community and are being prosecuted disproportionately compared to the terrorists whom they were protecting the community from.
Lord Dunlop
I very much agree with my noble friend. The current situation is unsatisfactory and it remains a priority for the Government to build a consensus on this issue and to find a way forward. The Stormont House agreement provides a framework for reform and the new institutions and will, we believe, provide a fairer, more balanced and proportionate way forward.
Policing and Crime Bill
Wednesday 18th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 91-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons reasons and amendments (PDF, 109KB) - (17 Jan 2017)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 24 and 159, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 24A.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, as the House is aware, Amendment 24 would require the Prime Minister to proceed with what is commonly referred to as the Leveson 2 inquiry into the relationships between the police and the media. When the House last debated this issue at Report stage on 30 November, I drew the House’s attention to the likely financial implications of the new clause, given that part 1 of the Leveson inquiry cost in excess of £5 million. In disagreeing with Amendments 24 and 159, the House of Commons has done so on the basis of financial privilege. This was the second occasion on which the Commons has rejected—both times by a substantial majority—an amendment to the Bill on this issue. The Companion to the Standing Orders makes it clear that in such cases the Lords do not insist on their amendment.
To that extent, I therefore welcome Motion A1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, but while Amendment 24B is clearly different in terms to Amendment 24, it none the less still seeks to bind Ministers’ hands and effectively compels the Government to proceed with part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. This is not how the Inquiries Act 2005 is intended to operate, and it is difficult to see why we should make special provision for one particular inquiry established under that Act. The 2005 Act already includes provision for changes to be made to the terms of reference of an inquiry and for the termination of an inquiry. Under the Act, the responsible Minister must consult the chair of the inquiry before changing the terms of reference or terminating the inquiry and must then notify Parliament.
In the same way as a Minister of the Crown is best placed to decide whether to establish an inquiry under the 2005 Act, we believe that the responsible Minister is also best placed to determine the public interest both for and against the continuation of an inquiry. Accordingly, we should not now be putting in place additional hurdles over and above those already set out in the 2005 Act.
I want to stress that, in putting forward Motion A, the Government’s case goes wider than simply one of cost. As I argued on Report, the Government are firmly of the view that, given the extent of the criminal investigations related to this issue that have taken place since the Leveson inquiry was established, and given the implementation of the recommendations following part 1, including reforms within the police and the press, it is appropriate that we now consider whether proceeding with part 2 of the inquiry is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest.
It is for this reason that we launched a consultation on 1 November to help inform our further consideration of this issue. That consultation closed on 10 January, and it is estimated that we have received more than 140,000 individual responses as well as a petition estimated to contain more than 130,000 signatures. Noble Lords will be aware that an application has been made to judicially review the consultation. While I cannot comment on the ongoing legal proceedings, the Government have committed not to take any final decisions relating to the consultation until these legal proceedings have concluded.
Given the process that we have set in train for considering whether to proceed with Leveson part 2, and the fact that further legislation is not required should we decide to proceed with the inquiry, I put it to noble Lords that there are further good grounds for not continuing to press these amendments. As I have said, the elected House has already rejected an amendment on this issue on two separate occasions. I put it to noble Lords that we should not now send back to the Commons a revised amendment which would simply invite a further rejection. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 24B and 24C in lieu—
“Public inquiries into police conduct etc: requirement for approval for termination or changes
(1) A Minister of the Crown may not terminate, or change the terms of reference of, a relevant inquiry unless—
(a) each House of Parliament approves a proposal laid by the Minister for the termination or change, and
(b) the chair of the inquiry consents in writing.
(2) In subsection (1), “relevant inquiry” means an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 whose terms of reference include matters relating to police conduct connected with the press industry.”
“( ) section (Public inquiries into police conduct etc: requirement for approval for termination or changes),”
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, we have been on this terrain a number of times. I understand the Minister’s objection that there should not be a charge on public funds. Therefore, these amendments do not propose any charge on public funds that has not already been agreed by Parliament. I therefore think that that reason does not now hold.
We know that the status quo is unacceptable and that the form of press regulation that we now have is unstable and needs to be clear in supporting freedom of speech and the future possibility of democratic debate. That is a wider question and I will not go into the details here.
However, there is a second procedural issue which the Minister needs to address. When Parliament has already reached agreement, as it has on this matter, surely it is not acceptable to have a retrospective consultation. Consultation should take place before Parliament determines a matter. In this case, the consultation is retrospective. For that reason, we should not leave matters as they are. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve. If anybody is in any doubt about the need for Leveson 2, which was intended to be an inquiry into the potential for corrupt practice between the police and the press, let me say that, with the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, the then leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, and the former Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, I met with the family of Milly Dowler. The Sunday before that series of meetings took place, Mr Dowler received a phone call from Surrey Police to tell him that the News of the World had told Surrey Police at the time of Milly Dowler’s disappearance that it had hacked into Milly Dowler’s voicemail and retrieved information from it. Surrey Police did nothing at all to prosecute the News of the World over that issue, and it was only the day before that series of meetings that Surrey Police told Mr Dowler that it had known all along that the News of the World had hacked into Milly Dowler’s voicemail. This is the sort of matter that we have not got to the bottom of yet, and Leveson 2 should be held in order to establish what happened.
On financial privilege, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve. Parliament has already committed to the expenditure for Leveson 2; the amendment simply says that it is Parliament itself that should decide that that money should not be spent. The amendment would not involve additional money which has not previously been committed.
However, there is an issue with the wording of the amendment. Our reading of the amendment, if correct, suggests that as the chair of the inquiry, Lord Justice Leveson could override the view of both Houses of Parliament, in that if both Houses voted not to hold Leveson 2 but Lord Justice Leveson himself disagreed with that, the inquiry would still go ahead. We feel that that is a defect in the amendment. Clearly, there will be an opportunity for that to be corrected if we support the amendment today and it goes to the other end, but I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that carefully in considering whether we are on firm enough ground to divide the House on the amendment.
I cannot stress strongly enough from our side how important we think Leveson 2 is and how it needs to take place. We will take every opportunity we are offered to ensure that the Government hold the Leveson 2 inquiry.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Like, I imagine, many other Members of this House, I have received an email from Margaret Aspinall in her capacity as chairwoman of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, asking me to support this amendment. I will not repeat the terms of the email, which I believe has been widely circulated, but it is an indication of the widespread and heartfelt concern that Leveson part 2 might not proceed.
The Leveson inquiry was set up with cross-party agreement and firm commitments from the then Conservative Prime Minister that Leveson part 2 would take place. Let us be clear: Leveson part 2 was in the agreed terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry. The words in the terms of reference for part 2 conclude with:
“In the light of these inquiries, to consider the implications for the relationships between newspaper organisations and the police, prosecuting authorities, and relevant regulatory bodies—and to recommend what actions, if any, should be taken”.
When the Lords amendment on Leveson part 2 was considered in the Commons last week, the Government said that,
“given the extent of the criminal investigations into phone hacking and other illegal practices by the press that have taken place since the Leveson inquiry was established, and given the implementation of the recommendations following part 1, including reforms within the police and the press, the Government must consider whether proceeding with part 2 of the inquiry is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/17; col. 247.]
Those are words with which we are uncomfortable. They sound like the words of a Government who have already decided they do not wish to proceed with part 2 and are looking for their public consultation, which has now concluded, to give them a cloak of respectability for going back on previous firm pledges that part 2 of Leveson would take place.
The inquiries under the terms of reference of Leveson part 2 have not taken place, and thus neither have we had, nor, I would suggest, if this Government think they can get away with it, will we have the considered implications, in the light of those inquiries, for the relationships between newspaper organisations and the police, prosecuting authorities and relevant regulatory bodies with recommendations on what actions, if any, should be taken, called for and provided for under the terms of reference of Leveson part 2.
The Government appear in effect to have decided that they already know what would emerge from the Leveson part 2 inquiries and, likewise, what the recommendations would be without those inquiries taking place and recommendations being made. Frankly, it begins to look as though some powerful individuals and organisations behind the scenes know that they have something to hide and are determined to stop Leveson part 2 and, with it, the prospect of it all coming out into the open.
When the Lords amendment on Leveson part 2 was considered in the Commons, the Speaker certified it as engaging financial privilege, and that is the reason the Commons has given for disagreeing with it. Whether the amendment before us today would likewise be deemed as engaging financial privilege is not something on which I have any standing. However the amendment, which I saw for the first time only at a very late stage, does say that Leveson part 2 proceeds unless both Houses of Parliament and the chairman of the inquiry agree that it should not.
We are thus in a situation where, if both Houses decided that Leveson part 2 should not proceed—I sincerely hope they would not so decide—that decision would mean nothing if the chairman of the inquiry was not of the same view. I think that however strongly we may feel that Leveson part 2 should proceed, we are in difficult territory if basically we say that the view of the chairman of an inquiry that Leveson part 2 should proceed can override a decision by both Houses of Parliament that it should not proceed, particularly when at heart the issue is whether a clear and unambiguous promise made by a Conservative Prime Minister, with cross-party agreement, that Leveson part 2 would proceed can be tossed aside. That is the kind of issue that Parliament has to address and determine.
We feel very strongly that Leveson part 2 should proceed and that cross-party agreements and associated prime ministerial promises should be honoured and not ditched by this Government. We are unhappy with the wording of the amendment. However, whatever the outcome, we will continue to pursue all credible opportunities to ensure that the pressure is maintained and that Leveson part 2 takes place.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, many victims of phone hacking, harassment and press intrusion are relying on part 2 of Leveson to proceed and to provide answers to suspicions of corruption between the press and public officials, including the police. Many noble Lords will have received correspondence from the Hillsborough Family Support Group and from Jacqui Hames. Those letters are quite concerning and show the need for further understanding of what happened and what went wrong so that we can appreciate whether adequate measures are in place to ensure that that kind of activity does not happen again.
My family has an interest in part 2 being carried through, as promised by our previous Prime Minister. Dozens of other families and individuals have been affected and also want answers. It does seem fair that we have the inquiry. The misinformation by some newspapers leading up to the close of the consultation may indeed have led to a very large number of formulaic responses. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will have the wisdom and moral courage to stand up for what is right in this situation and to go through with part 2. I find it very difficult to believe that financial privilege is really the reason for the current caution in this matter. I support the amendment.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. On two occasions, this House has previously considered the subject of whether Leveson 2 should proceed and, on both, came down firmly in favour of it going ahead. Whether or not the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House today, it is important that the Government be reminded that your Lordships’ House is not going to let the matter drop.
Some very pertinent questions remain unanswered. I draw the House’s attention to just one of the terms of reference for Leveson 2 and the important issues that remain unresolved. The sixth term of reference is:
“To inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures at News International and other newspaper organisations, and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to any failure to investigate wrongdoing at News International”.
It is essential that, in such a vital industry as the press, the extent and nature of corporate governance and management failures be established. This is underscored by the fact that many of the leading executives are still in post, have returned to their post or retain key roles in the industry. These include the chief executive of News UK, the editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers and the director of legal affairs at the Telegraph, who had the equivalent post at Trinity Mirror during the phone hacking scandal and its cover-up.
The questions that need addressing are as follows. First, how did it come to be that phone hacking and the unlawful blagging of personal data persisted on such an industrial scale at certain titles for so long; in the case of News UK and Trinity Mirror for at least 10 years, and for several years after journalists at both companies were first questioned by the police under Operation Glade in early 2004? Secondly, how and why was phone hacking and the unlawful blagging of personal data covered up at some of the largest newspapers, in the face of emerging evidence that executives knew about the practice and some findings and admissions in the civil courts to that effect? Thirdly, is it appropriate that no executive has lost their job over the corporate governance and management failures that took place? Has there been a cover-up of the cover-up of wrongdoing?
I will not delay the House further as I suspect noble Lords would like to move on to other matters. Suffice it so say that there are several other topics that Leveson 2 is scheduled to examine and they are of equal importance to the one I have highlighted. Leveson 2 is needed to inquire into suspicious matters affecting our police, our newspapers and our politicians. Since the completion of part 1 of Lord Leveson’s inquiry, the case for part 2 has become even stronger.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a regular adviser to the press on regulatory matters. It has not yet been mentioned today, but your Lordships may wish to take into account that, since Leveson was instituted, there have been large numbers of criminal trials and civil proceedings in which the conduct of the press and the police has been on trial. I am far from convinced that the time, expense and use of judicial resources that will be required by Leveson part 2 are therefore justified. However, your Lordships do not need to decide that issue today—it is the very matter under consultation by the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State’s answer is unsatisfactory to noble Lords, this House and the other place are perfectly entitled to, and no doubt will, reconsider the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the unsatisfactory element of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill: that it appears to give Lord Justice Leveson a veto over the views of Parliament. I hope that when considering the consultation issues, the Secretary of State will privately talk to Sir Brian Leveson and take his view as to whether he thinks, with all of his enormous experience, that Leveson 2 would be justified. I cannot support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
When I was young at the Bar there used to be a judge whose concurring judgments were commendably brief—he would simply say, “I agree”. I can say that about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—I agree with him—and would add a few words. I declare an interest because I have given evidence in the consultation on why Section 40 is, in my view, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to freedom of speech and should not be brought into force. I have not given evidence on the other question in the consultation to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred, upon which many views have been expressed. I agree with what the noble Lord said about that.
As I have said again and again in debates in this House, Parliament has not shown itself to be fair minded in the way it amended two Bills in order to create a scheme to bully the newspapers into entering a regulatory framework other than the one now being admirably well conducted by Lord Justice Moses—IPSO. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has said, we now have an effective system of voluntary press regulation and the state and politicians ought to give it breathing space. I wish to make that clear.
When I was young I began believing in the philosophy of John Stuart Mill. That is why I am a Liberal. I remain a Liberal today, and that is why I am sympathetic to the Government’s position.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I shall respond first to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He is right to assert that Sir Brian Leveson will be consulted formally in due course in his role as the inquiry chair before any decision is taken. The noble Lord also made a point about the cost and other issues that have already been addressed. Lord Justice Leveson said:
“Before leaving the Ruling, I add one further comment … If the transparent way in which the Inquiry has been conducted, the Report and the response by government and the press (along with a new acceptable regulatory regime) addresses the public concern, at the conclusion of any trial or trials, consideration can be given by everyone to the value to be gained from a further inquiry into Part 2. That inquiry will involve yet more enormous cost (both to the public purse and the participants); it will trawl over material then more years out of date and is likely to take longer than the present Inquiry which has not over focussed on individual conduct”.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about Parliament voting on part 2 of the inquiry, in fact Parliament did not vote on part 2; the inquiry was established by Ministers under the powers of the 2005 Act. Parliament voted on Section 40, but in this Motion we are talking not about Section 40, but about Leveson 2.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the Government already deciding to abandon part 2, as I hope I have explained, we have not made a decision on this; we want to take a view on it as part of the ongoing consultation. It is five years since the inquiry was established and since the scope of part 2 was set. We think a consultation is needed before a decision is made on whether proceeding with part 2 of the inquiry, on either its original or its amended terms of reference, is still in the public interest. In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as I said, we will consult with Sir Brian Leveson formally in his role as the inquiry chair before any decision is taken.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and other noble Lords who have helped illuminate the issue we recur to. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is perhaps a little optimistic in imagining that IPSO is a model of self-regulation. Perhaps he meant to say a model of self-interested regulation. The point is that Leveson provides not regulation, but an audit of the standard of self-regulation. As we all know, IPSO has refused to have its process audited. Its so-called independent review of what it did was to terms of reference that it provided and funded by itself. Just as we think a free market requires companies that are—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry for interrupting the noble Baroness, but is she aware that the independent review was conducted by a very senior former Permanent Secretary?
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
I am aware of that and know him. I admire him and what he did in Northern Ireland. He is an admirable person. I comment just on the terms of reference.
Self-regulation is something anybody would concede can reasonably be subject to audit. We allow companies in a free market to proceed as they wish, but they have to have their accounts audited. It is no different when we say that a free press should also be willing to subject itself to proper standards of audit. That, in a sense, is the area of debate. We should be very careful to keep self-regulation distinct from audit.
Quality matters, as does Leveson 2. We will return to this terrain and I do not think this is the end of the story, but I will withdraw the Motion because it has one or two deficiencies we need to deal with. It is not at all adequate to imagine that we can deal with these matters by having a consultation after a parliamentary decision. That is essentially the reason why I feel strongly that this is not the way to go; however, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 96 and 302, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 96A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, when we last debated what is now Amendment 96 on Report in December, I pointed to its potentially significant financial implications. The House of Commons has disagreed with the amendment on the basis of financial privilege. Given the normal conventions of your Lordships’ House, I trust that noble Lords will not insist on it.
However, let me assure noble Lords that this is by no means the end of the matter. While, in the usual way, the House of Commons has cited financial privilege as the only reason for disagreeing with the amendment, it has never been our contention that this is the sole ground for our believing that the new clause should not be added to the Bill. The Government’s view remains that the amendment is premature in that it pre-empts the outcome of the review by Bishop James Jones into the experience of the Hillsborough families and the Government’s subsequent consideration of Bishop Jones’s findings.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others have argued that the issue goes wider than Hillsborough. We do not dispute that, but the experience of the Hillsborough families, which will include the issue of legal representation at the original and subsequent inquests, is highly relevant to the broader question and it is right therefore that we take Bishop Jones’s current review into account in deciding this question.
As noble Lords may have seen, the review’s terms of reference were published earlier today. They state:
“The Review and Report will cover the history of the Hillsborough families’ experiences throughout the whole period, ranging from the conduct of past police investigations, through their engagement with public authorities, to the current investigations”.
The report will therefore cover a wide range of issues, including, as I have said, the families’ experiences of the various legal proceedings. Bishop James Jones will present his final report to the Home Secretary, including any points of learning that he may choose to highlight for the Home Secretary’s consideration.
It is envisaged that Bishop Jones will complete his review and produce his report in the spring of this year. I can assure the House that the Government will then give very careful consideration to his conclusions and any points of learning contained in his report.
In the knowledge that this issue remains firmly on the Government’s agenda and that there will, I am sure, be opportunities to debate it further in the light of the report, I invite the House to agree to Motion B. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I accept that the Commons Speaker has also certified the Lords amendment on this issue of parity of funding as engaging financial privilege and that the Commons reason for disagreeing with the amendment is that it would involve a charge on public funds. I want nevertheless to raise one or two points with the Government in light of what the Minister has said.
During consideration of the amendment in the Commons last week, the Minister there referred to the report by Bishop James Jones and said:
“Our view remains that we should await the report, expected this spring, from Bishop James Jones on the experiences of the Hillsborough families. The Opposition have argued that this issue goes beyond Hillsborough. I do not dispute that, but the experiences of the Hillsborough families will have significant relevance for other families facing different tragic circumstances, and the issue of legal representation at inquests will undoubtedly be one aspect of those experiences. Bishop James’s report will provide learning that could be of general application, so it is entirely right that we do not now seek to pre-empt his review, but instead consider this issue in the light of his conclusions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/17; col. 249.]
Those words make it pretty clear that Bishop James Jones has not been asked to look at the general issue of representation and funding at inquests where the police are represented, which was the subject of the Lords amendment. He has been asked to look at the experiences of the Hillsborough families. The Minister in the Commons stated that the report would provide learning that could be of general application.
Will the Minister say quite clearly one way or the other whether the Government consider that the terms of reference which Bishop James Jones has been given require him also to look at the issue of representation and funding at inquests generally where the police are represented? Alternatively, if the Government consider the terms of reference to be ambiguous on this point, has Bishop James Jones now been asked by the Government to address in his review the issue of representation and funding for families generally and not confine himself to the experiences of the Hillsborough families? Bearing in mind the way the Government have used the existence of the Bishop James Jones review and the forthcoming report as an argument for not going down the road of the amendment that was passed in this House, which deals with the position at inquests generally, I think there will be some concern if, when the report comes out, it is clear that it relates only to the experiences of the Hillsborough families and that the issue of whether it should or could have wider implications for representation and funding for families at inquests generally has not been considered. I would be grateful for some very clear and specific answers from the Government to all the questions I have just asked.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will make some brief observations. When the Government come to consider the recommendations concerning funding at inquests, I hope they will agree to the concept of parity of funding, for all the reasons that have been ventilated on previous occasions. But I repeat what I have said to your Lordships’ House before about the triggering mechanism: I do not believe that the police and crime commissioner should be the trigger for that. The coroner should be the trigger for it. There are three very brief reasons for saying that.
First, the coroner is much better placed to form a view as to the relevance and importance of the representation in question. I do not see that the police and crime commissioner would necessarily have access to the relevant information. Secondly and differently, in some inquests, where the conduct of the police or, indeed, the police and crime commissioner could itself be in question, there is a danger of a conflict of interests. Thirdly, sometimes the integrity of the decision of the commissioner will be in question. What happens when the commissioner is facing an election in short order? He or she may well make a decision influenced by the electoral consequences of that decision. All these things seem to suggest very powerfully that the trigger should be the decision of the coroner, not of the police and crime commissioner.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, seemed to suggest that the Government are using the Bishop Jones report as some sort of excuse to not respond to what is suggested by the amendment. Of course, I will hear what my noble friend has to say, but as I understand the position, the question is being considered very seriously by the Government but it would be rather strange not to consider a report of this magnitude dealing with the best-known example of a series of inquests with improved legal representation before coming to the conclusion, to which they may or may not come, that a response to the amendment is appropriate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords who have made points on this Motion. My noble friend Lord Faulks is absolutely right that the whole point of establishing an inquiry or a review—one of such magnitude on an event that will be ever seared on people’s minds; that is, the horrors of Hillsborough—is to learn the lessons of that event so that they can be applied to similar cases in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, is not in the Chamber, but I was reflecting on the lessons that local authorities learned from the terrible death of Victoria Climbié at the hands of her relatives. These reviews always have that wider learning that can be applied in the future. The terms of reference do not require Bishop Jones to look wider but the learning from the review will have wider application.
I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham about the coroner. We talked at length both in Committee and on Report about an independent assessment of these matters. Of course, for me to respond about whether or not that is the right way would pre-empt the review so I will not go there. But I hope that noble Lords find those comments helpful.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 134 and 305, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 134A and 305A in lieu.
(1) In the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 —
(a) in section 4 (putting people in fear of violence), in subsection (4)(a), for “five years” substitute “ten years”;
(b) in section 4A (stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress), in subsection (5)(a), for “five years” substitute “ten years”.
(2) In the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, in section 32 (racially or religiously aggravated harassment etc), in subsection (4)(b) (which specifies the penalty on conviction on indictment for an offence under that section which consists of a racially or religiously aggravated offence under section 4 or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997), for “seven years” substitute “14 years”.
(3) The amendments made by this section apply only in relation to an offence committed on or after the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) Where the course of conduct constituting an offence is found to have occurred over a period of 2 or more days, or at some time during a period of 2 or more days, the offence must be taken for the purposes of subsection (3) to have been committed on the last of those days.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the House will recall that Amendment 134 sought to increase the maximum penalty for the more serious stalking offence, where the behaviour of the offender puts a person in fear of violence, from the current five years to 10 years. The amendment would also increase the maximum penalty for the racially or religiously aggravated version of the offence from the current 10 years to 14 years. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but she is not in her place so I thank her in her absence, for introducing that amendment and explaining her concerns about the current maximum penalties during the debate on this amendment on Report.
The Government have reflected carefully on that debate and wish to ensure that the criminal justice system deals with these offences properly. The Government continue to keep maximum penalties under review and are ready to increase them where there is evidence that they are not sufficient to protect victims. Current sentencing practice suggests that, in the majority of cases, the maximum penalty of five years is sufficient to deal with serious stalking. In a small number of the most serious cases, however, courts have sentenced near to the current maximum. For those most serious cases, we are persuaded that judges should be able to pass a higher sentence than the current five-year maximum. This would afford greater protection to victims and be commensurate with the serious harm caused by these cases. The Government therefore tabled Amendment 134A, to which the Commons agreed, which replicates with some fine tuning the provisions of the noble Baroness’s amendment.
However, we are going further. As I said during debate on Report, we are keen to retain consistency between penalties for related offences. The Commons amendment in lieu will also therefore increase the maximum penalty for the related Section 4 harassment offence of putting a person in fear of violence. In line with standard practice, Amendment 134A also provides that the increase in maximum penalties for these offences will apply only to crimes committed on or after the date of commencement. As the Commons amendment in lieu builds on Lords Amendment 134, I trust that in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the whole House will be content with the substitution. I therefore beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I am sorry to say that I really disagree with my noble friend on this matter. There is absolutely no justification for increasing the maximum sentence, and I have two reasons for saying that. First, I do not believe that the increase will provide an additional deterrent. Either the person in question is rational, in which case a maximum sentence of five years is a sufficient deterrent, or they are not rational, in which case it will make precious little difference. I note my noble friend’s point that the judges have rarely sentenced at the higher end of the existing maximum. My other point is a general one. I am very concerned about overcrowding in prisons. There has been a tendency to increase the sentences imposed by the courts. The newspapers and Parliament are responsible for that in part, and I do not wish to see Parliament increasing the pressure on our prisons. This is a small contribution to that, and I am bound to say I am against it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I notice that in Amendment 134A the proposal is to increase the penalty from seven to 14 years for what is described as an offence,
“which consists of a racially or religiously aggravated offence under section 4 … of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997”.
Before we agree to this increase in the penalty, will the Minister enlighten us about what, particularly, a religiously motivated offence might be? Specifically—and I have asked this before in Written Questions and had unsatisfactory Answers from the Government—could such an offence be caused by a Christian preaching the supreme divinity of Christ and therefore denying the supremacy of Muhammad? Would various assembled Muslims be free to regard that as a religiously aggravated offence under this section?
Lord Rosser
I shall be very brief and say that, unlike, apparently, some noble Lords, we welcome the Commons Amendment.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, I shall make a clarification. Muslims accept all religions that preceded Islam and accept all the texts that preceded it. Therefore, there would be no likelihood of such an event occurring.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, to address the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham about the maximum penalties and overcrowding in prisons, the prison population has remained relatively stable since 2010. The Justice Secretary is clear that she wants to see more early intervention and a reduction in reoffending. To that end, we have launched a White Paper outlining our plans to make prisons places of safety and reform, and we have announced a comprehensive review of our probation system.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, made, I fear I will disappoint him again. It is a matter for the court and the CPS to determine the points that he makes.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 136 to 142 and 307, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 136A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the elected House has disagreed with these Lords amendments by a substantial majority of 100. In inviting this House not to insist on these amendments, the Government recognise that there are legitimate concerns about the operation of the victims’ code—I stress that—and that there is scope for improvement, but I put it to noble Lords that seeking to shoehorn these new clauses into the Bill when they have not had the benefit of detailed scrutiny either in this House or in the other place is not an appropriate way forward. This House rightly prides itself on its effective scrutiny of legislation. In the case of these amendments, however, we have had what amounts to, at best, a short Second Reading-style debate on the case for strengthening victims’ rights.
While the underlying objective of these amendments—namely, improving the experience of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system—is one we can all wholeheartedly support, the Government continue to have serious concerns regarding their substance. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, now wishes to focus on just two amendments rather than on all seven new clauses added to the Bill on Report but, as with the others, we foresee a number of problems with Amendments 137 and 138. I thank her for meeting me yesterday, together with the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, but, as we discussed in relation to Amendment 137, the victims’ code—a statutory code of practice—includes a wide range of entitlements for victims of crime, including being entitled to receive information on their case. For example, under the code, victims should be informed about: the police investigation, such as if a suspect is arrested and charged and any bail conditions imposed; if a suspect is to be prosecuted or given an out-of-court disposal; the time, date, location and outcome of any court hearings; and any appeal by an offender against his or her conviction or sentence.
Baroness Brinton
Leave out from “136” to end and insert “and 139 to 142, and do insist on its Amendments 137, 138 and 307.”
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and her predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for being available for meetings and discussions during the passage of the Bill. I am very grateful for their assistance.
I can think of no better way to start the debate on the victims’ code and support for victims than to pay tribute to Jill Saward, who died two weeks ago. I extend my sympathy to her husband Gavin and her family on her untimely death at the age of 51. Jill was the first person to waive her anonymity having been the victim of a brutal rape and sexual assault in 1986, and her photograph was all over the Sun newspaper just days after the incident, something that is perhaps pertinent to our debate earlier about Leveson 2. The judge in the case sought to justify giving the defendant who did not take part in the rape a longer sentence than those who did by saying that Jill’s trauma,
“had not been so great”.
Two years later she led the campaign for anonymity for victims from the moment of assault, but chose to waive her own right to anonymity and published her account, Rape: My Story, an incredible, hard-hitting and moving book.
She was a brilliant and dedicated campaigner as well as a wise counsellor. Until she died, most people never knew how many victims of assault, rape, stalking or domestic violence were contacted by her privately, and she supported them through their experience. I know that Jill provided considerable support for Claire Waxman, a survivor of repeated stalking and the founder of Voice4Victims, in her campaign to inform Ministers and parliamentarians of failings in the current system, which has resulted in the amendments that have been put before your Lordships’ House and another place.
In the Commons consideration of Lords amendments last week, the Minister said:
“These amendments ignore the extensive reforms and modernisation we are undertaking to transform our justice system … The amendments would result in an unstructured framework of rights and entitlements that is not founded on evidence of gaps or deficiencies … Some amendments are unnecessary because they duplicate existing provisions and practices, or are being acted on by the Government already … We are looking at the available information about compliance with the victims code and considering how it might be improved and monitored.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/17; cols. 249-50.]
The reason I raise this is that we feel very strongly because the Conservative manifesto 2015 said:
“We have already introduced a new Victims’ Code and taken steps to protect vulnerable witnesses and victims. Now we will strengthen victims’ rights further, with a new Victims’ Law that will enshrine key rights for victims”.
That is what the amendments we have set before your Lordships’ House today are intended to do. Apart from the fact that the Minister seemed to contradict himself somewhat during that debate, we are clear that, although the victims’ code gives victims entitlement to support, it does not ensure that that support is provided by the agencies. It is the lack of statutory duty for the agencies and the criminal justice system that is the problem.
The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime uses the words “should” and “may” repeatedly when talking about the services while, when it is talking about victims, it talks about entitlement. It is that gap that the amendments are intended to resolve. The results of that gap are all too evident. Do not take my word for it. The criminal justice joint inspection report, Meeting the Needs of Victims in the Criminal Justice System, states that,
“there were some excellent individual examples of good practice across criminal justice sectors”,
but that,
“there were unacceptable inconsistencies in the service provided to victims—depending on the type of offence, where they lived or the degree to which local policy support and reinforce service provision. Given that the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime … provides a standard which should transcend all these variables, there is clearly more work to do”.
Last year, the Public Accounts Committee published a report on the needs of victims and a victims’ law, stating:
“The … system is bedevilled by long standing poor performance including delays and inefficiencies, and costs are being shunted from one part of the system to another … The … system is not good enough at supporting victims and witnesses … Timely access to justice is too dependent on where victims and witnesses live … There is insufficient focus on victims, who face a postcode lottery in their access to justice due to the significant variations in performance”.
The Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in her report of January 2015, said that almost 75% of respondents to her survey of victims consulted during the review were unhappy with the response they received, and over 50% found the relevant agency’s complaints process difficult to use.
I am very grateful for the Minister’s statement that there is work to do on the victims’ code. Since the amendments started their passage through Parliament, Voice4Victims has been flooded with new issues raised by victims on the process failing them, not just the reason why those families and individuals were victims. Ivy, who was 45, was encouraged to report to the police ongoing sexual violence by her partner. She did so, but the officer said that he did not believe her. A second officer dismissed her claims and said that she was overreacting. Later, she was further violently assaulted by her partner, including suffering broken ribs and severe bruising. At the following multiagency meeting, she was told by the police that she was now assessed as being at high risk of being murdered. To cut a long story short, she had to move 170 miles away from her home. The victim had to move because the police could not guarantee her safety. Victims are being let down by the system.
I thank the Minister for the statement she made earlier. The key points to satisfy me not to call for a vote on my amendment are that we need to undertake a review within a timescale. I am grateful for the review that is to report back within 12 months. As important, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will ensure that any review will make sure that there is a statutory responsibility for the fulfilling of duties by the agencies and that appropriate training and services delivered are monitored. Victims—from Jill Saward, 30 years ago, who started the movement for victim support, right through to Ivy and the many others around her today—deserve better, and they deserve action soon. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Brinton and associate those on our Benches with her remarks on Jill Saward. The Minister acknowledged in her remarks that there are legitimate concerns about the victims’ code, and that is why there was a Conservative Party manifesto commitment for a new victims’ law to ensure that the victims’ code is given effect. That is what my noble friend is trying to achieve through the amendment. We trust that the Government’s review will result in more effective protection for victims and more compliance by the police and the other agencies with the victims’ code. If the Minister can give that commitment, we will be prepared to accept the Government’s intention to ensure that the victims’ code is not simply a matter of words but will have some effect and that victims will be better cared for by those agencies in the criminal justice system.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we, too, support the objectives behind the amendment that was moved so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the reasons that she herself set out. We also associate ourselves with the comments made by the noble Baroness about Jill Saward.
The issue is that the current victims’ code is not legally enforceable and there is clear evidence that it is not being applied and acted on by the relevant agencies to the extent that was clearly intended—to the detriment of the victims it was intended to help. The amendment provides for victims’ rights to be placed on a statutory footing and for the Secretary of State to address the issue of training for all relevant professionals and agencies on the impact of crime on victims.
I share the view that the Government, in the statement made by the Minister today, have been considerably more helpful and constructive in their response than they were during consideration of the Lords amendment in the Commons last week.
Finally, I, too, express my thanks to the Minister for her willingness to meet us. I hope that we have reached a stage at which there will be some accord on this issue.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I do not think that there was a lack of accord. In fact the whole way through these discussions I felt that we were seeking the same ends; it was just a matter of how we got there. I add my tribute to that of the noble Baroness to Jill Saward. I read about her the other day, and what she went through was absolutely heart-breaking as well as devastating while her father and then fiancé were downstairs. How she gathered the strength to not only waive her right to anonymity but help so many other people is quite inspiring and not something that everybody would feel able to do.
Following discussions today, yesterday and previously, we have reached a consensus on this and I hope that the words that I read out have given noble Lords confidence as we move forward to publishing this strategy within the next 12 months. I thank all noble Lords for their part in this debate.
Baroness Brinton
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and thank again the Minister for the words that she said from the Dispatch Box, which meet my concerns at the moment. I shall be interested to see the result of the review and consultation. If we feel that there is not strong enough legislation coming through afterwards, I suspect that more amendments will appear in further course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Wales Bill
Wednesday 18th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Wales Act 2017 View all Wales Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 62KB) - (17 Jan 2017)
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 Wales Bill, has consented to place her interest and prerogative, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 4: Devolved Welsh authorities
Amendment 1
Baroness Randerson
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, my amendment seeks to make crystal clear the constitutional position of the Open University. The OU itself still has a shadow of doubt, despite the welcome amendments from the Minister, which seek to clarify that the Open University is a cross-UK institution that belongs to no one country but to all countries of the UK. One intention of the amendment, which is simple and straightforward, is to ensure that it is clear that the Open University is not a devolved Welsh body, as referred to in Clause 4, on page 3 of the Bill. That clause relates to devolved Welsh authorities and refers to higher education institutions; the intention is that the Open University be excepted from that.
I am grateful to the Minister for looking again at how the Open University should sit within the Bill, because it is a unique institution in how it has opened up access to higher education for adults. It is nearly 50 years old, was way ahead of the time in how it delivered distance learning and so on, and remains unique in the way it delivers part-time distance education. It is also unique in being the only university in the United Kingdom to receive public funding from, and therefore have formal obligations to, the four nations of the UK. It is a UK university. I know that, as a hugely successful university attracting adult learners from some of our most disadvantaged communities and working with employers across Wales and the rest of the UK, it is very familiar to noble Lords across the House. But it is important to emphasise that it should not be seen as an English institution just because its headquarters are in England, any more than it should be seen as a Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish institution because it has a base in each of those countries. It is a UK institution and belongs to all of those countries—a category all of its own. The amendment serves to clarify this aspect of its status; I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to do so. I make it absolutely clear at this point that this amendment will not pushed to a vote. I am hoping that the Minister will take the opportunity to make it clear that the structure, activities and status of the OU within the Higher Education (Wales) Act 2015, where it is treated as a distinct and special case, is consistent with this Bill.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, very briefly, I support what the noble Baroness has just said. I am a former chancellor of the Open University and officiated at a number of graduation ceremonies in Cardiff, and there is no question but that the people of Wales consider the Open University to be a thoroughly national institution and not an English institution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for those two contributions. Before I speak to the government amendments, I begin by welcoming yesterday’s vote in the National Assembly to approve the legislative consent Motion for the Bill. In particular, I thank Assembly Members, the First Minister and the Welsh Government for their support for the Motion. It stands as testament to how far we have come. Noble Lords’ careful and thorough scrutiny has served to strengthen the Bill greatly and I thank them for their participation as the Bill has moved through this House.
The Government have listened carefully to the issues that have been raised throughout these debates and have brought forward amendments to address many of them. I thank my officials, led by Geth Williams, Peter Newbitt-Jones and Victoria Miles-Keay, and their team for their hard work on the Bill and for working closely with the Welsh Government and the Assembly Commission to resolve outstanding areas of concern. I have brought forward some amendments to address issues that have arisen from these discussions as well.
The Bill we have before us now is a better Bill as a result of the scrutiny of the House and the vast experience of noble Lords across the House. I place on record my personal appreciation for the diligent and constructive way in which noble Lords have approached the debates at each stage. In particular, I am very grateful for the engagement and constructive approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. Nearly 20 years ago, we served together on the National Assembly Advisory Group; I do not think we could have expected that we would be here today—nearly 20 years on —discussing this Bill.
As we have also discussed, the historic agreement of a fiscal framework last month was also key to the Assembly’s consideration of the legislative consent Motion. I pay tribute to my right honourable friend Alun Cairns, the Secretary of State; my right honourable friend David Gauke, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; and the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Mark Drakeford, for their work on that fiscal framework. I also pay tribute to the considerable work undertaken by my right honourable friend Stephen Crabb, who did much of the heavy lifting before Alun Cairns became Secretary of State. Taken together, this Bill and the fiscal framework deliver the clearer, stronger and fairer settlement we set out to deliver.
The government amendments before noble Lords today are largely minor and clarify a small number of outstanding issues. Clause 29(6) provides a signpost to related provisions later on in the Bill, including those requiring consultation between Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State before certain harbour functions are exercised. Government Amendment 3 adds a new provision to that clause to signpost the consultation requirements in the new Clause 36, which was added at Lords Report stage. It concerns the exercise of functions by the Secretary of State in relation to two or more harbours, at least one of which is devolved to Welsh Ministers.
Government Amendment 2 is a drafting amendment that aligns the wording of Clause 29(6)(a) with the new paragraph added by government Amendment 3.
Clause 62(7) inserts new Part 2A into the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 in relation to the cross-deployment of tribunal members. Government Amendment 4 would insert the equivalent Welsh language text into that Measure. Government Amendments 5, 6 and 7 update references to “public” authorities in Schedule 1 to reflect the revised title of “devolved Welsh authorities”.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I wish to say a few words as we reach the end of the Bill’s passage through the House. Before I do, I have one question for the Minister on the amendments to which he has just spoken with regard to electricity. Will the changes that he has made have any effect whatever on the Swansea Bay project that is going forward? I hope that he will respond to that point.
We have given the Bill considerable scrutiny over recent weeks, which has led to some welcome adjustments but has also focused attention on many issues that we regard as missed opportunities. We feel that the opportunity to enact the carefully balanced Silk package as a whole has been partly lost because of the way it has been approached. The Bill is consequently a bit of a parson’s egg and, as the Minister knows, the reaction in the National Assembly reflects that.
Lord Elis-Thomas (Non-Afl)
I think that it is a curate’s egg. I am a Welsh Anglican; I know these things.
Lord Wigley
My noble friend is of course far better versed than I am in these matters. It may well be, as the noble Baroness suggests, that the parson’s nose is coming to the fore in my consideration of some of the more controversial aspects of the Bill.
As the Minister knows, the Plaid Cymru group in the Assembly voted against the legislative consent Motion yesterday, for the simple reason that the Assembly is losing some powers, as we noted in a number of debates in the Chamber in Committee and on Report. Some of those powers may well have been assumed or unclear, but none the less they were used, some for substantive pieces of legislation. The existing legislative powers of the Assembly were endorsed by a 2:1 majority in a referendum in Wales in 2011 and some of the powers implicit in that vote are now being retracted. Some of the legislation enacted by the Assembly since that referendum was made using powers that will no longer be available to the National Assembly when the Bill becomes law. That is a perfectly valid basis on which to register a protest vote, as the Plaid Cymru group did in the Assembly yesterday. None the less, I hope that the Government of Wales will make full use of the powers now available to them under the Bill.
Sadly, the Bill does not provide the long-term settlement to which the Minister referred. No doubt in the fullness of time another Wales Bill will clear the uncertainties left by this Bill and address the issues, many covered by the Silk report, that were avoided in this Bill. Undoubtedly, for example, the devolution of police, prisons and justice will drive that demand, as well as more coherent powers over energy. By the way, I noted something that did not come to the fore during our early debates: the Home Office, which was then under Theresa May as Home Secretary, failed to give evidence to the Silk commission on these matters. I am sure that the Minister will recall that from his work on that committee. A whole new debate will arise, post-Brexit, on financial levers and further tax-varying powers.
Finally, I will say a word of tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for the way in which he has conducted the passage of the Bill. His has been a stalwart performance—single-handed most of the time—and we admire the way in which he has kept on top of his brief throughout, although at times we disagreed with that brief. His experience, both as a key member of the Silk commission and a former party leader in the National Assembly, undoubtedly stood him in good stead in this matter. Many of us feel that there were times when he had to defend a government line when, in a previous incarnation, he may well have taken a different line. None the less, I hope that he will be recognised by his colleagues for the work that he has done and I hope that they will take note in future of the advice that he gives on matters relating to Wales. I hope that the Bill will help to the extent that that is possible within its limitations. I therefore wish well those who will live within the framework that is now being enacted.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the remarks of the noble Lord in thanking the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Bill. Its passage would have been a lot bumpier without his conciliatory approach. I also echo what he said about his officials, including the excellent Geth Williams, who once had the dubious privilege of working for me. I am glad that he survived to serve on the Bill, although what he makes of the dog’s breakfast that it serves up we will never know, his being a professional civil servant.
Finally, I appeal to the Minister. In the light of the Division on the question of employment and industrial relations last week, on which there was a tied vote, I have said to him privately and I repeat publicly that there is a way in which the Government could, even at this late stage, when the Bill goes back to the Commons, bring forward an amendment to tweak the amendment that was moved. As I said, there was a tied vote in the Lords last week. He could do that in a way in which the Government could overcome their reservations and satisfy everybody concerned. He will know that the Assembly has since voted on a Bill in this area. The issue is on its way to the Supreme Court. He can avoid that. It is not too late.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I do not intend to speculate about what might be done in another place as we debate this issue at Third Reading here. Nor do I think that I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in looking far into events that may or may not happen in the future. I very much welcome the amendments moved by my noble friend.
Before I pay some very well-deserved tributes, perhaps I might be allowed to voice just one regret about the way in which we legislate these days. If practical and possible, it would be much better if, instead of having a Bill that amends previous Bills so that we finish up with something almost unbelievably complex and difficult to interpret, we produced an entirely fresh Bill that everyone would be able to follow and understand without a degree of expertise that might be difficult to find even among those who guide the Welsh Assembly and this Parliament. I think that that would be a much better way of legislating.
I think that it was during Report that the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, who is not here today, commented that he had once taken a different view about devolution, and I acknowledge that I had, too. When the final decision was taken by the narrowest of margins to go ahead, I said that I believed that when one crossed the Rubicon one should go on and make a success of it. I subsequently thought about that remark and realised that it was not very wise, because when Caesar crossed the Rubicon we had conflict, murder, civil war and the end of the empire. I am glad to say that that has not been the history of devolution in Wales or of the creation of the Welsh Government.
On this occasion it is right to pay considerable tribute to two Secretaries of State for Wales—the previous and the present ones—for their strong initiative in taking things further forward and producing a settlement that I believe will last for some considerable time. I believe that they and the Government deserve credit for the role that they have played in carrying devolution forward.
I pay a special and particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, whose performance on the Front Bench has been simply heroic and which he has combined with his responsibilities in other departments. I simply do not know how he manages to do it—and do it so well. However, I thank him. I believe that all those who have taken part in the debates on the Bill will at least share in that tribute. His role has been totally outstanding.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, having observed the passage of this Bill from the Welsh Marches, as it were, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for the way in which he has led his team through. I want to make one small plea—that he might be enticed to taste the menu put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, regarding that tied vote. I know that it has come at a late stage in the day, but I feel that it has much to commend it.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, I am, I think, the only historian of Wales present, and I think that this has been a historic event and process, for which the Minister and our Front Bench deserve great credit. I am perhaps among the last of the generation of Welsh children who was brought up to regard the House of Lords—to quote the Daily Mail—as the enemy of the people, hostile to the aspirations of the people of Wales on devolution, land, education, church matters and many other issues. It is historic because in this case, of course, the House of Lords has been enormously positive. Many of us were asked by political figures in Wales to be helpful and to try to resolve some of the needless quandaries in the Bill, which purported to extend devolution but in some respects seemed to restrict it, and clear things up. I think that we have succeeded to a considerable extent in so doing. Very important principles have been enunciated, which, again, are historic; particularly those that elevate the status, if not always the powers, of the Welsh Assembly, making them more comparable—although still not comparable—to those of Scotland.
I will not labour the point but, as has been said, we owe thanks to the Minister, who has been extraordinarily helpful and considerate. He has handled this matter in a model way and I conclude by suggesting a new role for him. I believe that one thing we need in all these measures—I recall that this point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Hunt, as well as by me—is some kind of statement of how they relate to the overarching vision of the union. Just as in the higher education Bill we put in some important points of general principle the other day, I feel that that would be valuable here. We have an unwritten constitution, and so perhaps the best way of achieving this kind of insertion would be to have a constitutional supremo to take it over. I can think of no Member of the Government more qualified to act in that, at the moment, untested role than the Minister. I thank him very much.
Lord Elis-Thomas
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister, who is an old colleague of mine—sorry, not an old colleague but a former colleague—in the National Assembly. His great achievement then, which I have alluded to before, even in this place perhaps, was converting the Welsh Conservative Party into a Welsh Conservative Party and a pro-devolution Conservative Party, as we saw most firmly yesterday in the National Assembly vote. He has excelled that contribution in the way that he has taken this legislation through this House. If I may, I want to link him to what is a very important memory for many of us. He ranks up there with the late, great Gareth Williams QC, who took us through the very early stages of devolution in this House. I cannot pay him a higher compliment than that.
The Minister kindly referred to our debate yesterday. I am not going to rise to the bait and have a spat with my noble friend about the way that the parties voted. However, it did strike me as interesting that the United Kingdom Independence Party and the party of Wales ended up in electronic harmony—we do not have Lobbies in the National Assembly—voting against a measure of Welsh devolution, even if it was for different reasons. The debate we had there was reasonable and reasoned. It was necessary to have that debate and that vote because, as the Minister has told this House before, we could not have proceeded to complete our stages without that legislative consent Motion.
That leads me to another conclusion that we can, I hope, take from our proceedings on this legislation, both in the National Assembly and in this House. Last week, I ventured to mention that we had perhaps finished a chapter of doing things in a certain way in relation to Welsh devolution. I believe we have now, potentially, reached a level of consensus, certainly between the main parties of devolution, as we saw in yesterday’s debate in the Assembly.
Perhaps we can now move, in the spirit of the agreement for legislative consent and the agreement that this House has achieved through reasoned discussion with the Welsh Government and the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the National Assembly, towards a form of co-legislating. Certainly we should look for early drafts of any proposed future developments in devolution, rather than this hand-me-down form of Westminster legislating on behalf of Wales. I put that suggestion forward not in a spirit of controversy but because I believe it is the way to achieve the consolidation championed by one of the most distinguished former Secretaries of State for Wales.
On that point, the noble Lord neglected to include himself in the list of the promoters of devolution. Although he tries now to present himself as an anti-devolutionist, during his period as Secretary of State he achieved more Executive devolution than did any other Secretary of State. It is important that we remember those days because, without the Executive devolution led by the Conservative Party in Wales, we would never have had the basis for the powers now devolved further in this Bill. I am afraid I include him as well in the pantheon of devolutionists, where he likes it or not.
I add my own thanks to Geth Williams. I remember working with him and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in a previous Government. I recognise the quality that he and the officers and lawyers of the Wales Office bring. I also thank the lawyers of the Welsh Government who participated in these discussions and the lawyers of the National Assembly Commission, particularly those advising the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Assembly, of which I am proud to have served as a member in two Assemblies—although not for the whole time, for reasons which I will not go into tonight.
I pay tribute to the present Constitutional Affairs Committee in the Assembly for its rapid turnaround in producing those “critical friend” reports on the Bill; to its current chair, a former Member of the House of Commons, Huw Irranca-Davies; and to its previous chair, David Melding, who has been such a distinguished Member of the Assembly, and among the deep, caring, great Conservative constitutionalists of Wales. I thank the First Minister for his constant support on these matters and the Counsel General. In addition, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Morgan. It is not an easy job to work both sides of the railway line but we had the happy experience of sharing the same train this morning, so were able to congratulate each other, and the Minister in his absence, on the progress we have made together on this Bill. I link with that my friend the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, whose contributions have always been philosophical and sometimes prophetic—a great Welsh tradition.
We thank all noble Lords for their contributions. We know that through the progress of this Bill we have achieved a further significant milestone in the progress of devolution. I am not here to speculate as to what will happen next but, whatever does happen, will be on the firm basis of the reserved powers model, which is constitutionally congruent even if not as extensive as what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom, and for that I thank the Minister and this Government deeply.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, some 3,000 years ago, Homer wrote in the Iliad that after the battle men like to reminisce about their prowess in the fight. Some 10 or 15 years ago the tributes and thanks were getting so extensive that the decision was taken that such tributes would no longer be heard at Third Reading. However, just as referring to people at the Bar is now commonplace—any Member of Parliament or Minister who comes to the Bar tends to get a mention these days—so that tradition, in which I firmly stand, has been eroded. Therefore, I confine myself to thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who has done a brilliant job in listening to all the complaints, some of which were completely without foundation. He has reacted very well. Lastly, I thank my noble friend Lady Randerson, who was part of the team in the coalition Government when the Bill was in its infancy. She played an important part in framing the way it progressed.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I strike a concordant note in joining with all others who have expressed so genuinely their appreciation of the Minister’s efforts in this matter. He has been a model of courtesy and accommodation in so far as it has been humanly possible for him to be so. Had he been invited to draft the Bill we would have had a very different piece of legislation before us, but that was not to be.
Although the Welsh Assembly yesterday gave its seal of approval to the Bill, although a reserved constitution has placed Wales technically in the same field as Scotland and Northern Ireland—a matter of constitutional significance—and although this is the third occasion when there has been a very thorough examination of the Welsh constitutional position in the short space of 19 years, nevertheless the Bill cannot be regarded as a great leap forward in the field of devolution at all. I say that because it seems to me that, compared with the situation Wales found itself in two and a half years ago after the agricultural workers’ wages case was decided by the Supreme Court, we are far behind where we were on that occasion in so far as the sum total of legislative and devolutionary authority is concerned.
When the Scottish referendum concluded and the Prime Minister, in the grey dawn of that morning, walked to a microphone in Downing Street, he uttered the words that Wales will be at the very heart of devolution. I was stirred and cheered by those words, but had they been followed with the prophecy, “But bear in mind that 27 months from now the range of devolution will have been very severely cabined, cribbed and confined by a Bill called the Wales Bill”, I am not sure my attitude would have been exactly the same.
There is no doubt that there has been a faint tinge of old colonialism relating to this situation—something I have referred to ad nauseam. I make no apology for that. It is the attitude somewhere or another that small, insignificant powers that are wholly classically local in their character must somewhere or another be withheld from Wales. I hope that will change. I hope future Governments will accept that we are no longer in a colonial era—that:
“The old order changeth, yielding place to new”.
It may well be that the Government think they have thrown away many of the difficulties relating to devolution in Wales, but not all things thrown away stay thrown away. There is a tale that David Lloyd George used to tell of one of his erstwhile colleagues, a person who had changed his attitude very considerably to former policies. Somewhere or another they came back to him again and again. Lloyd George likened it to the position of an old Aboriginal chief who was utterly fed up with his boomerang and threw it away. It did not matter whether he threw it in a sharp curve or in wide curve; back it came again and again. I end with the admonition to government: never forget the boomerang.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the amendments and for taking on board and dealing with these extra issues in the Bill, in particular that of the Open University. He has been generous in the way he has listened to us during the passage of the Bill.
Yesterday, like the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I participated in my capacity as an Assembly Member for Mid and West Wales in the vote on the legislative consent Motion in the National Assembly for Wales on whether to accept the Wales Bill. The Minister had made it clear on a number of occasions that the will of the Assembly would be respected in relation to the Bill.
I and many others in the Chamber in Cardiff yesterday made it clear that we were still deeply unhappy about aspects of the Bill and believe that it remains complex and flawed in many ways. We had hoped that there would be a clear delineation of where responsibility lies in the move to the reserved model, but this has not been delivered in the way we had hoped. Many warned that this could lead to constitutional conflict between the two institutions in future.
Nevertheless, I encouraged my colleagues in the Senedd to support the Bill, partly because I believe that we need to batten down the constitutional hatches before we are battered around in the political flux that is about to engulf us with Brexit. I also believe that we have made substantial progress in the course of scrutiny of the Bill in the House of Lords.
The amendments that we have before us are additional to the areas where we have already seen movement in the Bill. It is worth noting and setting on record the areas where we have seen concessions: a clearer definition of Welsh law; a redrafting of the concept of Wales public authorities; an ability of the Assembly to change the limit on the number of Ministers; an increase in the Welsh Government’s borrowing powers; a narrowing of the power to amend transfer of function orders; the removal of the Secretary of State’s intervention powers in respect of water and sewerage and an extension of the Assembly’s legislative competence in respect of water to the national boundary; the devolution of powers relating to fixed-odds betting terminals; the right of the Welsh Ministers to be consulted on the strategies of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; a narrowing of the reservation in respect of anti-social behaviour; an extension of powers in respect of Welsh boats fishing outside the Welsh zone; a narrowing of the reservation on heating and cooling; a narrowing of the reservation on planning for railway developments; the removal from the reservation of the community infrastructure levy; the narrowing of compulsory purchase orders; the narrowing of the building standards regulations; and an assurance that the Welsh Government will be involved in a commission to assess the impact of new Welsh laws on the single jurisdiction. That is quite a list and we should be proud of ourselves.
I am delighted that a clear majority of my colleagues in the Assembly agreed with the decision to pass the legislative consent Motion and that the next phase of devolution can now begin. However, I endorse the point made by my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas that Bills should in future be discussed and negotiated with the Assembly prior to their being presented to the Houses of Parliament.
I want to pay tribute to the Bill team, in particular to Gethin but also to a number of people who have been helpful in the Assembly. I thank Kirsty Keenan, Gareth Ball, Jane Runeckles and Gareth in the legal team. I want also to give a special mention to a man who has been involved in every Wales Bill since the establishment of the Assembly, who was the principal adviser to the National Assembly advisory group on which both the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and I sat, and who will soon be retiring having given years of dedicated service to the Civil Service in Wales. He has become one of the foremost experts on the Welsh constitution and he will be missed: I thank Hugh Rawlings for all the work that he has done on behalf of Wales over the past few decades.
I also thank Peers from all parties for their co-operation on the Bill. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Gale, who has proved so patient with me, not just on this Bill but throughout my political life. She has been a mentor to me since I was first elected, practically as a child, to the European Parliament back in 1994. She will go down in history as an unsung hero of the establishment of the Welsh Assembly when she was general secretary of the Labour Party in Wales, particularly for ensuring a revolution in the gender balance of politics in Wales.
Finally, I thank the Minister. On several occasions during the passage of the Bill he has been commended for his commitment to the cause of devolution in Wales. Above all, he has changed the Conservative Party’s attitude towards Wales. I thank him for responding so positively to our many concerns and for being willing to co-operate with us on so many occasions. The Bill is another small step on the devolution road for Wales.
It is my intention now to focus on my responsibilities in the National Assembly. I thank noble Lords for their co-operation, not just on this Bill but throughout my time here over the past few years.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity he has provided on my amendment. I echo others in thanking him and the Secretary of State for their courtesy and helpfulness. I thank their officials—Geth Williams and his team—because they have been truly exceptional in the amount of assistance they have been prepared to give. They have all been unstinting with their time for discussions, and have been willing to amend the Bill on a number of matters to deal with issues raised here.
Many noble Lords will know that the Minister, the Secretary of State and I served together in the National Assembly for very many years. We can be confident that they both fully understand how devolution works. The Minister has long been a stalwart supporter of greater devolution. As others have said, he has been responsible for the journey that the Conservative Party has taken. He has led that journey in Wales to making it a devolutionist party. That being so, and as a member of the Silk commission, he must be a little disappointed with the Bill, as I am. There is no need for him to respond to this—I do not expect him to admit it in this Chamber—but in his heart of hearts I dare say he is disappointed.
Although the Bill brings us the reserve powers model, it is not the clear-cut devolution settlement that the Silk commission called for; nor is it quite the bold vision outlined in the St David’s Day agreement in 2015, when Stephen Crabb was Secretary of State. Although it brings welcome additional powers—for example, over elections, energy, the way in which the Assembly can manage its own affairs, and so on—they are not the radical step forward I envisaged as a Wales Office Minister when this plan was hatched. I believe that the Government will come to regret the lack of a sharp edge defining the separate powers of the Welsh and UK Governments. That will probably come to haunt them in the corridors of the Supreme Court in months and years to come.
I do not want to imply that the Wales Office has not tried—far from it. I am sure that the Wales Office has tried as hard as possible on the Bill. As I recall clearly, Welsh Ministers going round Whitehall asking for more powers for Wales are not always greeted with open arms. That was even the case in the coalition days, where devolution was the name of the game.
However, I am a pragmatist and I accept that under the new regime this is as good as it gets. It is definitely a step forward because it includes particularly important key powers over income tax and because it is twinned with the fiscal framework, which is hugely important. I am very disappointed that Plaid Cymru voted against this yesterday because, personally, I could not vote against additional powers for Wales, whatever the downsides to the settlement. We particularly welcome the constructive approach of both Governments in coming together on the Bill. It is part of a package which should make a big change to the political rhetoric of Wales and a real step forwards.
Only two years ago, I took a Wales Bill through this House; that, too, was just a modest step forward but we are going in a particular direction. I welcome that direction and I am sure that the Minister will forgive me for saying that I just wish we could walk a bit faster. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) the exercise, by a Minister of the Crown, of certain functions in relation to two or more harbours where at least one of those harbours is wholly in Wales and is not a reserved trust port.”
(a) in the Welsh text, after Rhan 2 insert— “RHAN 2ATRAWS-LEOLI AELODAU’R TRIBIWNLYS9A_ Ar gais y Llywydd a chyda chymeradwyaeth Llywydd Tribiwnlysoedd Cymru, caiff aelod o dribiwnlys sydd wedi’i restru yn adran 59 o Ddeddf Cymru 2017 (Tribiwnlysoedd Cymru), ac nad yw’n aelod o’r Tribiwnlys, weithredu fel aelod o’r Tribiwnlys.”;(b) in the English text, after”
“( ) the Open University.”
“( ) the Open University.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I wonder if I may answer one or two points that were made in relation to that group of amendments before formally moving—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
There were issues raised that I would like to address, if that is permissible.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I will write to noble Lords in relation to the points made.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Wednesday 18th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 76-IV(b) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the fourth marshalled list (PDF, 71KB) - (18 Jan 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, before I call the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I must point out to the Committee that there is a mistake on the Marshalled List. It should read: “page 7, line 15, leave out from beginning to ‘see’”, not “limit”.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to the various amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, including Schedule 2 stand part.
Schedule 2 is about linking the case for a fees increase to the teaching excellence framework. It provides a mechanism for the setting of fee limits, permitting providers to charge fees up to an inflation-linked cap according to their ratings for teaching quality established through the teaching excellence framework, which is referred to—though not, of course, by name—in Clause 25. The Explanatory Notes reveal the name of the TEF, which is supposed to enable the impartial assessment of different aspects of teaching, including student experience and the job prospects of graduates.
We believe it is important to break the proposed connection between measuring teaching quality and the level of fees that can be charged. Increasing fee limits in line with inflation is of course nothing new. It was introduced in Labour’s Higher Education Act 2004 and was routinely applied between 2007 and 2012, until ended by the coalition Government. What is new is linking fee limits to teaching performance, and that is what has alarmed so many people and institutions in the higher education sector.
The framework is described in Clause 25 as a system for providing,
“ratings … to English higher education providers”.
Schedule 2 sets out the meaning of a high-level quality rating, which will be determined by the Secretary of State. Our Amendment 122B seeks to ensure that the high-level rating is established by regulation so that it can be subject to proper scrutiny by Parliament. That rating will be the gold standard, irrespective of whether we have a traffic-light system, and, as such, will be of crucial importance in the future of higher education in England—too important, we would argue, to be left to the Secretary of State alone to decide.
Universities are rightly concerned about the use of proxy metrics, including statistics on graduate earnings, in a framework that is supposed to be about teaching quality. Also of concern is the fact that a gold, silver and bronze rating system is proposed to differentiate the sector based on those metrics. This will undermine the sector’s reputation both within the UK and overseas because universities deemed to be bronze will have been independently quality assured and have met all expectations of a good provider, but that is not how it will appear to those outside, whether in the UK or, indeed, further afield. That is why we have submitted Amendment 195, which seeks to ensure that the scheme has only two ratings: meets expectations and fails to meet expectations. That has the benefit of being simple to operate and, perhaps as important, simple to understand for those considering whether to apply to a particular institution. It also sends a clear message beyond these shores and enables comparisons to be made with providers in other countries without the confusion of a bizarre system of three categories.
Where metrics are used, they have to be much more securely evidence-based than those suggested. Our Amendments 196 and 198 contain proposals that would oblige the OfS to make an assessment of the evidence that any proposed metric for assessing teaching quality is actually correlated to teaching quality and would ensure that, prior to making that assessment, the OfS consult those who know first-hand what is needed to measure teaching quality namely, academic staff and students. Having carried out those requirements in the interests of full transparency, the OfS should publish the assessments. Surely any inconvenience that the Minister may point to in terms of administrative burdens on the OfS would be more than counterbalanced by the benefits accruing in terms of the much more robust nature of the metrics produced.
We also believe it is necessary for the OfS to demonstrate the number of international students applying to and enrolled at higher education providers that have applied for a rating. It is important to protect the number of international students that providers are permitted to recruit; and to ensure transparency on that, the OfS should be obliged to lay a report before Parliament each year. My noble friend Lord Stevenson has added his name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, on Amendment 200 to emphasise that we believe it is essential that the TEF must not be used as a determinant when providers seek to enrol international students, and I look to the Minister to confirm that, even if he is unable to accept the amendment itself.
Those faced with a wide range of institutions from which to choose when considering their course of study have a right to the fullest possible information on which to base that choice. That is why our Amendment 176 seeks to alter the wording of Clause 25, in much the same way as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in his amendment, to ensure that all the relevant information is made easily accessible to staff, students and parents and that the information is made available in a consistent form in order to facilitate meaningful comparisons between providers.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House made clear at Second Reading their opposition to statutory links between teaching quality and the level of fees being charged for that teaching. Since tuition fees were increased from £3,000 to £9,000 in 2012, there is no evidence to suggest that there has been a consequential improvement in teaching quality. Indeed, the National Union of Students has said that there has been no change in student satisfaction with the teaching on their course, while institutions have, in some cases, been shown to spend additional income from the fees rise on increased marketing materials rather than on efforts to improve course quality.
Why do the Government now believe that there is a link between fees and teaching excellence? Indeed, which should come first or be expected to come first? This is a clear example of the Government’s view that the Bill is as much a question of consumerism as it is about education. As I said at Second Reading, we on these Benches reject the concept of students as customers or consumers in higher education. Many universities have said in their response to the Bill that there is no evidence to point to fee increases improving the quality of teaching. The University of Cambridge stated in its written evidence that the link between the TEF and fees is,
“bound to affect student decision-making adversely and in particular it may deter students from low income families from applying to the best universities”.
Another point of concern in relation to the fees link is that in further stages of the TEF, the Government are moving to subject-based assessment. We do not take issue with that, because universities are large institutions within which there are a huge range of subjects and a great diversity of teaching quality, but linking a fee with an institutional assessment cannot do other than mask that range of teaching quality. People studying in a department where the teaching quality is not as good as in others will also pay higher fees. This flawed proposal does not enhance the Government’s objective, and we believe it should be rejected.
What Schedule 2 would do is introduce the provision that only those providers that can demonstrate high-quality provision can maintain their fees in line with inflation. The specious reasoning behind this proposal, based on metrics that are widely seen as an inappropriate method in which to take such decisions, would lead to a skewed outcome because, as we heard at Second Reading, several high-performing institutions would lose out on a high-level rating through no fault of the actual quality of their teaching.
We of course welcome any means of improving teaching quality in higher education, and we do not oppose a mechanism to measure such improvement if a reliable one can be found. But the TEF as proposed is not that mechanism, for reasons that I have touched on already and shall expand on when we come to debate what is currently group 17. Schedule 2 introduces the whole area of the fee limit and fee regime, a link which we believe is without merit. As such, Schedule 2 is not fit for purpose, and that is why we believe it should not stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, which complement those that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has already spoken to. The Government’s current policy is for fees, even for those having achieved the top rate of the TEF, to increase only by inflation. However, paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 2—on page 78, line 3—enables an increase by more than inflation if a resolution to that effect is passed in Parliament. Amendment 125 would remove this provision, thus requiring new primary legislation for any Government wishing to go further.
Amendment 199, which mirrors the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has already spoken to, is somewhat of a pre-emptive amendment. No matter what your view of the TEF, it is clear that it is an attempt, albeit ham-fisted in our view, to give students more information and more security when choosing a course and to lift the standard of teaching in our university sector across the board. Both of these are noble aims. We agree with the aims, but challenge the methods proposed. We particularly deplore the categorisation of gold, silver and bronze, which seems to us to be extraordinarily damaging.
We do not have faith that the TEF will not be used for ulterior purposes in the future, in particular as part of the Government’s continued, blinkered action towards student immigration. This fear is not unfounded. Nick Timothy, the Prime Minister’s most senior adviser, is one of the biggest advocates of further crack-downs on student immigration. In a piece in the Telegraph in June 2015, he made clear his views that students should be,
“expected to leave the country at the end of their course, while only the very best of them should be allowed to work in the UK”.
In the piece, he states that these students are not, in fact, the best and the brightest and key contributors to our future prosperity, as,
“the number of foreign students at Oxford and Cambridge is a little more than 4,000, while there are about 66,000 at the remaining Russell Group universities”.
This attitude displays a staggering lack of understanding about the diversity and value of our higher education institutions and their graduates.
This amendment would prevent the TEF from being used in determining eligibility for a visa for students on leaving university. It would ensure that such a change would require primary legislation and not be possible through a simple change in Immigration Rules. If the Government were to seek to pursue such an approach, they should rightly have to make their case in Parliament. Can the Minister also clarify that the Government do not agree with the approach Nick Timothy has previously advocated? There are very many of the brightest and best students at universities outside the Russell group, and such discrimination can only be damaging.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I speak in favour of Clause 10 being removed from the Bill. In doing so, I declare my interest as chair of the board of governors of Sheffield Hallam University. I should also note that the vice-chancellor of the university, Professor Chris Husbands, is leading work on behalf of the Government on the development of the teaching excellence framework.
The effect of the deletion of Clause 10 would be to remove the power of the Office for Students to set the fee limit by reference to a provider’s rating under the teaching excellence framework. It is important to say first that I strongly support the Government’s desire to improve the focus of universities on teaching quality. That is absolutely the right thing to do. I am also not opposed to the introduction of the TEF per se. I do, however, have some significant concerns about the approach that the Government are taking to the TEF and, in particular, the link being made between fee levels and the TEF. My three main concerns are as follows.
First, there is not a straight read-across between teaching and research. At a very basic level, publicly funded research has a small number of very informed funders, which make their decisions with a long-standing knowledge of the providers. In this context, the REF provides an effective framework to drive research excellence. In the case of teaching, the decisions are made by millions of individual learners. They will base their decisions on a range of factors: the reputation of the university itself, the place it is located in and their likelihood of securing the necessary grades, but, most importantly, their views of the course of study itself. In this context, the TEF rating of the university will be of interest but it is unlikely to add a great deal to their decision. The value of the TEF is more to the institution than to the student. Having a rating itself, combined with changing demographics, will provide a powerful enough incentive for institutions to improve, just as the NSS scores are now. There is no benefit, and indeed significant perverse consequences, from adding in a link to fees. For example, those institutions most in need of resources to improve their teaching will be deprived of the means to do so.
My second objection is that the TEF is still in development. I have to say that I cannot think of anyone better than Chris Husbands to lead the work on it, but he is inevitably working within parameters set by the Government. The higher education sector is a very differentiated sector, and not all universities are the same. Reducing that wide variation down to a rating of gold, silver or bronze is for me, and I think for many, a gross simplification. A bronze rating risks being seen as failing or poor, even though in athletics, from which this was derived, securing a bronze would be seen, by me at least, as a considerable success.
There remains a very significant debate about the metrics for the TEF, but also about the distribution of the ratings—how many institutions will score the highest rating and therefore increase their fees. I currently understand that the plan is for it to be 15% bronze, 70% silver and 15% gold, but that may well change. Moreover, the TEF rating, as has already been said, is in the first instance about the institution and not the course. Yet the proposals will allow the institutions to raise fees regardless of individual course quality. All of these are symptoms of a system that is still in development and unproven. Until we are really confident about these issues, it seems to be completely wrong to link the TEF to fees.
My third and final concern is that, even if these issues can be resolved satisfactorily, it seems wrong in principle to approach increases in fees in this way. The reason that the vast majority of universities raised fees to the level of the £9,000 cap in 2012 was that they needed to offset the loss of other government support. Universities have been spared the brunt of the austerity measures experienced in local government and other sectors, but at the price of increased fees for students and, arguably, for future generations for those students who are unable to repay their loans.
There is an important debate to be had about the future resources that universities need, the level of student fees and indeed the amount of government funding provided to support them. No doubt vice-chancellors, faced with the prospect of this being the only way to increase fees, will go along with it. Fundamentally, though, it sidesteps what should be a public debate. If there is a case to be made for increasing fees in future then it should be made, but this is making that policy by the back door.
I recognise that the Government have dug in on this, but there is still time to think again. The proposal is understandably deeply unpopular with students and the NUS. In my view, it is also the product of some deeply flawed thinking.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the comments of the noble Lord who has just spoken. On the second day in Committee I drew attention to my long connection with the Court of the University of York. I have been struck by the views that it has expressed, and in particular that,
“the ratings of gold, silver and bronze risk damaging the reputation of UK HE internationally”,
through the impact of the teaching excellence framework. Of course failing institutions should be identified and dealt with, but it is very difficult to follow why the gold, silver and bronze ratings would achieve that. Instead, it would be damaging to the reputation of British higher education internationally, potentially putting off international students from coming to study in the UK. In an already challenging market for international students, this would put UK higher education at a disadvantage and have a significant economic impact.
On the second day in Committee I expressed my regret that I was not able to be present at Second Reading; I was abroad on parliamentary business. On reading that day’s debate I was struck by the very strong views that were expressed to the Government with regard to these matters. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said:
“Given its potential impact it is crucial that the TEF does not misrepresent university quality and create a PR nightmare”.—[Official Report, 6/12/16; col. 621.]
I am sorry to read these out but they are a reflection of the very strong feelings in the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said:
“Can the Minister confirm that the crude ratings of gold, silver and bronze, to which others have referred, will not be used by the Home Office in deciding on the student visa system and how it is implemented?”.—[Official Report, 6/12/16; col. 628.]
The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said:
“Standardised metrics for teaching assessment simply will not work across the whole range of universities”.—[Official Report, 6/12/16; col. 633.]
My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, from whom no doubt we shall be hearing in a few minutes, said:
“The likelihood is that, as with the REF, universities will engage in gaming the system and devote considerable resources to the task … the danger is that the TEF will be even more problematic. It may well serve to drive up costs rather than teaching quality”.—[Official Report, 6/12/16; col. 658.]
That, from him, with all his experience of academia, was very clear. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, whom I see in her place, said:
“In practical terms, would a university judged to be gold one year have to reduce its fees in future years if it were then deemed bronze or silver—or, perhaps, vice versa?”.—[Official Report, 6/12/16; col. 697.]
I could go on. There is a major flaw in the Bill and the Government’s thinking on this. The noble Lord who preceded me pleaded with them to think again. I, too, say to the Minister that this will not do as it is. I hope that he will tell us that the Government will take this away and think about it again.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I should like to testify that there is something utterly perverse in the current system of rating the quality of the provisions of individual departments within universities and of universities as a whole. The system depends on the National Student Survey, which aims to determine the degree of customer satisfaction. Because the ratings of the NSS are determined within these organisations, and because they can make no reference to what is happening elsewhere, they cannot possibly serve as a valid standard for comparison across the sector.
The NSS is subject to the social dynamics of small groups of students, and it can produce highly variable results from year to year. It is well known that it can be strongly influenced by the interaction of staff with students. There is a strong temptation for academics to appeal to their students, in ways that may be more or less subtle, to give ratings that will be beneficial both to themselves and to their students. This has often swayed the outcomes. Quite apart from these difficulties in assessing the true degree of customer satisfaction, it is questionable whether customer satisfaction should be the principle to guide the provision of teaching. It is now a principle that also guides many other aspects of the provision to students. The quality of sports facilities, catering, entertainment and much else besides has been influenced by the need to increase student satisfaction.
However, the effects on teaching of an adherence to this principle can be dire. It has been a common experience that, the more difficult a course and the more vigorously it is taught, the lower is its NSS rating. University administrators, who nowadays control the activities of academic staff, have requested the removal of courses that have scored badly. Among such courses have been some of the essential STEM courses, which often form the backbones of academic disciplines. I propose that we cease to use the NSS as a basis for assessing the qualities of universities. We should cease to make such assessments, or to use them, until we can be sure of their validity.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I chair the Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance, which I think is a very effective conservatoire. On Monday night I was closeted with my board, making one of the most difficult decisions that as chairman I have faced: should we go in to the TEF, which I think is supposed to close in about a week’s time, or not? The situation was simple. None of us thinks anything of it, particularly because of the presence within it of the metric of the National Student Survey, on which I will say a bit more in a minute and a lot more in our next debate.
But if we did not go in for it, we would have £250 less per student to spend on teaching, on instruments and on bringing them up to our very high standard. The board decided to go ahead. I very much hope that, before we finish with the Bill, they will be shown to have been right for a different reason—because the Government have backed off from these really very ill-considered decisions.
Incidentally, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said about Chris Husbands: if there is a man who can sort out TEF, it is Chris, and we should wish him every power and a fair wind from Ministers at his back.
I am a bit of a statistician; I chair the All-Party Group on Statistics. I will go into this in more detail on a subsequent occasion, as I said, but the NSS seems to be a statistic that makes the statement on the side of the Leave buses an exemplar of statistical validity. It is just frightful. In particular, for a small institution such as mine, the sample sizes are tiny. It has had the most coruscating reviews from the Royal Statistical Society. The Office for National Statistics put it more cautiously but nevertheless said the same thing: you cannot use it to compare institutions—which is exactly what the gold, silver and bronze ratings do.
This is the first time that a piece of legislation for the post-fact era, where facts no longer matter, has made it to the statute book. It must be changed. Fortunately, it can relatively easily be changed, because I think we are all after the same thing: we are after a true measure of teaching effectiveness. I do not mean just whether students like it. At one stage, I joked to my board that I was thinking of withdrawing all music teaching at Trinity Laban and instead providing free beer in the bar every night. They would be jolly satisfied with the quality of their courses if they had free beer every night, but they would not be learning to play their instruments—which is bloody hard work, I can tell noble Lords who have not tried it. For that reason, this metric is dotty.
I have one or two other points to make. Information is very important in the new era. It is difficult enough to choose an institution now and, if the Government get their way and there is a proliferation of institutions, it will be more difficult in future for students to choose institutions. One thing that does not help is misinformation. We did not do terribly well in the National Student Survey this year. It was fine for me because I was able to say, as I had pointed out every year to the board, that the previous year had been completely different, because this number fluctuates almost completely randomly. But I had members of staff who were reduced to tears and considering resignation because we had a bad NSS score. Think how much more that will be so if it is incorporated into the midst of the TEF. Managers would then say, “You have a very bad NSS score, so we will do badly in the TEF, so we will have less grant”. The pressure will be enormous, crushing and based on wholly false information. We need proper information and a proper TEF based on the kind of assessment that Chris, with his team, is well capable of undertaking. New metrics are being developed that would help with this, although whether they will be available under the Government’s timetable is not yet clear.
We can get a TEF that works, which I would welcome. There are institutions that have not been as successful in their teaching as they have in other aspects of their work. If it fulfilled the Conservative election manifesto in the process, that is the sort of thing that we have to put up with in life. But please do not let us take this false step of a phony TEF that will reward only those who are good at gaming these things, not those who are doing what we really want: teaching well.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, I was present at Second Reading, when I did not speak, and I was not going to speak on the amendment, but I would like to make some contrary observations to what has been said so far. The first time I saw students rating teachers was in 1961, when I was at the University of Pennsylvania. The anger of teachers then was more or less the same as the anger being expressed now: “How dare anybody judge us, especially our students? They are so stupid that they will not like difficult courses. They are so stupid that they will always go for the soft option”. I do not want to comment on the quality of the National Student Survey, but we ought to reflect on whether we are not respecting our students enough if we think that they are stupid and likely to hurt themselves by grading soft courses higher than hard ones.
Several problems are getting mixed up here. First, can teaching be evaluated at all? Some people think it cannot. I was involved in the first round of the research assessment exercise, and virtually the same arguments were made by academics: “You cannot grade research or compare it; it is very difficult”, and so on. This was being evaluated by their peer group but, by and large, we academics are rather conservative people when it comes to being judged by others. Ultimately, I think that the research assessment exercise performed a very good function. It mattered that some universities were five star and others were three or two: if they were three star or two star, they had to get their act together and improve. There is no reason to believe that something as important as teaching cannot be judged and therefore that there can be no competition because it is such a pure product that it is impossible to find a methodology to judge it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think anybody is suggesting that universities should just be left to get on with it. I preface my remarks by saying how important I believe teaching to be. I went into higher education halfway through my working life. I had never taught, and I was shocked to discover there was nothing to train me how to teach: it was just assumed that an academic could relay their subject and teach it. That is completely different now. All universities have very good support to ensure that their staff teach well.
That said, I accept that it is important that there is some kind of assessment of teaching to balance the research assessment—the REF, as it is now called—to which my noble friend Lord Desai referred. REF is based on a direct assessment of the quality of the research; as I understand it, TEF will not be. I will not repeat the good critique that has been made by colleagues both now and at Second Reading of the metrics currently proposed, and I am not sure what the answer is. I can remember—I cannot remember in which year it was now—something called the TQA, or teaching quality assessment. I can remember quaking in my boots as some independent assessor came in to observe my lectures and tutorials. I am not sure what happened to it. It was a huge bureaucratic burden on the universities, so I am not saying that that is necessarily the answer. I am not sure what the answer is, but it is quite clear from what is being said in the sector, by students and people around the Committee that, as proposed, those metrics are not.
In his summing up, will the Minister explain exactly how he thinks the proposed metrics will tell us anything about actual teaching quality? What will be fed back to individual lecturers about their teaching? At Second Reading he said that,
“The TEF is designed to improve teaching”.—[Official Report, 6/12/16; col. 721]
How will it improve teaching? Will he explain that to us? If I were still lecturing, how would I know how to improve my teaching on the basis of the TEF and these metrics? It is not clear to me at all how that will happen.
Given the widespread disquiet and difficulties of doing this, will the Minister reflect on the likely adverse implications of this traffic light system, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on Second Reading called a “ranking system for turkeys”? Perhaps that is appropriate in the consumer culture we are talking about, but it is not appropriate for education.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I shall comment briefly on some of the remarks about the NSS and perhaps try to address some of the concerns and offer noble Lords on both sides of the Committee a bit of assurance about what is happening here.
I should begin by drawing attention to the fact that I am a visiting professor at King’s College London, which sadly scores rather low on the NSS. I will not detain the Committee with a special pleading of why I think that is a completely misleading picture of the excellent work done at King’s. I also chair the advisory board of the Times Higher, which itself produces university rankings.
Surely what we are trying to do is embark on a journey towards what should be reliable metrics of teaching quality and learning gain. Of course, we do not have those yet. The question is whether we do anything now or wait until we have these superior and trusted metrics. The dilemma that one faces is that, back in 2010, there really was only the NSS, and it has been caricatured as simply a question of a student’s kind of, “What’s it like for you?”. We have already seen changes in the NSS and, if I may get into the technical language, it is becoming much more like the National Survey of Student Engagement which does try to get closer to the academic experience of the student.
The measure that will be used in formulating the TEF is not the generic question, “How was it for you?”. My understanding is that that is not what will appear in the TEF. There will be the earlier questions in the NSS. The NSS has more than 20 questions, and incidentally is completed by hundreds of thousands of students. It is the earlier questions that are closest to engagement that will be the ones used in the TEF. They are particularly questions about teaching on their course and on assessment and feedback.
The noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition when he opened said there had been no evidence that anything had been getting better. I can tell him that the fact that many universities have done disappointingly badly on assessment and feedback has led universities to change their practice and give students much more prompt reactions on their essays or other forms of work than they used to receive. I would argue that assessment and feedback are regarded as having genuine value and significance in the world of universities. Those measures are the measures extracted from the NSS which will be part of the overall metric for the TEF. The others which I think will have higher weight are the learning environment and student outcomes.
These are not perfect measures. We are on a journey, and I look forward to these metrics being revised and replaced by superior metrics in the future. They are not as bad as we have heard in some of the caricatures of them, and in my experience, if we wait until we have a perfect indicator and then start using it, we will have a very long wait. If we use the indicators that we have, however imperfect, people then work hard to improve them. That is the spirit with which we should approach the TEF today.
Lord Lipsey
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he explain what consolation he will offer to those institutions which are put out of business, at worst, while we perfect the metric that is being used in this case?
Lord Willetts
There are genuine questions, including the impact on overseas students, and I understand that issue. But I think that it would not be possible to envisage fees increasing without some kind of measures of the teaching performance in universities.
Given the difficulty of getting any measures, my view is that the measures we have are the best ones currently available. I think that the message that should go out from your Lordships’ House is surely that we would see them improved, changed and reviewed—and improved rapidly. It would be particularly regrettable—I know that I am turning to a later stage in our debate—if we bring in measures, if we amend the legislation, to make future changes in the metrics harder rather than easier by requiring a more elaborate process for them to be changed in the future. I am absolutely not saying that we now have a reliable and authoritative measure of teaching quality.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said that we are embarking on a journey, which indeed we are, but I feel that the car in which we will travel does not yet have all the component parts. I therefore wonder if, when we have concluded all our debates, rather than going full speed ahead into a TEF for everybody who wants to participate, we should have some pilots. In that way the metrics could be amended quite properly before everybody else embarks on the journey with us.
I speak to the amendments in this grouping, many of which I support and I remind the House of my interest as a pro-chancellor at Bath University. Like all other noble Lords, I celebrate quality and excellence, and students should and must expect to receive high-quality teaching in their higher education. This should always have been the case, but is especially important now when students leave university with a debt of perhaps £50,000.
How the quality is measured and the metrics used are of the utmost importance, and it is clear from everything that has been said that the Government have not solved the conundrum yet. However, it is very good news that Chris Husbands is assisting the Government in this task. I have to say that Bath has one of the highest levels of student satisfaction, of which I am very proud. Much of that is down to good teaching. In 11 departments we have 100% satisfaction rates, which is great, but I also have to wonder that there must be some instances in some universities where students are completing the student satisfaction surveys in their rooms and possibly they have never even been to a lecture. That metric is slightly questionable.
I would be grateful if the Minister can say who will make the judgment in respect of what the metrics will be and who will judge each university that is part of the system? Those people are incredibly important.
While I support the TEF in general, whatever system is introduced must not be the traffic light system currently under consideration and it should not be linked to fees. The real problem is when the quality of teaching in a university is measured across the board. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, excellence in some departments will be eclipsed by poor teaching in other departments and vice versa. Creating a system that assesses the quality of a whole institution and allows that whole institution to raise the fees of every course based on that assessment, when the quality of teaching will vary—potentially drastically—for every student at that institution, is therefore fundamentally unworkable. It risks creating the potential that students undertake courses that are not of high quality but at an institution that was deemed by the TEF to provide general high quality, and are therefore unfairly charged higher fees for poor-quality degrees. As has been said on all sides of the House, the bronze, silver and gold proposals are entirely inappropriate and fraught with difficulties, not least the potential for jeopardising the excellent international reputation of our universities. Why would a foreign student paying hefty fees wish to study at a bronze university, and why should our own students go to British universities that are deemed inadequate? Students who begin their degrees at a gold university that is judged to be silver or bronze at the end of the course would feel disillusioned and, literally, short-changed. Amendments 176, 177 and 195 are particularly interesting, and I hope that the Government will give them favourable consideration.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, as a long-term university teacher, often rated by my students, both in this country and overseas, I have a sense of some metrics that are less gameable than others. That is surely what any attempt to measure things must look like. Student satisfaction about the beer is, obviously, not the best place to look. There are some well-known ways of looking at teaching which, if one can get the measurements, are quite useful. One might be how much a student has actually attended the required instruction. Statistics have been collected on this by the Higher Education Policy Institute, but if it was known that they were a metric I fear that they would be gamed. It is remarkable—and I think that I mentioned this at Second Reading—that the average for UK students a few years ago, when I last looked, was 13 hours per week of non-required work, above lecture and lab hours. That is not huge, but it varied from a number that I dare not even state to 51 hours of private study a week. That was for medics at some of our leading universities. That is one metric that cannot be gamed, but there are a few others. The number of pages written in a term or semester is quite instructive, and the number of those pages that receive feedback or commentary is another instructive metric. All those things are unglamorous—but you have to take extreme care in using them. Simple online tests of mastery of first language, second language and relevant mathematics might be worth looking at, but I do not think that student satisfaction is going to give us an accurate view of what is really going on.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this grouping, and I declare my interest as a serving academic. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who I gather is a fellow graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, on the NSS, and to some extent those of my noble friend Lord Willetts. The survey provides valuable feedback and is a useful form of intelligence, but I am not sure that it can bear the weight that it has been given in this proposal for the TEF.
I commend the Government for recognising the importance of teaching and their acknowledgement of the complementarity of teaching and research. I commend them also for seeking to enhance teaching excellence. Ensuring that more information, and comparable information, is made available to prospective students, and encouraging the dissemination of best practice within HE, are wholly commendable goals. My amendments would protect the provision of information. I have no problem with introducing incentives to HE institutions to enhance teaching quality, but where we need to stress test this part of the Bill is in creating a statutory link between teaching quality and the level of fees being charged for that teaching.
There are three problems with the link stipulated in the Bill. The first is defining what is meant by teaching excellence. The proposed metrics for the TEF are too blunt to meet the assessment criteria and, in some respects, too narrow. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state:
“The Teaching Excellence Framework is intended to provide clear, understandable information to students about where teaching quality is outstanding and to establish a robust”—
I always worry the moment I see the word “robust”—
“framework for gathering information to measure teaching in its broadest sense”.
I have no problem with the first part of the statement. It is the second part that is problematic. What is meant by teaching “in its broadest sense”? For me, it encompasses the capacity to develop not only intellectual but also personal skills that will enable students to fulfil their full potential as individuals in wider society. This may not be confined to career goals but may extend to being worthwhile members of society—in effect, good citizens. How does one measure that added value? It goes beyond the assessment criteria. I have serious concern with some of the metrics, because I fear that they may privilege status rather than teaching excellence.
The second concern is that, in so far as one can assess teaching excellence, quality is at department or course level, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and others have stressed. One has only to look at the National Student Survey to see variations between the aggregate at institutional level and the performance at subject and course levels. Yet the intention is to enable an institution to charge a higher fee level, which may apply to all courses, even those which deliver less quality than courses at other institutions which are not able to increase their fees.
The third concern, as we have heard already from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is that there is no clear link between fees and teaching excellence. Higher fees will not necessarily serve to drive up teaching quality, but rather enable HE providers to spend more on marketing and ensuring brand recognition. More money may be spent on providing services to students, but not necessarily on their teaching.
In short, the proposal before us is based on a concept that is not clearly defined, cannot fairly be applied at institutional level and asserts a link that has not been proven. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister assuaging my concerns.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I declare an interest as former principal of St Anne’s, Oxford, and former independent adjudicator of higher education. I am speaking in support of Amendment 122. I have three very brief points to make.
First, it has been alleged that the whole purpose of the Bill is to enable universities to raise fees, and that all the contortions that we are going through in relation to the Bill is centred on this one element—that one will be able to raise fees if the teaching is good. That seems to me not a healthy way to approach it.
Secondly, there is profound disagreement about what is good teaching. One metric is likely to be the prevention of drop-outs and helping students from non-traditional or underprivileged backgrounds to get through the course without failing. This must tempt tutors and lecturers to spoon-feed and it is simply not clear in higher education whether the temptation for spoon-feeding—a brief term but I think all noble Lords understand what I mean—will be enhanced by some of the metrics, as I understand them.
My third point is related to the question of teaching students from less-privileged backgrounds. What will this link do to social mobility? The better universities, however they are judged, are quite likely to be Oxbridge and the Russell group, are they not? They will be able to charge higher fees. Some other universities, which will be taking more of those from underprivileged and less-traditional backgrounds, and may be doing more spoon-feeding, may well find that their teaching is not rated so highly, for reasons that all of us who have ever taught such students very well understand. They will charge lower fees. It will become a reinforcing division: the so-called “best” universities charging the higher fees will attract those students who can afford them and the not so good under this scale—the bronze—will likely get the not-so-good students who cannot afford the fees. This will really damage social mobility and parity of esteem, not to mention the fact that this is coupled with the abolition of maintenance grants, meaning that more students will be forced to go to their local university. So my question to the Minister is: what effect do the Government think the linking of fees to teaching quality will have on social mobility?
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the council of two universities. Like others, I am in something of a quandary on this part of the Bill; I have several concerns about the TEF, but I support enthusiastically any attempt to improve the status and excellence of teaching in universities. As chief executive of Universities UK, way back in the 1990s, I was instrumental in helping to develop the Quality Assurance Agency, which has gone on to do such a great job of encouraging institutions to take teaching much more seriously. It has developed the extensive framework for assurance and quality enhancement that characterises the HE sector today and which is admired around the world.
Despite the fact that there is an enormous amount of good teaching in universities, producing excellent learning outcomes, it has long been a dilemma that—at least in certain institutions—research and not teaching has become the means of individual advancement and the basis for institutional reputation, reinforced by league tables. That is not to say that researchers do not make good teachers—many do—but it is research that garners the accolades. Not enough weight is given to the support of students through good teaching, although I am heartened to learn that there has been much more emphasis recently on showing students how research and scholarship links with undergraduate learning.
The HE system is changing rapidly. It is already a diverse system and is becoming ever more diverse as new providers enter the sector. I was astonished to learn in a recent report that, on one count, there are 700 alternative providers; I gather that the more reliable figure is 400, but that is still more than double the number of established universities and clearly offers students a great deal more choice than was available, say, five or 10 years ago. Inevitably, though, there is a greater risk of poor-quality provision if these providers are not subject to the same extensive quality assurance process or regulatory regime as existing providers. So it is wise, in this new and changing environment, to review the way in which the quality assurance system deals with this much more complex world. Talking to people in the sector, and from what I read, I believe that the teaching excellence framework—the TEF—has the potential to provide more encouragement and support for teaching, to produce useful information for students, and, hopefully, to raise the status of teaching in all HE providers. But some of its provisions worry me—those worries have been reflected by other noble Lords.
We have been given a very useful briefing from the department on this part of the Bill and I thank the civil servants, some of whom I recognise in the Box, for the careful, helpful and comprehensive way that they have guided us through this Bill before each of our sessions. However, the recent briefing highlighted some of my concerns. The range of metrics described in the briefing, while voluminous, do not seem related to good teaching. They seemed much broader than a framework for teaching excellence would suggest. The metrics on employability and equality of opportunity—while perfectly good—suggest, for example, that the TEF is really about the student experience, or indeed about any provision that is not evaluated by the research excellence framework—the REF.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said. I am a thoroughgoing supporter of getting more information out there to enable students to evaluate the quality of teaching that they will experience at university. We have allowed things to drift a long way in the wrong direction. However, the idea that by waving a wand we should decide that 80% of British university education is sub-standard and promulgate that across the world on the basis of a collection of experimental and rather hard-to-understand metrics just seems to me daft. It is not really helpful to anyone. All we are doing is “dissing” these universities. We are not enabling anyone to choose them. If someone is choosing a university, they will look at what is going on on a course. They will not experience the university quality of teaching; they will experience what is going on on a course. That is the level at which they need data. Nor do they need the Government to say, “This is a bronze-level course”. They need the data to make their own judgment because different things matter to different students. Some students want strict, hard teachers who will push them to do well, others want someone who will get them excited about a subject and will be a source of inspiration—I imagine the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is like this—and will drive students to work extremely hard in their own time. Different students need different things. What we need is a lot of information so that students and those who advise them can make up their own minds. In that context, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norton is a great deal better than any of mine. My noble friend’s Amendment 177 seems to me the right way to go.
I support what my noble friend Lord Willetts said: this is experimental. We need to go on down this road and have the courage to continue. However, we should recognise that this process is experimental and that we have not yet got to a point where we know that we are defining quality in the right way. It is a very difficult area to assess. On the basis of students’ experience of only one course at one university, how do you compare whether the teaching on the engineering course at Loughborough is better or worse than the teaching on the engineering course at Oxford? They are different kinds of students with different predilections on two excellent courses, but how do you compare them on a single measure? It is very difficult to understand how we get to that point or what we should be doing with that information. None the less, we want to drive up the quality of teaching and make progress in that direction.
There seems to be a wish on the Government’s part to incorporate some measure of teaching quality in their decision whether to allow a university to raise its fees. That seems to me fair enough. However, if there is to be a collection of metrics for that purpose, they should be used for that purpose. We should not try to use a set of metrics for that purpose and at the same time say that they reflect the quality of the student experience or decisions that students should make. In its dialogue with universities the department should use its own process in arriving at a decision; it should not publish its decision as if something that was good for setting fees was good for telling students what decisions they should take.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, says that there are metrics we could use. Yes, absolutely, there are things with which to experiment. If I think back to my own university days, attendance at courses rather depended on the timing of boat club dinners and whether I was supposed to go to something the following morning. I am not sure that that should reflect on the mark given to my teachers, whoever they were. So let us aim at something that encourages the creation of metrics and their publication. Let us make sure that these metrics cannot be summarised by the Government at the level of course, let alone university. It should not be the Government’s purpose to arrive at verdicts based on difficult-to-interpret information; it should be something they allow other people to do and make the best of. We certainly should not allow the Government to use these metrics for anything to do with immigration. I still remain entirely in the dark as regards the Home Office’s intentions. Let us see what response we get from the Government and be firm in our resolution not to let this measure through as it is.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I am chancellor of the biggest private for-profit university in the country. We gain high marks in student surveys and in terms of employability. However, we regard both these things as at best very partial measures—student surveys, for all the reasons adduced by other Members of the House, and employability because we teach subjects, mostly law, accountancy and nursing, in which employability is slightly easier to expect. However, as part of getting degree-awarding powers, which took us four long years, we were assessed by the QAA. One of the things that was assessed was teaching quality. People who knew what they were talking about in terms of teaching quality, including from the Law Society and the Bar Council, sat in on lessons to see how we taught. When our licence was renewed in 2013, the whole thing happened again: people sat in on lessons and lectures to decide how well we were teaching. We passed with a very high standard. That might be the ideal supplementary measure because it is objective and is done by people who know what they are looking for. With the best will in the world, I do not think one can suggest that students, with their somewhat partial attendance, know what they are looking for. We need people with experience of teaching who know what they are looking for.
That leads me to the observation that the figure of 400 new entrants strikes me as amazingly high. The QAA says that it has passed through somewhere between 60 and 70 of us for degree-awarding powers since 2005, not more than that. Some of us have the title of university, some do not. These figures suggest to me that a much smaller number of higher education providers are outside the university sector than I thought. I wonder whether teaching quality assessment might not turn up as part of the duties of the new quality assessment committee, which appears later in the Bill. Might that not be part of its task, so that you have one expert assessment as opposed to the various useful consumer-type assessments which come from students liking and understanding what they are doing and getting jobs? I do not suggest that we should avoid those elements—they are excellent measures—but we need something objective as well to be sure that we are being fair to all institutions and that teaching quality is assured. I would like to come back to this later in the Bill.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, which was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. These measures should not be used as a means to punish academics but should rather be used to support them in developing their game. As a trustee of a mental health charity that works with schools, I am well aware of the morale among teachers and head teachers and regret to say that it is very often extremely poor. They are of course at the opposite extreme. As a former Chief Inspector of Schools has said, we have the most measured pupils in the world, and we probably have the most measured teachers in the world. So many of them are worrying, “When is an Ofsted report going to come along to tell me how badly I’m doing?”.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, of course we need as much information as possible about universities so that parents and young people can make the right decisions about which university they choose. I am delighted that we are now focusing on the quality of teaching. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was right to say that it must be about high quality. That means high quality throughout the university sector, in teaching, provision, and simple things, such as the ability to make sure that essays and dissertations are properly marked, and to make sure that there is high quality with regard to the size of tutorial and lecture groups. A whole host of issues will ensure high quality.
We sometimes forget that choosing a university is a huge decision for a young person and their parents. They do not pick one at random but do the research, looking very carefully. Again, not only do they choose carefully but they visit those universities. I know from my own experience that students and their parents will have put two or three universities down and will have one in mind as where they want to go to, because of the course they want to do. However, noble Lords will be surprised at how often they get there and do not like it. They do not get a sense of there being the right ethos about the place or they do not like the staff they meet. One of my friends, who is doing creative writing, had two universities at the top of her list. She went to visit them and they gave her sample lectures. Guess what—she went to the third one, because she found that the response and the quality of the lectures were not good enough for her. Let us not kid ourselves: when parents and students come to choose the university they will go to, they are already in the driving seat.
I have grave reservations about the notion of getting this matrix together, putting in things such as employability, and then, suddenly, there is a mark. Currently it is proposed that it be gold, silver or bronze. As I said at Second Reading, I cannot see many universities boasting that they have a bronze award—they will not do that. But you can bet your bottom dollar that those rated as gold will display that for everybody to see. That will be damaging to the university sector as a whole and, as we have heard many noble Lords say, it will be damaging for students coming to our universities from overseas. We therefore have to tread very carefully. The Minister told us on Monday that he was very much in listening mode. Speaker after speaker, right across the House, has raised considerable concerns about this issue. If the Minister is in listening mode, I am sure that he will want to ensure that when we come to Report he will take our points on board.
I do not have any interests to declare regarding universities but I have interests in mainstream education. We have been down this road of labelling schools. In my wildest imagination I never thought that we would see a maintained school system in which schools advertise their success on the backs of buses and on banners hung outside their schools. Parents are caught in this trap, wondering, “Do I send my child to an outstanding school or a good school?”. Of course, if a school needs improvement, while it is improving it has the problem of parents saying, “I’m not sending them to that school”. We have been there before in higher education. We can remember the days of universities and polytechnics. Polytechnics—higher education providers—were regarded as the poor relation. People would say, “I’m not sure I want my son or daughter to go to a polytechnic”, although in many cases the provision was as good and, in some areas, better than at universities. Thank goodness we decided to ensure that higher education institutions as a whole were labelled universities.
I hope that the Minister gets the message and that we provide as much information as possible and look at the quality of teaching. A noble Lord said that of course in the mainstream sector, your teaching is observed, and if you are not up to the mark, you will not teach. If we want to improve the quality of teaching in universities, maybe there has to be some sort of requirement to teach students. Teaching is not just about knowledge but also about how you relate to young people. The most knowledgeable and gifted professor may be unable to relate to a young person, and therefore cannot teach the subject. I therefore welcome the notion of improving teaching.
I know that it will be a small part of the matrix, but I have reservations about the concept of a student survey, or students marking teaching. Students should give their views; that is good and right. But students will rate highly teachers, lecturers and professors who give it to them on a plate: “Here is what you need to know—take it away”. Lecturers who are challenging, who want to push the students and make them think for themselves, are quite often marked down. I therefore have reservations about how we develop this idea of student feedback. That is not to say that student voices should not be heard, but that they should be a very small part of the whole. I hope the Minister will take that on board as well.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I have today sent a letter setting out some further detail following Monday’s debates, and attached a briefing note on the teaching excellence framework which I hope noble Lords have found helpful.
I am grateful for the thoughtful comments made in this prolonged debate on the teaching excellence framework, which is in the manifesto commitment. These comments go to the heart of what we are trying to achieve in incentivising high-quality teaching. I am pleased that there is no disagreement on the importance of high-quality teaching, and the importance of incentivising this. Many Peers have acknowledged this, and Governments from all sides have wanted it for many years. This is an important element of these reforms and this has been a key debate, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me and that the House will bear with me if I speak at a reasonable length on the points raised.
A number of Peers raised a point on whether the TEF should be tested more and, in effect, go more slowly. This was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and other noble Lords. In effect, the question related to a pilot scheme. I reassure noble Lords that the TEF has been, and will continue to be, developed iteratively. We have consulted more than once, and year 2, which we are currently in, is a trial year. Working groups, including those in the sector, are under way on the subject-level TEF. That was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and I will say a little more about that later. Therefore, the sector has recognised this trialling aspect, and Maddalaine Ansell, the chief executive of University Alliance, has said:
“We remain confident that we can work with government to shape the TEF so it works well as it develops”.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, commented on the detailed metrics. She also spoke about iterating and reviewing the metrics, and made some constructive comments. The TEF metrics will continue to evolve. I stress again that, where there is a good case to do so, we will add new metrics to future rounds. I have no doubt that I will also be saying a bit more about this later.
I want to respond quickly to the amendments on the TEF and immigration. This picks up a theme raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, my noble friend Lord Jopling and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. Following our useful debate last week, and as I set out in my subsequent letter, I confirm again that we have no plans to cap the number of genuine students who can come to the UK to study, nor to limit an institution’s ability to recruit genuine international students based on its TEF rating or any other basis. This applies to all institutions, not just to members of the Russell group.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised the issue of international students, and I move on to the proposal to publish the number of international students. The TEF will be a world-leading assessment of the quality of teaching and student outcomes achieved by higher education providers. Students should have a better idea of what to expect from their studies here—better than anywhere else in the world. However, a dataset that simply links the TEF to international student numbers fails to recognise the much broader international student recruitment market place. I should add that all the relevant information requested by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is in the public domain.
Moving on, I remind the Committee that the ability to raise fees according to inflation is not new. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, it has been provided for since 2004. Indeed, as I think he said, the process was established under the then Labour Government and was routinely applied from 2007 to 2012. I reassure noble Lords that, as the Government set out in the White Paper, our expectation is that the value of fee limits accessible to those participating in the TEF will, at most, be in line with inflation.
As the Liberal Democrats will recall, the coalition Government used the legislation that had been put in place in 2004 by the Labour Government to increase tuition fees above inflation in 2012. We have no such plans to increase the value of fee limits above inflation. Increasing the upper or lower limits by more than inflation would, under the Bill as currently drafted, require regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, which requires the approval of Parliament. In the case of the higher amount, it would also require a special resolution. That is in line with the current legislative approach to raising fee caps.
I now turn to the link between the TEF and fees. Schedule 2 builds on well-established procedures in setting fee caps. Under the schedule, different fee limits will apply depending on whether a provider has an access and participation plan, and what TEF rating they have been awarded. Crucially therefore, this schedule will, for the very first time, link fees to the quality of teaching and thus increase value for students. This will recognise and reward excellence, and will drive up quality in the system. It will mean that only providers who demonstrate high-quality teaching will be able to access tuition fees up to an inflation-linked maximum fee.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, said that since the increase in fees in 2012 there has been no increase in teaching quality. Therefore, this Government are, for the first time, putting in place real incentives, both reputational and financial, to drive up teaching quality. My noble friend Lord Willetts picked up on this theme. We believe that this is the right way forward. I have already mentioned the iterative aspect of this process.
The principle of linking funding to quality is familiar from the research excellence framework, which was introduced in the mid-1980s, and it has been an effective incentive. The REF has driven up the quality of our research, ensuring that we continue to be world leaders in global science. Tuition fees have been frozen since 2012 at £9,000 per year. This means that the fee has already fallen in value to £8,500 in real terms and, without the changes we propose, it will be worth only £8,000 by the end of this Parliament. Therefore, these changes are important if we want providers to continue to deliver high-quality teaching year after year.
As far back as 2009 the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said:
“We … need to look in my view for ways of incentivising excellence in academic teaching”.
He went on:
“We have to face up to the challenge of paying for excellence”.
I believe that the measures in Schedule 2 finally deliver that. The schedule allows a direct link between fees and the quality of teaching, with differentiated fees for different TEF ratings—a principle supported by the then BIS Select Committee and the wider sector—along with a clear framework of control for Parliament. This will ensure that well-performing providers are rewarded so that they can continue to invest in excellent teaching.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to interrupt, but can the Minister tell us whether there will there be a sub-bronze level, because otherwise, if bronze is the bottom, it is very difficult to see how it will be seen as representing quality?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
As I mentioned, there has been a full consultation on this. It came down to the best way forward, which we believe is to have three ratings. I should stress, and hope that I have stressed, that bronze is a good level and is highly respected. I want to make that quite clear to the Committee, and I hope that noble Lords will accept what I have said.
Lord Desai
My Lords, the question is: is anybody going to fail the exam? You cannot just have first, second and third, with nobody failing. If nobody fails, the third rating will be counted as failure.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
As I have said, the consultation has led us to believe that this rating system is the best that we have come up with. I have explained already that various other systems have been looked at and we believe that this is the right way forward. I understand that there is some passion around what methods should be used, but we believe that this is the right way forward.
I will continue on the same theme. My noble friend Lord Jopling and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, suggested that the TEF metrics will be gamed. We expect the assessment panels to take a holistic approach in assessing all the evidence, not just the metrics, and therefore it will not be easy to game the system. In addition, the role of the external examiners, a robust quality assessment system and the ONS review of the data sources we use are all important in tackling this issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, suggested that the TEF will mean that some students will be forced to study at bronze institutions due to their circumstances. However, as I said just now, a bronze provider is still one that has passed a high bar on the quality we expect it to offer. The TEF assesses excellence above that baseline and will, we expect, incentivise and encourage that bronze provider to offer a better quality of teaching to that student than they do at present.
Then noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked how lecturers and teachers will know how to improve their teaching on the basis of the TEF ratings. The TEF provides clear reputational and financial incentives for providers to improve teaching quality, but it is not for us to tell universities how to teach. However, all TEF provider submissions will be published and we would expect those in the sector to learn from one another and to continue to feed back to us as the TEF develops.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised the issue of the impact of the TEF on social mobility, which is a very fair point. She asked what effect the Government think that the linking of fees and teaching quality will have on social mobility. Fears about only the Russell group providers doing well in the metrics are, we believe, misplaced. The metrics have benchmarks that recognise the student body characteristics of each provider, and a number of other safeguards are in place to ensure that the TEF should actually enhance the quality of teaching for disadvantaged groups. I know that Les Ebdon has made some comments on that, which will be very much known by the Committee.
In conclusion, while I recognise the concern that has been expressed around the ratings of gold, silver and bronze, we should not deceive ourselves. Both home and international students already make judgments as to the relative merits of different universities, based on all sorts of unreliable measures. The TEF will allow those judgments to be better informed, based on evidence rather than prejudice. These amendments would undermine the TEF’s ability to provide clear ratings and clear incentives to the sector to drive up teaching quality.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has requested this stand part debate, I remind noble Lords that removing this schedule in its entirety would remove any link between quality and the fees that a provider was able to charge. It would also mean that the sector would not receive the additional £16 billion of income by 2025 that we expect the TEF to deliver. I do not think that this is what we, or the noble Lord, want.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene on the Minister, but I really must challenge that. The situation, as he has already described it, is that fees have risen, substantially and then gradually, over the past period. That has been achieved perfectly straightforwardly by bringing forward statutory instruments that allow for an increase in fees relative to inflation. Although we have questioned some of the issues behind it, we have supported that. We are about to engage in a discussion in your Lordships’ House on the fee increases that are to apply from next session. Those fee increases are detached from any considerations of quality, are entirely related to inflation and are done on the basis that the House will consider and approve them. What exactly is the difference between that and what he is proposing? I do not get it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I reiterate that the main way forward is that we want to link the issues of fees and performance. The TEF is a manifesto commitment, and I know that we are all agreed on the importance of recognising excellent teaching. As I have said very clearly to the Committee today, the Government have consulted extensively on the form of the TEF, and we will continue to listen to and engage with the sector as the TEF evolves. I say again that it is an iterative process, and that is why we do not need in primary legislation the detailed provisions that we have been discussing, as we believe they would hinder the constructive development that is already taking place. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, is there a risk with the direction the Government are taking that, in supporting the thriving, successful and very good teaching universities and, some might say, putting in a bad light the less well-performing universities, we will move to a culture of universities that is less rich and diverse, with fewer local universities and specialisms, and just a few thoroughbred universities that everyone will want to go to and a diaspora of rather struggling universities? Is the Minister prepared to go away and think about whether that is a consequence that might result from this and whether that would be helpful?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Earl for his point. However, I think it is right that we should be bold and look ahead to bring in the performance-related measures that we have been talking about—the sector has been waiting 20 years for this. We are bringing it in carefully, with some consideration, and I hope the Committee today recognises that there have been a lot of checks and controls in this. I do not think we should stick to the status quo, in which there is no consideration of assessing the performance of universities or teaching. It is very important to be sure that we raise the quality of teaching in this country.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as pro-chancellor of Lancaster University, where we support strongly the principle of the teaching excellence framework. However, what I have found in this debate is that the Minister appears very reluctant to admit that, in any of the excellent speeches that we have heard tonight, good points have been made that are worth him thinking about and coming back to the House on at Report stage. This is disappointing. Does the Minister acknowledge that this might be the reaction of Members all around the Committee, and will he reflect on that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will reflect on that. I may not have said it, but I have appreciated the contributions from all noble Lords this afternoon. There have been a number of different angles to this and we had an interesting contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Desai. There is not a conclusive way forward—this is an iterative process—but I must say that, yes, I am listening. We believe that this is the right way forward. Although I have been listening, I will say again that this is a manifesto commitment and we are very keen to take it forward.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, several noble Lords around the Chamber—probably all of us, actually—are anxious about the risks associated with this process; that is what we have been trying to describe. We are not resisting the way forward but trying to assess the extent of the risk. Can the Minister tell us whether there has there been a risk assessment and whether he can publish it if there has?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will reflect on what the noble Baroness has said. It may give her some comfort if I say that we are not rushing this in. The proposals that we have are not all in the Bill; that is why this is an iterative process. I will continue to engage, as will the team and my honourable friend in the other place, on rolling out the TEF.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, we do not question the fact that this is a manifesto commitment. We support the fact that it is a manifesto commitment. We want to ensure that the system which comes out of the noble Lord’s manifesto commitment works for all universities in this country and ensures their excellence in the future.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, we all want that. I hope that in my considered response I have given my views as to how we see the way forward. I will say again that I have listened to all the views and will reflect carefully, when I read Hansard, on what noble Lords have said. I am sure that that will be read widely. I am listening but I do not wish to go any further from my views on how we go forward.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, my noble friend made a statement of the Government’s policy regarding overseas students which was fuller and stronger than I have heard from anyone else—on which I congratulate him. Can he confirm therefore—it would be consistent with what he said—that the Home Secretary has now taken a step back from the remarks she made in her speech to the Conservative Party conference, and in particular the ones that implied she would reduce the number of students by refusing lower-quality courses, as she described them, the right to take overseas students?
On gold, silver and bronze, my noble friend is somewhat confused as to the effect of these things. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and others pointed out, bronze is only valuable because so many people get worse. Under the old Ofsted rating system of outstanding, good and satisfactory, it was quite clear that “satisfactory” meant “avoid at all costs”. It was the lowest rating you could get above absolute disaster. That is the way it was perceived.
Although we in this country may manage to give things time, see them in perspective and understand why it is worth sending our children to a bronze institution, it would be extremely hard for agents overseas to do so. We will be competing with other countries which will not hesitate to ask, “Why are you thinking of sending this child to a bronze institution when we in Canada”—or Australia or wherever else—“can offer them a top-quality institution doing the same course in the same subject?”. It would be really damaging.
It is also unnecessary, because it is not valuable information for a student. It is the Government’s conclusion, but what is important is the students’ and their advisers’ conclusion. The way in which the Government choose to balance particular elements of their assessment of quality do not bear on the decision that an individual student may take. That must be a matter for individual decision. We should publish the information—absolutely—but not some arbitrary percentage. Someone in the Civil Service or in some committee may decide that only 20% of our universities are excellent. At least with Ofsted there are criteria that can be relied on. This will be damaging and will hurt one of our great industries. It is not based on anything useful or on fact, but it will be treated as if it is.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned, as have many other noble Lords, gold, silver and bronze. At last year’s Olympic Games an event at which many British athletes and Paralympic athletes won medals was swimming—we won many gold medals, many silver and many bronze. The Minister must be in line for a gold medal at swimming because he has been facing a torrent against him throughout the debate. He has been swimming manfully but has not made very much progress.
By my calculation, some 13 noble Lords have spoken in the last hour and 52 minutes. Of those, all were in favour of improving teaching quality, as you might expect, and of having a teaching excellence framework in some form. As all noble Lords have said, we welcome the role of Chris Husbands in developing it. However, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, we all believe that it cannot be delivered in the form that is proposed—and even the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, could muster no more enthusiasm for the TEF than to say that the current metrics are not as bad as claimed. That qualifies as faint praise.
Many noble Lords also spoke against the link between teaching quality and fees in principle, and more spoke in favour of rating on a basis other than the gold, silver and bronze. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, quoted someone in Canada, looking at British institutions and spotting a bronze and thinking, “Why would I advise my son or daughter to go there rather than an institution in Canada because it is only a bronze?” The point is that the bronze institution in the UK could well be better than the institution in Canada, but the perception will not be that. Perception consistently outranks fact, and that is the big danger in the three-tier system being advanced by the Government.
I wish to make a serious point about two of the contributions in the debate—those of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lady Warwick. Both highlighted and made powerful points on social mobility and the effects that the Government’s proposals not only could but almost certainly will have. I quoted Cambridge University in my opening remarks; that has the same fear. The Government claim to be committed to improving social mobility although some of us are unconvinced. That view is reinforced by the fact that the Minister, very disappointingly, failed even to mention social mobility in his reply. In his own terminology, he needs to reflect on that matter before Report.
In his response, the Minister referred to linking fees to quality of teaching but did not say how that would be achieved. That is the main reason for noble Lords’ opposition to the link. My noble friend Lady Cohen said that objectivity is the key here. That is what is required, and it is a quality that is lacking in the metrics as they stand at the moment.
The problem of rating on the basis of institutions has also been highlighted. The Minister said that, at the moment, the Bill allows for the scheme to be developed at institutional level and then at departmental level at some point in the future. The question mark is how. If the ratings are to be made on a departmental or faculty basis, how can you avoid, ultimately, differential fees being charged within institutions if the Government truly believe in that link? That certainly is not a road we would wish to go down. The bottom line here is that the Government need to build confidence within the sector that the path they are going down is one that will improve the sector’s quality and sustainability, particularly with so many new operators arriving.
My noble friend Lord Desai asked whether anyone would fail the exam. The Minister could not bring himself to admit it, but unless he believes that all institutions will be capable of being rated gold, the answer can only be yes. That is why our Amendment 195 recognised that fact and advocated a simple pass/fail rating. That way, every institution knows where it stands—as does everyone outside it when making their decisions. That is something that those looking at a course at a university have the right to have available when they make their choice.
I suggest that the Minister will need to come to terms with the fact he is not carrying noble Lords with him. I suggest he will need to change his position substantially before we come back to this matter, which we undoubtedly will when we next discuss it on Report. On the basis of an invigorating and very useful debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Parliamentary Proceedings: Statistics
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Butler of Brockwell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are planning to take to include statistics on the time spent on parliamentary proceedings on each Part of an Act in the Explanatory Notes on Acts of Parliament.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I start by confessing that behind this dry request to the Government for statistics lies an ulterior motive. However, it is one that should commend itself to all true parliamentarians. The suggestion in the Question is one I owe to Daniel Greenberg, a former parliamentary counsel and a campaigner for high legislative standards. I declare a personal interest as a member of the executive committee of the Better Government Initiative. I am very grateful to the most distinguished galère of participants for giving up their dinner to take part in this short debate, which I attribute to the general issue of the importance of our parliamentary legislative processes—particularly relevant as we approach the challenges of Brexit.
Making law is central to our job as parliamentarians, but it is not a job that the Executive always helps Parliament to do well, although I think we all feel that the House of Lords does it more thoroughly than the House of Commons. Even so, the results are not reassuring. There is a widespread feeling that, under pressure from the Executive, Parliament makes too much law. To give one illustration, in 2010, legislation covering 2,700 pages was added to the statute book. This was more than three times the amount of legislation passed 50 years before. That takes no account of all the guidance and other notes issued to specify the application of such legislation.
So much of this legislation is unsatisfactory. Some time ago I asked a Question about how many Acts passed by Parliament between 2005 and 2010 had never been brought into effect. The answer was that part or all of 77 Acts passed by 15 departments had never been brought into effect, despite being passed by Parliament. They had been found to be impracticable or had been overtaken by second thoughts.
It should be the job of Parliament to prevent or improve such defective legislation, but in truth Parliament is overwhelmed. Your Lordships’ House does its best, but one sometimes feels that, with the introduction of programme orders and family friendly hours, the House of Commons has virtually given up. To take one particularly flagrant example, the Finance Act 2005 contains 106 sections and 11 schedules, covering 202 pages of legislation relating to income and corporation tax, trusts, film relief, stamp duty and various anti-avoidance measures. It was passed by the House of Commons in four hours and two minutes of one day and by the House of Lords in 40 minutes on the following day. Admittedly, this was in the rush before a Dissolution, but that is surely no excuse for allowing complicated legislation, affecting the lives of citizens, to pass with such blithe lack of detailed scrutiny.
To take another more recent example, the Immigration Bill in the last Session started in the Commons with 56 clauses, eight schedules and 107 pages. It left the Commons with 65 clauses, 12 schedules and 168 pages. When the guillotine fell at the end of Report, eight new clauses, one new schedule and 10 amendments were added to the Bill with no debate whatever.
There are honourable exceptions. I have spoken in this House of my admiration of the process to which the then Investigatory Powers Bill was subjected. This included three reports by independent bodies, pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill, and many hours of detailed scrutiny in the Lords and Commons. But that was the exception.
This Question asks whether the Government, when publishing—as they do—Explanatory Notes on Acts of Parliament after they are passed, will include the parliamentary time spent by each House of Parliament on each part of the Bill. These post Royal Assent notes already include a schedule of Hansard references for the different stages of the Bill, and, as we know, Hansard shows the times at which debates start and conclude. This information is readily available. The House of Commons already publishes such information for each Bill in its sessional returns, but that information is lost in a plethora of other information. The House of Lords’ statistics on business and membership include time spent on the various stages of Bills, but in aggregate, not for individual Bills.
The Cabinet Office recently introduced a new format for these Explanatory Notes, intended to be simpler and easier to navigate, but that format does not include the time spent on each stage of parliamentary proceedings. It can be easily added. I should also like the information to include new provisions added during each Bill’s process without debate.
I repeat that this is purely factual information, already gathered and easily available. The purpose of publishing it is, of course, to bring to light where parliamentary scrutiny has been inadequate and, by doing so, to encourage more effective procedures. I believe that neither government nor Parliament would want it to be shown that legislation had been passed by Parliament with ineffective scrutiny. If the result was that more parliamentary time was given to a smaller volume of legislation, that would be no bad thing.
This is only one small contribution to improving parliamentary scrutiny of legislation, on which I am delighted that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House is currently conducting a major inquiry. It is practicable and a virtually costless change simply in the method of publication of material already collected.
I find it difficult to envisage how the Government could refuse a request to publish this readily available information in this more convenient form. I suppose that I could always get it by putting down a Parliamentary Question after every Act received Royal Assent, but that would give everybody more trouble and I hope that I will not have to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I confess to having put down my name for this debate for the ulterior motive that the noble Lord who introduced it has explained. I think it important from the point of view of this House to compare the situation here with that in the House of Commons.
Over the years, Members of the House of Commons have become ever more burdened by the questions and cases that constituents raise with them in order that they should deal with them in such a way as to alleviate their constituents’ problems. That applies in all sorts of cases. You have only to send an email to a Member of Parliament to find out exactly what happens in that respect. The number of requests for help they receive over a parliamentary Session is huge. They cannot be expected to have available more than the 24 hours per day that we have allotted to us. It therefore stands to reason that the amount of time that individual Members have available to study Bills before the House becomes more limited.
In that situation, the role of this House as a revising Chamber is made even more important than it would otherwise have been. It is extremely important that we concentrate on that aspect of our business because of the need to make sure that legislation when passed is workable. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, we make laws that apply very generally. He mentioned tax law—that applies to a lot of people. It is very important that it should be workable. The consequences of bad legislation are so significant that we must do everything we can to avoid it.
As has been said, the volume of Bills presented has gone up, which increases the problem. This situation needs to be highlighted. Publishing the statistics which the noble Lord has asked for would be a considerable improvement in that connection.
The obligation on this House to scrutinise legislation is extremely important. It is not altogether easy, because Bills when they come here are not the most readable pieces of literature one has ever seen. Very often, a good deal of work is required to see what is being modified. My four minutes is up. That concludes what I have to say.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that the pressures on Members of Parliament these days in terms of constituency work, emails and so forth are quite astonishing. That is part of the problem and I do not think that family-friendly hours have helped.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on initiating this debate and go along fully with what he suggests regarding transparency and information. The figures he gave about the number of Bills and the fact that the amount of time has not expanded in the same way are significant. I am sure that the nature of the legislation is also important—not just the number of Bills but the number of pages and clauses in them—but I know he would not suggest that we look just at the amount of time spent, because you can spend your time well or not very well.
I want to defend the concept of programming legislation—timetabling by another name. I remember the days when, as an opposition spokesperson, I would spend hour after hour on Clause 1 in Committee to force the Government to have a guillotine. I would gain some political kudos, but we would not make any progress in terms of getting every bit of that Bill debated. However, it was an important political ploy and a method of putting pressure on the Government. I admit culpability for our having programming, because when I was Leader of the House of Commons I chaired the Modernisation Committee and we came up with the idea that, as an alternative to the incentive of dragging out the first clauses of Bills, we should have a system whereby the Government and the Opposition—the usual channels—sat down together and decided which were the major issues and which required the most detailed scrutiny. The Opposition were given priority as to the debates they wanted, in exchange for the Government knowing when a Bill would come out of Committee.
That system is in principle a good one, but it has been quite significantly abused over the years and probably needs revisiting. But however good the system of scrutiny, if we do not assure the basic quality of legislation coming to us, Members of Parliament in either House are faced with an impossible task. I do not want to say too much about what should be done on the quality of legislation, because as a member of the Constitution Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I know that is something we are looking at.
The pressures on Parliament today are intense. The pressures on Members of Parliament are desperately intense and people expect quick solutions to complex problems—I fear we will see that on Brexit as well. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to scrutinise where we can, but government has a responsibility to look again at the quality and readiness of the legislation it brings forward in both Houses.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, on securing this debate and on the masterly way in which he has revealed what it is really about. I have to confess that I was attracted to it for reasons that have very little to do with the issue to which he addressed his remarks. My reasons go back to the time which I spent here when preparing judgments as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. One of our tasks was to interpret the legislation which emerged from both Houses. From time to time, appeals would come before us which required a close examination of the words used in order to find out what they really meant when they were applied to the facts of the case before us. That was not always easy, as one might imagine. It is the product of the difficulty that I think confronts every legislator, which is that it is difficult to predict every situation to which the words may have to be applied when the legislation takes effect. The words chosen may matter a great deal, and the words used will always deserve careful scrutiny.
One of the tricks of the trade that we who were engaged in this exercise learned from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, was to look to the Explanatory Notes for assistance. We as Law Lords had the advantage over the justices in the Supreme Court in that all we had to do was to go downstairs to the Printed Paper Office, where they were readily available. Today the preamble to the notes says:
“They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament”.
I cannot recall whether those words were there when we were looking at them 10 or more years ago. But we thought it was proper to look at them for such assistance as they might give, on the view that they were part of the travaux préparatoires, as the Europeans would say, to the Bill. We were accustomed to using the travaux when construing international conventions so it did not seem a very big step to look at the Explanatory Notes, and it was information that was readily available. So I take this opportunity to assure those who prepare these documents that they are read and that there are occasions, although perhaps not all that many, when they are particularly helpful.
As for the question that lies at the heart of this debate, it follows from what I have been saying that there is a real value in line-by-line scrutiny. As I have said, we all find it hard to predict the future, and it is hard for even the most experienced and skilful drafter to examine the effect of a clause from every possible angle. The benefit that comes from line-by-line scrutiny is that it offers the opportunity for these angles to be explored in debates to which people from all sides can contribute. The policy objective, the practical effect and the meaning of the words used all need to be examined. But parliamentarians need to be given the time and opportunity to do this. This is not really a serious problem in this House, given the way that we organise our business. I am sure that the Minister knows very well how much value the Government attach to the work that is done here because of the way we work, and how essential our contribution is to the quality of our legislation.
However, there are grounds for concern about what happens in the other place. The best example that comes to my mind relates to what happened last year on the then Scotland Bill. It was exacerbated by the fact that the SNP, which played an active part in the debates in the House of Commons, has for reasons of principle no Members in this House. Coming as I do from north of the border, I tried to trace what its position had been on the various clauses that we were examining here, just in case there were points that it was seeking to make which we might overlook. I found this very hard to do, as it seemed that many of the amendments that it had tabled were not reached. The consequence was that some of the provisions in the Bill were not debated at all in the other place, and I fear that on a number of points of importance that party’s voice was not heard at all in either House. That is an example of the kind of problem to which the noble Lord referred, and I support everything he said in his opening remarks.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on raising this important Question. I appreciate that the Question addresses quantity, in terms of the time devoted to consideration of a Bill, rather than the quality of debate, but without adequate time it is difficult if not impossible to subject a Bill to adequate scrutiny.
It is important to acknowledge that there have been improvements in the legislative process in each House. The use of pre-legislative scrutiny is a notable advance, albeit limited in terms of the number of Bills subject to such scrutiny. The use of Public Bill Committees in the Commons is an improvement on what existed before. In this House, the main advance has been in the use of ad hoc committees for post-legislative scrutiny. We should recognise that there is more we could do to improve the quality of our legislative scrutiny, not least employing evidence-taking committees.
Providing the data recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, would be helpful, for the reasons he has given. As he said, they are not difficult to provide. For the Commons, the Sessional Diary provides the timings for each stage of a Bill, so it is a fairly straightforward task to reproduce the data for each Bill once it has completed its passage. I want to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has recommended. There is a case not only for publishing in the Explanatory Notes on an Act the time taken to consider the stages of the Bill, but for publishing in the Explanatory Notes to regulations the time taken for debate on those regulations.
Of course, the key point is not how much time is devoted to discussing regulations but rather the fact that most statutory instruments are not accorded any parliamentary time. In terms of consideration, as opposed to debate, the contrast between the two Chambers is notable, given that we have the Delegated Powers Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to examine the input and output side of statutory instruments, and the other place has no equivalent bodies.
On the rare occasions that SIs are debated, little time is taken. In the other place in the previous Session, just over seven hours were devoted in the Chamber to the consideration of statutory instruments subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and a grand total of 22 minutes to statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure. The normal practice is to refer SIs to a Delegated Legislation Committee, but it is rare for a Committee to sit for more than 30 minutes. I noticed that one in the previous Session sat for a grand total of 11 minutes. Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society has drawn attention to the fact that prayers against SIs tabled by the leader of the Opposition or a Front-Bencher are not automatically debated in the House; in the previous Session only five out of 19 were debated. In this House we spent a total of 67 hours on secondary legislation, either in the Chamber or in Grand Committee, but that figure is notably lower than in preceding Sessions.
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, provides a useful nudge, emphasising the lack of attention given to ensuring full and adequate scrutiny. It highlights a problem rather than tackling it, but it reminds us of the need to tackle it.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend’s excellent Question is narrow, but its implications are wide. The rule of law is central to any civilised society. The quality of law is a determining factor in the respect in which the law is held, so it is central to the rule of law. The other side of the equation is just as important: how well does the legislature scrutinise the legislative proposals of the Executive?
One of my learned predecessors as Clerk of the House of Commons, Sir Thomas Erskine May, said in the first edition of the great work which still bears his name that there are no limits to the legislative authority of Parliament other than,
“the willingness of the people to obey, or their power to resist”.
So that legislative authority should be exercised with great care. Alas, I do not think we can make the claim that it is. The legislative process may not quite be broken, but it is certainly not working very well. The approach of Brexit legislation makes the need for improvement ever more urgent.
Despite words of comfort from the Government, too much of significance is still put into delegated legislation, with no firm and observed principles as to where the boundaries should be set. There is extensive quasi-legislation, such as codes and guidance, which have the force of law but are largely left to Ministers to make up their minds about after the event. Powers delegated to Ministers, including Henry VIII powers, are often much more extensive than they need to be, and generally with insufficient parliamentary scrutiny; for example, in the previous Session there were 14 government Bills, containing a total of 41 Henry VIII provisions.
When I was invited by the Statute Law Society to give its annual lecture in a few weeks’ time, I had no difficulty in choosing the title of my lecture. If noble Lords will forgive a moment of advertisement, it is: Why is there so much bad law? “Bad”, of course, refers both to the end product and the way in which it gets on to the statute book. In my previous life, I used to say to audiences outside Westminster, “Don’t for a moment run away with the idea that a Bill is draft legislation; it is not. It is, word for word, what the Government of the day want to see on the statute book”. The corollary of that, of course, is that Ministers, of whatever party, have a collective allergy to amendments. In a way, that is understandable. If a department has been thrashing out the contents of a Bill, clearing it with other departments and the devolved Administrations, dealing with potential difficulties within the party of government, getting it through the business managers and PBL, there may be a feeling, when the Bill is finally ready for introduction, that the job is done. But of course that is when the real job has to start, and that is where both Parliament and Government need to up their game.
My noble friend referred to draft Bills. I realise that Her Majesty’s Ministers have quite a lot on their plate for the foreseeable future, but I have been very disappointed that draft Bills appear to have become an endangered species. In this Session, only the ombudsman Bill was published in draft. In the Queen’s Speech, another was promised but it has so far failed to appear. Draft Bills can of course be heavy on drafting resources, because parliamentary counsel are involved with both the draft Bill and then the Bill as it is to be introduced. But they offer a real increase in the quality of legislative scrutiny, with a consensual approach, evidentially based amendment and public access to the legislative process—much greater access, and much more effective, than the evidence-taking phase of Commons Public Bill Committees.
Draft Bills should commend themselves to business managers because consideration by a Joint Committee should avoid double handling in the two Houses and make the passage of the Bill as introduced much smoother. If only the Higher Education and Research Bill had started life as a draft Bill. I remember from our enjoyable association in the House of Commons that the Minister used to think that draft Bills were really quite a good idea. I hope that he still does so and that he will be able to offer us some comfort and cause for hope this evening.
Lord Ryder of Wensum (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for initiating this important debate. Our constitution has emerged over centuries without plans or planners, yet checks and balances to it have evolved all the while. The noble Lord has proposed a modest constitutional balance tonight and I wholeheartedly support it.
My support stems partly from the decision taken at the turn of the century by the then Administration of Mr Tony Blair to impose House of Commons guillotine Motions, euphemistically known as programme Motions, on government Bills. This has led to vast segments of Bills receiving no scrutiny at all in the other place. Even those parts of Bills examined by elected Members often confirm a lack of rigour and attention to the detail on their behalf. Here I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for whom I have great respect. I was the Chief Whip in the other place for six years before automatic guillotines came about and it simply was not the case that a huge number of Bills were guillotined. In my six years, very few Bills ever were, and had I been subjected, as I often was, to the attitude of stopping on Clause 1 and forcing the Government to guillotine a Bill, I rejected that attitude. Once it was clear that I rejected it, you did not have to try again.
I come to the point—I was unaware of it—raised by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, about four and a half hours being allocated to a Finance Bill. This House, of course, is not allowed to go line by line through a Finance Bill. Again, if I may use some personal experience, 30 years ago when I was a Treasury Minister speaking on Finance Bills, I received the most difficult time that I have ever had as a politician in answering detailed questions for 60, 70 or 80 hours—line by line—on those Bills. I did not realise which example the noble Lord would raise, and I feel that it is deeply regrettable.
The Conservative Opposition promised to abolish the automatic guillotining of Bills before the 2010 general election, but they reneged on the pledge by caving into elected Members who confused, and still confuse, an efficient House of Commons with an effective House of Commons. Efficient it may be, effective it is not. I fear that the other place is becoming an arena assembly, and arguably only a part-time one at that, and that it no longer functions as an effective, transformative legislature.
Another consequence of the absence of rigorous scrutiny in the other place is an increase in the number of judicial reviews, leaving aside the implications of Pepper v Hart in 1993. The resurgence of judicial reviews has irritated Ministers and officials and it is small wonder that the Cabinet Office has published, and republished, a pamphlet for use by civil servants entitled The Judge over Your Shoulder. That pamphlet could also be distributed to Ministers and Members of Parliament and I think it would help them, too.
I also want to emphasise, as other noble Lords have, the importance of ensuring that statistics on hours spent in parliamentary proceedings on each part of what becomes an Act should include the time taken on Bills in their draft form as well as in pre-legislative scrutiny. In my experience, the procedure of pre-legislative scrutiny has enhanced the quality of Acts of Parliament. In particular, I recall in your Lordships’ House the Communications Bill of 2003 and the Civil Contingencies Bill of 2004, which were prime examples of the success of this procedure. In contrast, I also recollect the chaos caused by the Public Bodies Bill of 2010, which was not subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny and was deficient on almost every count.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Young is answering this debate from the Front Bench. Few people in either House have as much knowledge as he does about the subject under consideration and I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that he may answer this debate in a very positive fashion.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, when I saw what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was asking the House to consider in the Question I realised that there must be some ulterior motive. I share his ulterior motive, which is why I wish to say a little.
Although we constantly assert that we are carrying out our scrutinising responsibilities, it is very rare that Parliament is scrutinising the legislation. We have heard about having 2,700 pages of primary legislation in every year for the last however many years—it is certainly four or five—for which the statistics are available. We have also allowed 11,000 to 12,000 pages of statutory instruments to go through and out into the public, telling them how they must live their lives. In the Digital Economy Bill, we have 46 clauses which include no fewer than 12 Henry VIII clauses. They will all come into force as statutory instruments. They will go through a process of not being really much scrutinised. When they come here, if in our scrutiny we say anything about any provision in it, the whole instrument goes. We then have a Strathclyde review telling us that we have interfered with the scrutinising process carried out in the other place and are somehow acting unconstitutionally.
I want all your Lordships to try to imagine my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead wondering what a statute meant. Is it a few words in a statute; a few words which appear in a number of places in the same statute and are nearly the same; or a few words that are nearly the same appearing in two, three, four or five statutes? He may put a wet towel around his head and wonder, “What on earth does this mean?”. He does not of course think, as I always did when I had a wet towel around my head, “What did Parliament think it meant?”, with the follow-up question, “Did Parliament think about it at all?”. Of course you cannot say that as a judge, because you are bound by the Bill of Rights and cannot question anything that has happened in the process of the parliamentary proceedings, so you struggle to find the answer.
This issue has to be addressed. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I take the view that this is a tiny step forward to consideration of how we legislate—how we in both Houses seek to control the Executive. That is what we are here for.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate—I am sure that the Minister will say the same. I certainly welcome the confession by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the title of the debate requesting statistics was in fact a ruse to raise a broader and wider issue of some significance. After his many years at the highest levels of the Civil Service, perhaps we should ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has picked up some political tricks in your Lordships’ House or has imported some clever “'Yes Minister” tricks to your Lordships’ House from the Civil Service. Either way, we are grateful to him as this is a welcome opportunity to debate our core functions, role and work and how we could perhaps do it better.
I want to raise three points. The first is about the value of parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, commented that Bills are seen as being absolute when they leave the department rather than when they leave Parliament. Noble Lords who were present for the Minister’s response in the previous debate will unfortunately have seen that in practice.
This House takes its responsibilities as a scrutinising and revising Chamber very seriously. We act within the conventions that guide and inform the role of a second Chamber, although that role of scrutiny and revision is not always welcomed by Governments. The work we undertake is at the heart of a functioning democracy; it is the process of scrutiny, challenge and holding the Government to account. Again looking at the previous debate, scrutiny is not just a tool to provide Governments with a fig leaf of legitimacy for legislation, but neither should it be a Trojan horse for political challenge.
Other noble Lords may disagree or agree on this, but there is a disappointing political trend that some take the view that any challenge from your Lordships’ House is some kind of constitutional outrage. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to this on the tax credits SI and Strathclyde. We have seen sabre-rattling around the tax credits issue and on Brexit. We have heard that the Lords should be abolished or suspended and there have been bizarre calls for 1,000 new Peers. I have to admit that I have found this dialogue very frustrating. Debate on serious issues needs perspective and adult consideration, not threats. Let us put on record again, in order to be absolutely clear, that we will always continue to act within the conventions of this House. We value and respect our role as a scrutinising and revising Chamber. We fulfil our responsibilities with diligence. We will not exceed our responsibilities, but neither will we be bullied into abdicating them. We will do our job: no more and no less than that.
We have also looked at who has responsibility for scrutiny. Obviously it is a matter for Parliament. Perhaps we have been little hard on the other place tonight, because this House has a special responsibility in that, unlike the other place, scrutiny is our sole focus without the competing demands of constituency representation. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lady Taylor said, the Government also have a responsibility. Too often we have seen badly drafted legislation on which the Minister responsible has been unable to provide adequate information to allow for proper consideration. When we had the Trade Union Bill, there was no impact assessment until after Second Reading in your Lordships’ House, yet it had been through all its stages in the House of Commons. That was clearly against Cabinet Office guidelines. However, we can scrutinise well. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, used the then Investigatory Powers Bill as an example in terms of the scrutiny it received. The parallel Select Committee set up by your Lordships’ House to look at the then Trade Union Bill brought cross-party forensic examination to the most vexatious and politically controversial parts of that Bill.
Can we do better? Yes, of course. In tonight’s debate we have heard that we want to do better within our remit. A number of suggestions have been made. I shall concentrate on a couple in the time available. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, suggested, slightly tongue-in-cheek, I think, stating the time for debate in the Explanatory Notes. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and my noble friend Lady Taylor indicated, time alone is not an accurate indicator of the quality of scrutiny that a Bill receives. We can all think of examples, some fairly recent, where debate has been long but wisdom short—and 10 people making a similar point is not 10 times the scrutiny of only one noble Lord making that point.
There are other examples where a short, focused speech has raised a new perspective or issue. The noble Lord, Lord Ryder, shared his personal experiences in Committee. I was a member on the government side on the National Minimum Wage Bill. The Conservative Opposition tried to prevent the minimum wage coming in and kept us up not just late into the night but through the night into the next day for the longest ever sitting of a House of Commons committee.
The substantive point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was about being able to assess whether a Bill has been properly examined. I think he is on to something here. One of the things I would find really useful—the then Housing and Planning Bill is a really good example of this—is that when a Bill comes from the other place to your Lordships’ House, it would be nice to know easily, at a glance, what parts of the Bill have been added on without being debated. A number of clauses were added to the Housing and Planning Bill on Report in the House of Commons which were never debated. Had we had that information easily available, we could have focused our attention and energies on the parts of the Bill that had had no consideration.
I shall make one other very brief point about the consideration of secondary legislation. This is going to be particularly important as we move forward on Brexit. Our committees on SIs are invaluable, and if we are going to have an avalanche of thousands of SIs to give effect to EU legislation, we need to consider how best to do this. If we fail, Parliament could stand accused of being little better than a sausage machine where all the ingredients are tipped in at one end and emerge from the other end wrapped up without any thought or modification.
This has been a useful debate. I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively. We value what we do, we know we can do it better and we would like to do it better.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for this debate and for the array of big hitters he has tempted away from the long table. With some double-counting, we have a professor of government, a Cabinet Secretary, a Clerk of the House of Commons, three government Chief Whips, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, a Lord Chief Justice, a Lord Chancellor, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, two Leaders of the Commons, the Leader of the Opposition and a Lord Privy Seal. Between us, we could provide the entire cast for “Iolanthe” and “Trial by Jury”.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, has long been associated with initiatives to promote better scrutiny of legislation, and he and I have spent many weekends at Ditchley Park, with others, as part of the Better Government Initiative considering reform in this area. In the words of Sir Humphrey, it would be a brave Minister who refused to consider a proposal with the impressive pedigree of the noble Lords who have spoken this evening.
I want to reverse the normal order in which Ministers respond to these debates by addressing head-on the specific and narrow proposal from the noble Lord and then considering the broader context in which it is placed and addressing some of the other points raised in the debate.
The noble Lord asked whether the Government had any plans to include in the Explanatory Notes statistics on the time taken to debate each part of a Bill. The short answer is that we do not—but that does not, of course, rule out further consideration of the proposition put forward so eloquently this evening by him and others. The reason we do not is, first, because the Explanatory Notes are designed to help the readers of legislation understand its legal effect. Secondly, the notes to Acts already include the Hansard column references to debates at each stage, so the Act is permanently accompanied by a record of how each House scrutinised the legislation in its various stages.
The raw data which the noble Lord is after on the actual time spent on each part, which goes beyond what is currently published, are already available in the public domain, as he said, since Hansard includes the times when consideration of each part of the Bill begins and ends. So, against the background of what I have said about the Government’s proposals, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Butler, as a first step might want to ask the authorities in both Houses to conduct a pilot to publish the data he is after in respect of some suitable Bills.
Another option would be to see whether the Hansard Society might produce some historical data, and we could then see whether this adds value to the legislative process or produces the outcomes that the noble Lord seeks in terms of influencing behaviour. I will certainly bring to the attention of colleagues in government the proposition we have been considering, and I noticed the veiled threat that if action is not taken a whole series of Parliamentary Questions might be tabled to elicit, at some cost, the information that he has asked to be included in the Explanatory Memorandum.
I shall add a health warning at this stage and echo some of the points made by others as the publication of these data may give an incomplete picture of the time spent. A Bill that has been published in draft first, that has been extensively considered and amended and has had the wrinkles ironed out may need less time than a Bill not published in draft. Key clauses in a Bill may have been considered elsewhere, for example in an opposition day debate, or may have been examined in detail by a Select Committee. A good example of this was the work of the Home Affairs Select Committee into the Psychoactive Substances Bill when the Bill was before Parliament. Simply taking at face value the time spent on a specific Bill might underestimate the volume of scrutiny that it had attracted.
I turn now to some of the broader issues that were raised. In doing so, I recognise the force of many of the criticisms that have been made about how legislation is considered. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this Prime Minister’s aspiration to publish more Green and White Papers can only be a good thing—a point underlined when my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons recently gave evidence to the Constitution Committee and said he was keen to see more legislation preceded by Green and White Papers. That committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the legislative process, and two members of it have spoken in our debate today.
Lord Young of Cookham
Three members. Again, I will ensure that members and officials note the contributions that have been made in this debate. Were the Constitution Committee to be persuaded by the arguments that have been put forward this evening and to include that in its final report, that would of course be a significant step forward.
At the same evidence session, the Leader also expressed his support for pre-legislative scrutiny. So far in this Parliament, we have seen several major pieces of legislation published in draft, including the Wales Bill and the then Investigatory Powers Bill. It is the Government’s intention to publish legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny wherever possible. The draft Public Sector Ombudsman Bill was published only last month, following hot on the heels of draft tax legislation at the Autumn Statement.
I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others have said about the value of scrutiny by your Lordships’ House, which the Government value enormously. I recognise that it may be possible to make further progress, and I will deal with some of the suggestions in a moment. I know that many of your Lordships are concerned that Bills are not subject to enough scrutiny in Parliament, particularly in the other House. I just ask your Lordships to remember that each House has its own style, and we should be diplomatic in discussing how the other place conducts itself, not least so we do not precipitate a domestic dispute and retaliatory action from down the Corridor.
I would like to address my noble friend Lord Ryder’s concerns about programming. Like him, I would not support the use of the guillotine by any Government unilaterally to curtail discussion on controversial Bills in an overprogrammed legislative Session. This is what has happened in the past, and I have voted against such Motions. But here I find myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, in that this does not mean that it is wrong for business managers to seek agreement among themselves and then to put to the House a proposal for the passage of a particular Bill. This can avoid wasting valuable time on procedural Motions and enable the House do to its job properly.
I had to sit opposite the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, on the right-to-buy legislation, I think, discussing at length the timetable Motion in Committee. I think we would both agree that that was not the best use of time for either of us. Indeed, as shadow Leader of the House in the other place in the late 1990s, I added my name to some programme Motions tabled by the noble Baroness where I thought adequate time had been proposed, as did the then shadow Leader from the Lib Dems, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Both MPs and stakeholders outside value the certainty that programme Motions deliver, so that they know when particular measures will be debated in a Bill and can plan their lives appropriately. That is the model that has been put in place for the last five years and is in marked contrast to my earlier years in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, referred to the 2005 Finance Bill, and I very much hope there will be no recurrence of what happened then.
No programme resolutions have been divided on since the 2012-13 Session. Although I was either Leader or Chief Whip for part of the time, the credit goes as much to opposition parties for not making unrealistic demands. Nor was it the case that this is all a Front-Bench stitch-up between the major parties. Back-Benchers, who are more independent than at any time previously—as I know to my cost as a former Chief Whip—could have forced a Division on these programme Motions, as could have the minor parties. But they did not. The fact that this and the previous Government have relied less on draconian programme Motions is testament to the more mature approach now adopted in the other place, exemplified by the lack of Divisions on those Motions. Things have changed since my noble friend left the House in 1997.
Following on from this, the Government have consistently allocated a more generous amount of time for Bill stages in the Commons. If we look at the current Session, three Bills had multiple days for Report in the other place, something which was previously very rare. On the 12 Bills which have had Report in the Commons, all groups of amendments were reached. Twelve Bills have been committed to Public Bill Committee, and all but one Bill has reported early. Only the Public Bill Committee on the Digital Economy Bill was still debating new schedules when time ran out, but all the other provisions in the Bill as proposed by the Government had been scrutinised. No knives have been used to control debate in Public Bill Committee in any programme resolutions since the 2012-13 Session.
Time spent is the subject of this debate and, by the end of last year, the amount of time spent in this Session in the Commons scrutinising Bills in Committee was 151 hours and six minutes. Oral evidence has been heard from 124 witnesses, in eight Public Bill Committees. By the time Parliament rose for the Christmas Recess, it had spent a total of 472 hours and 15 minutes debating the Government’s legislative programme. This averages out to more than 23 hours per Bill. Although exact comparisons between the two Houses are difficult, your Lordships may be interested to know that the Whips estimate that the Commons spent 247 hours and 22 minutes debating government legislation, while your Lordships’ House spent 224 hours and 53 minutes.
We should not forget that the other place has often been more innovative and introduced reforms that have aided parliamentary scrutiny. These include carryover Bills, which in practice mean that Parliament has more time to scrutinise such Bills, but also public evidence sessions before Commons Committee stage, which have been popular with stakeholders and MPs.
A number of issues were raised, which perhaps I can deal with briefly. A number of noble Lords referred to the legislative process and delegated powers, as well as to Henry VIII. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House has written to the Constitution Committee in connection with its inquiry a letter headed “The legislative process: delegated powers”. It is a six-page letter and Henry VIII features quite prominently. I hope that in due course the letter will get into the public domain because it addresses some of the issues raised in this debate about the scrutiny of secondary legislation and Henry VIII powers.
On the volume of legislation, in the 2014-15 Session there were 26 Bills, while in the current one there are also 26. Looking back, in 1997-98 there were 53 and in 2001-02 there were 39. We are actually at the lower end of the spectrum. In terms of pages there is similar progress: in 2014 there were 2,640 pages but in 2000 there were 3,865. So it is not the case that there have been a huge number of extra pages of legislation when one looks broadly over the last 15 years.
I am conscious that I am already into injury time. I would like to write to noble Lords to deal with some of the issues that have been raised. I recognise that there is scope for improvement and I am interested in many of the suggestions that have been made in this debate. Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for instituting this very agreeable exchange of views.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Wednesday 18th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 76-IV(b) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the fourth marshalled list (PDF, 71KB) - (18 Jan 2017)
The Earl of Listowel
“Fee limit condition: requirement for progressive reduction in fees for older care leavers
(1) A fee limit condition must include a requirement that any regulated course fees within the meaning of section 10 must, if payable by any person falling within subsection (2), reduce by 5% for each additional year of age, over the age of 21, of that person.(2) A person falls within this subsection if they are a care leaver, or an adult who has previously held care leaver status under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.”
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 138A, 229A, 229B and 449A in my name in this group. All these amendments deal with access to higher education and further education for young people who have been in the care of local authorities.
I intend to be as brief as possible but, before I begin, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her kindness in making some comments on Monday despite my absence due to ill health. I appreciated what she said. I am grateful to learn that four-fifths of higher education institutions detail in their access policies particular measures for care leavers. Perhaps we might speak before Report about the other one-fifth that do not and what progress is being made in that area. The noble Baroness recognised in what she said that a low proportion of young people from care access university; in 2012 the figure was 5%, down from 8% a few years earlier. The figure in 2012 for all young people was 43% so clearly there is a disparity. She referred to problems about the data about care leavers attending university. I wonder whether it might be possible to anonymise it so that we understand how many care leavers are attending higher education without stigmatising them in doing so.
My amendments are probing. Amendment 122A would reduce annually by 5% fees paid by care leavers over the age of 21 so, for example, by the age of 41, a care leaver or care-experienced adult would no longer have to pay any fees. Amendment 449A would remove all fees for care-experienced adults. The purpose of both the amendments is to make it as easy as possible for older care leavers and care-experienced adults to access higher and further education.
The Government recognise in legislation that early trauma in childhood delays child development. That is why we have the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which provides support for care leavers up to the age of 25, and the Children and Social Work Bill, which extends further rights for young people up to the age of 25. We recognise that early trauma delays development. Foster carers and adoptive parents tell me that many of their young people struggle early on, but in their late twenties, they can be thriving, with a family, being in employment or studying. They just start later.
Dr Mark Kerr, a care leaver himself and an academic, performed a study a while ago of care leavers who were 25 year-olds and found that about 30% had attended higher education. It may not be a particularly robust study, but it indicates that many care leavers and care-experienced adults will return to higher education later, especially if we make it as attractive as possible for them.
Amendment 138A would prioritise care leavers in student protection plans, in particular recognising their vulnerability. The context for this is that young people being taken into the care of local authorities will often have from their early years profound trauma which is continued repetitively over time. They have often had a very difficult start in life. When they enter care, that can also be a traumatic experience. I fear that often, still, despite good work from all Governments to improve the situation, they experience instability in care itself. There is a lack of access to mental health services, which would be very helpful to them in recovering from past trauma. Most of them have been in foster care. Foster parents have often had a poor experience of education themselves, as the academic, Professor Sonia Jackson, has noted. That is another disadvantage for those young people, as what happens in the home is very important in their education.
For example, the mother of a young woman of my acquaintance was a crack addict. When she spoke to her children, she would say, “If you don’t come and see me, I will commit suicide”. She would also say: “Drugs are much more important to me than you are”. She liked this young woman, saying that her father had abandoned her at birth and had never shown any interest in her. Fortunately, thanks to the work of her foster parents, she was reunited at the age of 16 with her father, who disagreed with that view and they have had a good relationship since, which has been extremely important to her success. She went on to university. She made a friend or two at the start of her course but, when they discovered that she had grown up in care, they did not want to know her. She felt stigmatised. She was shunned by them. She was devastated at first by that experience but, fortunately, she met more sympathetic young women, with whom she came to share accommodation, who were immensely supportive, because she experienced bouts of depression during her degree course. She has now graduated; she provides services for care leavers; and she sits on two boards as a trustee. She has recently married an accountant, a professional. My reflection on that is that her experience at university raised her aspirations, introduced her to a whole network of friends whom she would not otherwise have met and has clearly made a huge difference to her life.
Amendment 229A would make it a priority for governing authorities to attract care-experienced young people and provide them with the right finances to be successful in their courses. Amendment 229B would ensure that such students were offered 12 months of accommodation.
These amendments are necessary because in so many ways the lives of young people in care are impoverished—often emotionally impoverished—and there may well be low expectations of what they can achieve. They lack positive role models; the milieu where they grew up may have seen a great deal of dependency on welfare, and drugs and alcohol may have been involved. We need to do all we can to give them positive role models to reach out to them at school, into children’s homes, or wherever, and show them that it is possible for them to go on to university.
Such young people also suffer because, as the Government have recognised, the system of personal advisers who hold the pathway plan for care leavers is faulty. There are no real professional standards about who personal advisers need to be; it is pretty much up to the local authority who they are. From my experience and knowledge, those advisers provide a very hit-and-miss service. Sometimes they are very good but they are the ones who help young people into employment, housing and education, so that is all the more reason why universities need to do as much as possible to reach out to them.
Accommodation is necessary, as often these young people have no family to turn to or their relationships may be destructive. Above all things in their lives, they need stability and a firm foundation. That is why having 12 months’ accommodation would be so important to them. There are all sorts of challenges for the future lives of these young people, having left care. They have no family, poor support, as I have mentioned, and they are often caught in the housing trap nowadays as more and more local authorities are without their own local council homes. They may be placing young people in private rented accommodation. Once those young people try to get a job they find that they are trapped because as soon as they start getting into employment, housing benefit reduces and they cannot afford to keep their home.
There are all sorts of challenges for these children. The advantage of access to higher and further education gives them a far better chance of succeeding into the future and avoiding the particular risk that they themselves will go on to be parents who have their own children removed into care and we just repeat the old system. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
I rise to speak in support of the desire of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for there to be a strong focus in the Bill on care leavers as a very special group of students. When we were developing our strategy for care leavers at Aston University, I was absolutely horrified to discover that care leavers at 19 were very much more likely to be in prison than at university. It seems to me that supporting care leavers at university is a much better way of spending public money than supporting them at Her Majesty’s pleasure.
I hope the Government can put something in the Bill such as the noble Earl described, or something in every university’s access agreement, to ensure that this group of very special people get a really good opportunity to be socially mobile and successful.
Lord Willetts (Con)
Noble Lords on all sides of the House appreciate the personal commitment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to this issue. However, I have to say that there has always been a long queue of people who wish, for various reasons, to exempt students from fees. My view has always been that this is an extremely dangerous route to go down. Students do not pay fees, and as soon as one implies in some way that fees are a barrier to students getting into university, one feeds a misconception that can do enormous damage. Indeed, if students from care were not, through the Exchequer, repaying these fees, that would be a loss of revenues for the university. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has recognised that because his Amendment 449A provides an alternative means of financing their education out of public expenditure.
We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, quite correctly, that we need to support more care leavers in university. If there were ever any public expenditure of the sort the noble Earl envisages in Amendment 449A, rather than devoting it to a group of students being exempt from fees that they are not going to pay anyway, it should be devoted to helping people leaving care to go to university. Exempting them from a fee that they are not going to pay anyway, or will pay only if they are in a well-paid job afterwards, is not the most effective way to help care leavers.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute, as I have in the past, to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his hard work in many areas, particularly in respect of care leavers. We worked together last year quite effectively on the Children and Social Work Bill, and made some progress in terms of government concessions; I hope that we might have some success here as well.
I am slightly disappointed to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said about exemption from fees, as that is not what is sought here, as I see it. The amendment seeks a limit on or exemption of part of the fees, but not an entire reduction. In the circumstances that is important, because we have to understand that for people leaving care even to get to university is quite an achievement in many cases. Only 5% of care leavers make it to university, compared with 38% of the population as a whole at that age. So it is incumbent on us to do what we can to offer some assistance.
The amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, cover a number of areas, which together create a package which would be of considerable assistance. People leaving care are some of the most vulnerable young adults, and they need help and encouragement to make their own way in life after a childhood that has often been devoid of the kind of settled home environment that many of us simply take for granted. For that reason, it is surely right that any care leaver who succeeds in gaining the passes necessary to be offered a university place should not be denied it due to financial constraints. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, made about a university degree leading to higher earning, and that is the general backing that the Government, and Conservatives generally, give for tuition fees. That has some traction, but in this case you are dealing with people who have had many difficulties in their lives.
We also have to think about the question of accommodation, which another of the noble Earl’s amendments touches on. Some universities already discount fees; some do not charge fees to care leavers. But another issue is what happens outwith term time. As the noble Earl said in speaking to Amendment 229B, the question of accommodation can be a crucial factor. All too often, care leavers who begin a course of study do not complete it because they have been unable to settle during holiday periods, having no settled home to go to, to the extent that they do not feel able to resume their studies.
Being in care does not prevent young people achieving a successful life, but those who have spent time in the care system are less likely than other children to achieve academic success. In many cases, there has been a gradual improvement in educational outcomes, but the rate of care leavers going to university has hardly changed in recent years. Children in care have the wealthiest parent of all—the state—yet it fails them in the most fundamental aspect of child development: education. The noble Earl’s Amendment 122 should not be seen as a cost to the public purse. In the longer term, care leavers who complete their courses will put back more than they have received—an argument understood in Scotland. Last year, the Scottish Government decided that all young people who have experience of care and who meet the minimum entry standards will be offered a place at university. Of course, although fees are not an issue in that part of the UK, those students are awarded a full bursary, which will be worth £7,600 from academic year 2017-18.
That is an example of the extra, targeted help to those who most need it, so that young people who have had life experiences that most of us can barely imagine are given an enhanced chance to succeed in building a life for themselves. Reduced tuition fees should, I believe, be automatic for care leavers, although I accept what the Minister said on Monday about not all care leavers wishing to self-identify as such. There are various reasons for that and I hope we can at least try to understand them, but we should do all that we can to minimise those reasons in offering a helping hand into higher education. The group of amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would provide a powerful means of doing so.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this issue and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for raising it. Everyone who wants to and has the ability should be able to go to university, including care leavers. We know that care leavers face specific difficulties accessing and succeeding in higher education; universities take their responsibilities in this area very seriously and progress has been made. Care leavers are recognised as a priority group by universities and a particular focus is placed on supporting them during the admissions process. It is not appropriate for government to interfere in providers’ admissions processes, as they are autonomous institutions. We are, however, introducing the care leaver covenant, so that organisations can set out the commitment that they make to care leavers. We see this as the main vehicle for engaging the higher education sector in the wider effort to improve care leavers’ outcomes. I will not have time to go into all the issues that arise under the covenant but we would like to see some more practical things being offered, such as providing dedicated contact time to support accessing and completing courses of study, and organising outreach activities, taster sessions and staff awareness sessions. We see this as primarily being the way forward.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, support for care leavers in access arrangements has grown considerably over the years. Around 80% of the access agreement actions that are agreed between the Director of Fair Access and a provider to widen participation as a condition of charging higher fees include activity to support access and success in higher education for care leavers. These include pre-entry visits to the institution, taster sessions—as I mentioned earlier—summer schools, and academic support to raise attainment. Universities frequently prioritise care leavers for financial and other support for students. Provision often includes substantial cash bursaries and fee waivers, and a named contact to assist care leavers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, most higher education institutions offer year-round accommodation for care leavers, as stated by the Buttle Trust. For those institutions that do not offer year-round accommodation, local authorities are required, as corporate parents, to ensure that suitable accommodation is available during vacation periods, as set out in the Children Act 1989. Given that this duty already exists for local authorities, we should not duplicate it for higher education institutions.
I turn to Amendments 122A and 449A. In addition to support for accommodation outside term time, local authorities must provide financial assistance to the extent that the young person’s educational needs require it, as well as a £2,000 higher education bursary. Students defined as care leavers in the student support regulations are treated as independent students when their living costs support is assessed. This means that most care leavers qualify for the maximum living-costs support package for their higher education course. For 2016-17 this was around £8,200 and £10,702 in London. Given the nature and extent of support that is offered to care leavers to equalise support and opportunity, I do not therefore consider it necessary to provide tuition fee reductions or grants for care leavers. Like other eligible students in higher education, care leavers qualify for loans to meet the full costs of their tuition.
I will move on to Amendment 138A. Student protection plans should play an essential role in ensuring that institutions have made the necessary steps to protect all their students, by offering real protection to students should their provider or course close. The OfS will issue guidance on student protection plans, which is expected to include advice on what additional or alternative protective measures should be considered for particularly vulnerable groups of students or those from disadvantaged backgrounds, such as care leavers.
Given the existing measures to support care leavers, the focus on them as a priority group by the Government, universities and the Director of Fair Access, the financial and pastoral support provided by universities, the care leaver covenant, and the progressive and relatively advantageous student finance offering that we have in place, I hope that noble Lords are in no doubt about our aspirations for care leavers to go to and succeed at university. I am not therefore convinced that these amendments are necessary to deliver our goals and I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly to my noble friend Lady Brown, who highlighted the fact that more care leavers go to prison than into higher education. I imagine that is still the case and it should give us pause for thought. I very much welcome the detail of the Minister’s response. I will withdraw the amendment but may come back on Report with a couple more to press some of these issues a little further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Goldie
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, as the Government have set out previously in this and the other place, as well as in publications, our policy is that increases in tuition fee limits must be earned by demonstrating excellent teaching quality through participation in the teaching excellence framework.
These amendments correct a small drafting error in Schedule 2 to ensure that this policy is achieved. Under the amended wording, a sub-level amount can be set at the same level as the floor level, meaning that the Secretary of State can create a fee limit that applies specifically to providers that do not participate in TEF—either because they choose not to, or because they are ineligible—and set that limit as equal to the floor level.
Let me be clear: the floor level is the baseline, minimum fee limit, which is £6,000 for those providers without an access and participation plan and £9,000 for those with an access and participation plan. We have no plans to increase these values. Within the sphere of high-quality rating, providers who achieve a gold or silver rating will get a 100% inflationary uplift, and those who achieve a bronze rating will be recognised with a 50% inflationary uplift. Without these amendments, any sub-level amount assigned to non-participating providers would need to be greater than the floor amount. That would mean that these non-participating providers would derive benefit for no reason. That is unfair and contrary to our policy intent. That is why I am speaking to these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness reflect on the point she made as she concluded her remarks when she said that the fees would remain at £6,000 and £9,000 respectively, and gave the reasons for the two different fees and the reason for the amendment? She went on to say that the Government had no plans to increase these. She knows that is not right. A statutory instrument has already been laid—a negative instrument—which we shall debate shortly in this House which seeks to increase these figures by inflation to quite significant sums above £6,000 and £9,000. Will she confirm that that is the case?
As I am on my feet, and reflecting back on the debate we had on the first group of amendments this evening, I say that it was clear from the Minister who responded that he was making play of two reasons why he would not consider the arguments made all around the Committee on the link between the TEF and the increases in fees. One of them was simply that it was a good cause but he repeated the other several times and ended up having to defend it quite vigorously—namely, that this matter was contained in the Conservative Party manifesto at the last general election. The dinner break followed very shortly afterwards and I checked the Conservative Party manifesto. I am afraid that he is wrong on that point. The manifesto says:
“We will ensure that universities deliver the best possible value for money to students: we will introduce a framework to recognise universities offering the highest teaching quality; encourage universities to offer more two-year courses; and require more data to be openly available to potential students so that they can make decisions informed by the career paths of past graduates”.
It does not make a connection between the TEF and the quality of the courses, which would mean that only those with a good rating in the TEF would get increased fees. I therefore ask him to withdraw that when he next has the opportunity to do so, because he has misled the House a little on this. It does not matter in the great scheme of things—he was going to reject the amendment anyway—but we should have the right reasons for doing that, and that was not the case.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, briefly, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on the specific matter he raised on the values for the floor levels, I can confirm that there are no plans to increase the floor level—I want to make that clear—and the inflationary uplift will be at the higher level. I hope that that clarifies the position.
“Reviews of admissions and access
The OfS must undertake or commission regular reviews, in consultation with relevant bodies, of—(a) the university admissions system, and(b) the numbers of, and range of provision available to, part-time and mature students.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I will be brief. Although the phrasing of the amendment is quite broad, the intention behind it is relatively straightforward and quite narrow. In keeping with earlier debates that we have had in Committee, our feeling was that we should do all we can to make sure that those who have a commitment to extend access to higher education to as many people as possible would share the view—I think the Government also share it—that there would be value in having a more flexible system that would, in particular, include more part-time students. It therefore seemed that there was a bit of a gap, which this proposed new clause is intended to fill. With regard to access and participation, there would be a duty on the OfS to make sure that the system of admissions ensured that those who wished to apply for university were fully apprised of the fact that there were alternative models for how they pursued their higher education careers. They should think in terms of part-time or flexible courses, since that might be in some ways better than trying to do a full-time, three-year course immediately after leaving school.
I am sure that that is in the Government’s mind and that they would accept that the underlying thinking behind this is right. The amendment may not be the best way of providing this, but I thought it was worth putting it in as a probing amendment to make sure that we get on the record the Government’s commitment to this type of approach and to the idea that the architecture of regulatory and other bodies involved in the process has this as part of their thinking. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on this amendment. It is only the OfS that will do these things when they need doing and keep an eye on them, and it ought to be part of what it is meant to do. It is far too easy for schools, colleges and universities to continue with their current practices and to grouse about what is happening. However, no individual or small collection of individuals ever has sufficient incentive to kick against the current system and to try to get a motion for change going. An example of that is post-qualification admission. I speak to a lot of schools, and a large number of them would like to move to post-qualification admission. Nothing will happen unless the OfS or a similar body decides to take a look at it. I hope that my noble friend can reassure me that, should the OfS or the Government wish to take a look at these things, they can do so without any powers beyond those provided in the Bill.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I support both the amendments in this group. I think that the arguments for post-qualification admissions are very strong and need further review. I would also welcome a mention in the Bill of part-time and mature students, who deserve to be given full consideration and are too often overlooked. I think that there is merit in both the amendments.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling a set of amendments relating to admissions. By way of preface, I listened carefully to the points made previously by your Lordships about the importance of retaining the independent and autonomous state of higher education providers. Noble Lords will recall that I yearn to see something comparable in Scotland, but I am afraid that we have lost that.
One consequence of independence is that providers are then responsible for their own admissions decisions and, rightly, government has no power to interfere in this area. Universities are best placed to identify the candidates with the talent and potential to succeed at an institution or on a particular course, and the Bill makes it clear that this will continue. Indeed, Clause 2 ensures that the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect the freedom of higher education providers to determine their own admissions criteria. Clause 35 carries forward an important requirement from existing legislation that, like the current Director of Fair Access, the OfS will have a duty to protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy over admissions.
No doubt concerns would be raised across this House and the sector about the OfS overstepping its powers if a requirement regarding admissions were included in the Bill, and those concerns would be justified. The OfS will, as part of its broader duties, want to look strategically across the HE sector and to consider the implications arising from the admissions cycle. However, we would expect the OfS to work with bodies such as UCAS to ensure that the right information was available to inform a broader picture.
UCAS is a charity, established by HE providers, with a clear role in university admissions. It can and already does undertake and publish reports into admissions on behalf of the sector. Through the Bill we are introducing a transparency duty on registered HE providers, requiring them to publish application, offer and drop-out rates broken down by socioeconomic background, ethnicity and gender, and to provide the OfS with these data.
My noble friend Lord Lucas raised post-qualification applications—an issue that has been around for a number of years. As I said earlier, the autonomy of institutions in relation to admissions is enshrined in law. The current system has many strengths, including that prospective students can apply after they have their results, through clearing.
UCAS conducted its own review of the introduction of post-qualification applications and gave a clear recommendation not to move to this system. Should further investigation of the system be desired, it is for higher education providers to instigate it. The OfS could potentially be involved, but I suggest that such a requirement should not be set out in legislation.
The Government agree that part-time and adult education bring enormous benefits to individuals, the economy and employers. Our reforms to part-time learning, advanced learning loans and degree apprenticeships provide significant opportunities for mature students to learn. Allowing new providers to enter the system should result in greater choice of HE provision for part-time and distance learning, which can greatly assist mature learners. Under Clause 2, when carrying out its functions the OfS has a general duty to have regard to the need to promote greater choice and opportunities for students, which would include more choice and opportunities with regard to part-time and mature provision. However, it is important that we keep the duties of the OfS broad and overarching so as not to overburden the organisation and so that we can enable it to function efficiently and flexibly.
Having regard to what I have just said, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment 128.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am sorry that the Government take the attitude they do to post-qualification admission. It seems to me that this is something in which schools and students should have a voice and that it should not be entirely down to universities. It distorts school education very substantially and therefore I think that it is not only the interests of universities that should be taken into account. However, I accept that the Government think differently.
Since the noble Baroness is in the business of dispensing bad news to me at the moment, can she confirm the rumour that we are to sit well past midnight on Monday?
Baroness Goldie
I have always regarded the noble Lord as my friend and I shall do my best not to alienate that happy relationship. Your Lordships will be aware that this is very significant legislation— I understand that it is unprecedented in terms of amendments. Although I have no precise timings for Monday, it may help your Lordships to know that I am given to understand that we can anticipate a long sitting, but until when, I cannot be precise about.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am sure that the usual channels will come up with an equitable solution for all concerned. I think it would be for the benefit of the House, and indeed for our ability to cope, if we all cut down our speeches quite a lot more than we are currently doing, but that is not a matter for debate at the moment. I will do my best to live up to my aspirations, although I am not very good at it.
I simply want to say that I agree with what the Minister said about the amendment because I did not ask for any additional burdens to be placed on the OfS or any issues to be raised about the autonomy of individuals and institutions and their admissions. What I asked for was that some regard should be given by OfS to commissioning regular reviews, in consultation with those bodies, in order that there be better information about the advantages of part-time and mature student routes and courses that would appeal more to those with more flexibility. However, I think that enough has been said on the record to make sure that this issue has been picked up. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, with this amendment we move to registration conditions, and a number of issues arise in this and subsequent groups in relation to these conditions. The conditions are very important and I do not think that we should skip too quickly over them, despite what I just said about trying to move forward quickly. As well as my amendments, to which other noble Lords have very kindly added their name, this group includes an interesting amendment from the right reverend Prelate. They affect some important issues and it is worth pausing slightly on each amendment as we go through.
Amendment 132 picks up the hopefully unlikely situation that if a provider was to close—or, as does happen, a course closes—there should not be any reasonable financial loss transferred to individual students. There are one or two scare stories about how difficult it is sometimes to extricate students who have commitments, particularly when a course has an overseas engagement. The amendment is valuable in that it picks up on an area that is not covered well in the Bill. However, it may not be necessary to press it if sufficient reassurances about the processes that would be applied can be given when the noble Baroness comes to respond.
Amendment 133 was an attempt to use the registration conditions contained in the Bill to, in this particular clause, try to sketch out a bit more what was meant by saying that there is a vision of what universities are in the United Kingdom. The amendment lists a range of issues that one would hope to see in these institutions, which may or may not be attractive to the Government in trying to help with their understanding of it. It is a probing amendment and deals with something that is of interest. We will read what they say in due course and think about bringing it back, if necessary.
Amendment 134 would enable the OfS to set stricter requirements for new providers to get on to the register by looking in more detail than is perhaps given in the Bill at the moment at previous history and the forecast of future sustainability. The problem we come up against is that, in considering challenger institutions, we are often talking about very small and relatively recently formed organisations, some of which may not even have proper corporate status or, indeed, the issues related to that, which I gather have been touched on in the Minister’s recent letter about what was required of an institution intending to register as a university—that was very helpful. This plays back against a little of that because there will be concerns about small institutions. They may be unwarranted but size is a factor in what may be required to sustain an institution. We need to think about track records and these entry requirements might be worth considering in that context.
With Amendment 138 we are again back to the question of what happens in the event of the failure of a course or institution. It is more about courses and focuses on simple protection plans which would make sure that there was no disruption to the studies of existing students if a particular course was pulled out, and more generally would make sure that institutions that fail have got plans in place to ensure that the students effected are not lost to the system, for example, and that there are other arrangements.
Our attention has been drawn to the phrasing of the Technical and Further Education Bill, which contains significant recommendations in this area. They do not appear in the Higher Education and Research Bill and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why we do not have the same degree of reassurance in this area as we will have when the Technical and Further Education Bill becomes law. There is a gap—it may just be because the two Bills are proceeding at a different pace—and if it is possible to look at that and bring back something on Report, it would be a good thing.
Amendment 149 relates to a technical question about what happens to students in any suspension period. At the moment the regulations are clear in general terms but they are not specific about what would happen in terms of notifying students. The student protection plan agreement should be revisited to make sure that that is covered.
Amendment 224 would ensure that when higher education providers produce an access and participation plan there is a consultation process with the students—and it gives a definition of the students who would be consulted. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 138, to which I am a signatory.
I made the point at Second Reading that a shell provision for student protection plans is not sufficient to reassure students that, in the event of institutional failure, they will be able to continue their education. I chair the Higher Education Commission and in our report, Regulating Higher Education, we stressed the need to have a strategy in place that allowed for an institution to exit the market in an orderly manner with the right level of protection in place for students.
Institutional failure would create obvious problems for students, not least in terms of disrupting their education and potentially leaving them adrift, at significant financial cost. As we argued, good governance and proper scrutiny should reduce the chances of failure, but there needs to be greater attention given to what happens when an institution does fail.
On the recommendation of HEFCE, we looked at the travel insurance industry, which participates in a sector-wide scheme to protect air passengers. We argued that this model could be applied to the HE sector, with a requirement for institutions to sign up and pay a sum per student into a fund which would cover costs in the event of failure. Our recommendation was:
“Institutions need to be better prepared for the possibility of a failure in the sector. Given the potential damage this could inflict on students and the sector as a whole, a ‘protection’ or ‘insurance’ scheme coordinated by the lead regulator should be put in place”.
I welcome the fact that the Bill recognises the need to have some student protection plan in place, but merely placing a duty on the OfS to ensure that such plans are in place is inadequate, in my view, for the purpose of providing the reassurance to students before they embark on a course of higher education that they will be able to complete it. The more new entrants come in to HE and the more a market exists, the greater the risk becomes. However, it is not the new entrants causing the potential problem; that already exists. It just exacerbates the potential.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, my colleague and right reverend friend the Bishop of Ely is unable to be in his place, but has asked me to bring before your Lordships Amendment 134A. I and he welcome the Minister’s assurances thus far for disabled students. It is very welcome that he intends to publish guidance to ensure that higher education institutions are best able to fulfil their duties to disabled students.
For any student to begin the undertaking of a university course is a large commitment. Students with disabilities may face additional challenges to those encountered by their peers, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so eloquently expressed last week—hence the importance of ensuring that adequate provision is made to allow them fully to engage with their course of study and all the other dimensions of a university education on equal terms with their fellow students who do not have a disability. In the event of a closure of their course, or even of the whole institution, plainly all students affected would face significant upheaval. For students with disabilities or other learning needs, the stakes are understandably even higher. For example, they may have specific needs around transport, specialist support, or adapted accommodation.
The numbers involved are significant. About 86,000 students in the UK—5% of all students—claim disabled students’ allowance, which, as noble Lords will know, covers those with long-term health conditions, mental health conditions and specific learning difficulties. In addition, there will be other students who are not eligible to claim DSA but who will have support needs which institutions work hard to meet. I mention only one such group: those with mental health issues, for whom we were pleased to hear of plans further to improve support arrangements in conjunction with, for instance, UUK.
That is why I ask the Minister to consider giving specific priority, when student protection plans are being drawn up and approved, to those students with these specific needs. Especially in the light of sympathy expressed so far, will Ministers and officials consider looking afresh at the explicit inclusion of those with specific needs in criteria for approving and reviewing student protection plans, as the amendment would require?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate’s amendment. We hear increasingly of mental ill-health and stress among students, so building in provision for them would be helpful.
On Amendment 138, as the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Norton, have said, it seems strange not to have such a provision in the Bill. I see in the guidance notes that the wording is not quite the same, but these same provisions have been put as “the measures for a protection plan could include”, so there seems no reason why there should not be the extra assurance of having these measures spelled out in the Bill.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, we are surely clear that the route that we are going down will mean that institutions go bust and find themselves unable to function. My noble friend the Minister said in one of his replies to me on Monday that information as to whether a university was getting near the borderline, in terms of having the ability to admit overseas students removed from it, would be concealed. So we must expect students to be faced with the closure of their courses at short notice, and we must expect the institutions running those courses to be completely incapable of helping them.
In those circumstances, we need what my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has proposed, which is a mutual scheme. That must have the ability to organise for the courses to happen—so it must have money and it must have agreement that room will be made for students. It must have enough leverage to deal with the Home Office, because any student who is looking at an extended time here to complete a course will be in real trouble—returning home; six-month waits—trying to organise extensions. It is difficult enough for a student at Imperial who needs an extra year for his PhD; it will be extremely difficult for students in a failed institution. We need some money, some clout and some organisation behind this. If it is not to be the sort of structure that my noble friend proposes, my Amendment 163 would dump the obligation to look after such students on the OfS—but it has to be somewhere.
Lord Willetts
My Lords, I welcome particularly the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas. The official doctrine has always been that a university can go bust, but I was never able to contemplate the political feasibility of a scenario where a padlock is swinging on the gates of a university, with a group of students outside desperate to go in for their history lectures and being told, “I am terribly sorry; we’re closed”, while tumbleweed blows through the campus. Indeed, Margaret Thatcher faced this in 1985 in Cardiff. She was not willing to allow University College, Cardiff to go bust. I think that we can accept that we are functioning in an environment where in reality it will be very hard just to say, “Bad luck. You’ve done 18 months of a course and it’s come to an end”.
The question is how one should address that, which gets to the heart of some quite important issues in the Bill. There has been a fashionable doctrine for a few years of the ABTA solution—and some kind of scheme like that could be made to work—but in my experience the closest we got to this problem was clearly HEFCE. It was acting as the co-ordinator, organiser and convenor. It might have been that students had to be located at several other universities and it would get different universities to make their contributions so that students would be educated. If we get into such a scenario—my noble friend Lord Lucas is absolutely right that we have to contemplate it—it is very hard to see how it could be resolved without some convening power for the OfS, which, as I have said in other contexts in this Committee stage, is in many respects the son of HEFCE. A lot of our problems will be resolved if we think of it as the son of HEFCE. My noble friend’s proposal to make it clear that there is some legal responsibility for OfS must be an important and credible part of any solution. It is not credible to imagine that the matter could be addressed via an ABTA-type scheme.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I will try to abbreviate my remarks somewhat but this is a very important group of amendments so I want to try to genuinely address some of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. Student protection and experience are important issues.
Student protection plans are important. They should be robust and offer real protection to students, should their provider or course close. The Office for Students will have overall responsibility for creating and issuing specific guidance on student protection plans. That is an important development and a very important safeguard. We expect this guidance to include the content, the process for approval and review, and the likely triggers for implementing student protection measures. The guidance will be developed as part of the regulatory framework, in consultation with the higher education sector, including bodies representing the interests of students.
In relation to the specific point raised by my noble friend Lord Norton, it is absolutely right that the OfS consults on this issue fully, and it should set out further details and best practice in guidance. We tabled an amendment to the Bill in the other place to require student protection plans to be published and therefore brought to students’ attention. That is an important step to ensure transparency in relation to these plans.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that protection from financial loss could be an important function of some student protection plans, as could measures to enable students to transfer or continue their studies, perhaps within the same institution but in a different faculty or department. Student protection plans are likely to include a diverse range of measures to protect students, reflecting the diversity of the higher education sector, together with a diverse range of possible triggers for a student protection plan, including suspension of registration.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked why we do not have the same degree of reassurance in this Bill as in the further education Bill. The different mechanisms reflect the different characteristics of students in higher and further education as learners in these two spheres. But both approaches are designed to protect the interests of students. That is something we must not lose sight of.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also raised the issue of strengthening registration conditions for new providers. That is an important matter. In determining initial and ongoing registration conditions, the OfS will assess, among other factors, a provider’s academic track record and—this is very important—its financial sustainability. I assure the noble Lord that where the OfS determines that a new provider represents a higher level of risk, it must, under the provisions already included in Clauses 6 and 7, apply more stringent, but proportionate, conditions to that provider. There is a facility to recognise where there may be an element of risk.
I wholeheartedly agree with the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely in his amendment, which were very helpfully expressed by his colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I thank him for being with us this evening. Student protection plans should be mindful of additional or particular protections that may be required for disabled students or those with special educational needs, which the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches referred to. Again, this could be made clear in the OfS guidance.
Turning to Amendment 163 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, I want to make it clear to your Lordships that there are currently no direct regulatory barriers to students moving between universities. Supporting students who wish to switch higher education institution or course is an important part of our reforms.
In relation to student experience, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised, there is no universal neat-fit template that covers all situations because student populations vary hugely in their requirements. As independent and autonomous organisations, higher education institutions are best placed to decide what experiences they can and want to offer. I do not think that that should be prescribed by government.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also raised the question of involving students in access and participation plans. I reassure the Committee that the Office for Fair Access currently expects providers to include a detailed statement on how they have involved and consulted students in the development of their plan, and the Director of Fair Access has had regard to these when deciding whether to approve a plan. Providers are encouraged, for example, to set out where students have been involved in the design and implementation of financial support packages. Some student unions run information, advice and guidance sessions to explain the support packages to ensure maximum take-up from eligible students. We fully expect this successful approach, which has developed over a number of years, to continue.
I hope these comments reassure your Lordships that these issues have not fallen off the radar screen. They are very much before us and I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Willetts
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas can speak for himself but it is worth focusing on this scenario for a few more minutes. I would be grateful if the Minister could take us through what she expects now to happen if a university gets into difficulties. I can tell her that it will end up on the Minister’s desk within a matter of hours. In my view, the Minister needs to have the power to ask the OfS to do things which ensure that those students continue to get higher education. That could supplement ABTA-type arrangements or whatever. I would be grateful for her assurance to the Committee that either the powers already exist in the legislation as drafted, or that the Government will support measures to ensure there are those powers. There will otherwise be quite a serious gap. We know from other areas, including health service legislation, that it is a fantasy to imagine, “Don’t worry, we can just leave it all to the individual universities and their ABTA arrangements—it is nothing to do with the Minister”. It will end up on the Minister’s desk and we are doing a disservice to future Ministers if they find themselves in this situation and ask, “Why on earth did nobody give me or the OfS any power to do anything in a situation like this?”, where clearly public action to convene is expected as a minimum.
Baroness Goldie
I thank my noble friend for raising significant points. Let me try to put his mind at rest. I hope he will accept that the whole thrust of the Bill is to create not just new territory for the way in which we deal with the provision of higher education in England but a set of new relationships, not the least of which is putting the student right at the core of higher education provision—perhaps doing so in a way which we have not seen before. That is to be applauded. The constitution and creation of the OfS develop a body which is not just a paper tiger. This body is given significant, meaningful and tangible powers in the Bill—powers that it will be required to deploy and use if difficult situations arise.
My noble friend posed the specific question of what will happen to students if a higher education institution goes bust. First, it is intended that the OfS will monitor the financial health of institutions and require student protection plans to be implemented if a provider is at risk of being unable to deliver a course. The OfS will not be operating in some silo or vacuum. It will actually be a hands-on and in-touch body, with its finger on the pulse to know what is happening. It will have an early indication if there are reasons for concern.
For example, if in the unlikely and very unhappy event that a higher education institution goes bust, existing students might be taught out for the remainder of their course or academic year, with provision to transfer to another institution having banked their existing credits. It would entirely depend on the terms of the student protection plan but that is indicative of how these plans have to be broad, far-reaching and flexible. The core of all this is that at the end of the day, they must provide that underpinning protection to which students are entitled.
It is currently the case with HEFCE that the Office of Students may be able to support an institution while it implements a student protection plan. It might, for example, reprofile loan repayments or provide short-term emergency support. This is very much a nuclear option because instances of a provider suddenly and without warning exiting the market completely are likely to remain extremely rare. We would expect student protection plans to be implemented as far as possible—for example, measures to financially compensate students—and the OfS to support students in transferring to alternative institutions. There is a variety of solutions, remedies and initiatives which could be deployed, and it is very clear that the powers that will be available to the OfS will make such deployment perfectly practical, reasonable and manageable. I hope that reassures my noble friend on the issues which he raised.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I have to say to the Minister, who cannot see behind her, that her noble friend was not looking that reassured.
Lord Lucas
No, I do not find myself reassured. I very much hope my noble friend may be able to write to us. The sort of protection plan she is talking about is starting to look extremely expensive. Are they going to hold a year’s fees in reserve? If we do not have some kind of mutual arrangement, each course will have to look out for itself; that is going to be extremely expensive and make new initiatives very difficult to finance. I would really appreciate a properly worked example of what happens when a university ceases to trade at relatively short notice.
Baroness Goldie
I am very happy to undertake to write to my noble friend. I have so much of interest to tell him that it will be a long letter.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
As I was saying, I do not think the Minister quite got to the heart of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about what the Minister does when this letter arrives on the desk. I think the noble Baroness managed to avoid mentioning Ministers at all. We take on board what the Minister is saying about the role of student protection plans and the institution in this. She is right to say that this has to be settled long in advance and we have to know what we are doing, but there is the question of realpolitik. When these matters arrive courtesy of the Daily Mail and land on the Minister’s desk, she is going to have to have a better answer than that. I suspect that the answer is that the power to direct the OfS will remain in the armoury given to the Minister. Although we have some reservations about that, in exceptional circumstances that will obviously be the right thing to do. I was pleased to hear that, like us, the Government accept that if the student is at the heart of this new reformed plan for higher education, the student has to have some rights and responsibilities, and they have to be real and exercisable. The letter should try to cover that journey in these extreme situations.
I am, however, left with Amendment 138 and its drafting. I think the Minister said that it is not necessary to bring it into the current Bill from the Technical and Further Education Bill because the institutions are different. These institutions will probably be offering a similar number of courses around degree apprenticeships, and higher education is often provided in further education situations, so I do not think that argument sustains itself. Will the Minister write to us about the reasons for not including these rather well-worked-through arrangements, which seem to answer all the questions she has been asked, as they exist in legislation which we are about to consider and could, with very little effort, be copied into the current Bill? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Desai
“( ) a condition requiring that all student assessments, written and otherwise, including assessed dissertations at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, are either—(i) robustly blind marked to ensure the identity of the student is not known to the marker, or(ii) where it is unavoidable or probable that the identity of the student will be known to the marker, secondarily marked by an independent marker to whom the identity of the student is unknown.”
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 133B. They are pretty straightforward. They concern the notion that students should not feel that they are being discriminated against; they should not actually be discriminated against and they should not perceive that they are being discriminated against. The suggestion is that there should be blind-testing as far as possible—and if blind-testing is not possible, there should be a second examiner who should not know the name of the students.
Amendment 133B applies the same principle to admissions. BAME students in particular feel the possibility of discrimination, so this is to reassure them. I beg to move.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I learned earlier this evening that he taught at the University of Pennsylvania, as did I and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. That university is about to be further distinguished by the fact that one of its alumni is to become President of the United States in two days’ time. But I did not agree with his saying that it is easy to assess university teaching, partly because of the mixture of research that is involved with teaching and the difficulties of making judgments in that area.
I will come to this issue in Amendment 189, in my name, but there is a real danger that the Government are aiming for a spurious scientificity in their attempt to deal with the problem. On the other hand, Amendments 133A and 133B hit on something that can and should be dealt with to protect students’ interests. It shows greater objectivity in the treatment of students, which is all the more necessary in the epoch we are now in, when these matters are greatly disputed, much more than they were a generation ago. Broadly speaking, it is easier, and I think more appropriate, to meet the requirements of the government manifesto by aiming at things which actually hit at what I might call the fecklessness of university teachers—not marking properly or quickly enough, not being good enough at getting in contact, not replying to emails. Those are things that legislation should be aiming to correct to protect teachers, but it should not aim at a spurious scientific metric, which is quite a dangerous thing to do.
The thinking behind Amendments 133A and 133B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is very solid and goes to the heart of putting, as the Minister said, the student and the legitimate protection of the student’s interests at the heart of things, rather than seeking a bogus popularity among students. This is a legitimate concern for students and they have a right to be protected in this matter.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, as someone who is not an academic, I find it quite surprising that amendments of this sort should be necessary, but given that they have been moved and supported by very long-established academics, it is clear that there is an issue here. I thought that that blind-marking assessment was what happened all the time in the established universities, but it may not be the situation in some of the newer or smaller providers, and the question is what will happen with some of the future providers. To me, this is something any student should have a right to expect. Nobody, whatever their background, should be discriminated against, consciously or unconsciously, by whoever is involved in marking an assessment. If we are being told by academics, as it appears we are, that these amendments are necessary, I would certainly want to support them. I hope the Minister will take it in good faith that they are necessary.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for tabling these amendments, which speak to concerns about unconscious bias in admissions and assessment, which I know we all take very seriously. As we have established, institutional autonomy is a vital principle for higher education, and academic freedom will continue to be protected through the Bill. I suggest the matters raised in these amendments are for individual institutions to take their own decisions on, as independent and autonomous bodies.
Amendment 133A would add a new requirement to Clause 13 to ensure that judgments made by higher education staff when making an assessment of a student’s work are not pre-determined by knowledge of the student whose work is under consideration. Under the current quality system, this is covered by the UK Quality Code. Expectations and guidance to ensure that judgments of student performance are based on the extent to which the student is able to demonstrate achievement of the corresponding intended learning outcomes are of course the essence of what is intended by that quality code. Indeed, all providers are expected to abide by the requirements of the quality code, and that will continue under the OfS. We would not want to undermine the flexibility of providers to achieve a fair assessment by introducing a new level of prescription, which the amendment would do. We do not feel that would be in the best interests of providers or indeed of students.
Lord Desai
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and my noble friend Lord Watson, and of course the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, with the agreement of the Committee, and in the hope that we can get through a bit more business, I was going to suggest that we move very quickly through this group of amendments, which are largely in my name—although there is also one in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—in order to get one more group of amendments in before we finish. We shall see how we get on.
The reason for my saying that is that although at the core of this group is the question of academic freedom, which I know the noble Baroness wants to speak about—I ask her to do so as soon as I sit down—the other amendments are about a list of principles in the Bill, and play to questions of institutional autonomy, academic freedom and the practice of what universities are about. Much of that was covered in the debate on Amendment 1 on the first day in Committee, so it is not necessary to make these arguments in detail, and I ask the Minister not to spend much time on them; indeed, they will come up again later. I will give way to the noble Baroness if she wants to make some remarks, because she has a taxi waiting.
Baroness Deech
My Lords I appreciate the kindness of the House in allowing me to speak to my Amendment 166, which is a little different from the others in the group. I make no apology for returning to the issue of academic freedom. When it was discussed in relation to Amendment 65 on the first day of Committee, the Government’s response was that academic freedom is already enshrined in Clause 14 as one of the principles that must be in the governing documents of a university. The amendment before us goes further in that it extends the principle of academic freedom to every person and body under the Bill, including the OfS and its satellite bodies. Moreover, it will apply directly to the university in its everyday operations, not just in its governance documents. There will be nothing to stop a future Secretary of State removing that principle rather than, as in the past, finding that power only in the Privy Council.
There is also concern that the new Clause 1, which was passed by this House, which mentions academic freedom, might not survive Commons scrutiny. All our freedoms, including those in the convention on human rights, are circumscribed by law, which changes from time to time, so academic freedom—limited here to academic staff, not visiting lecturers, students or auxiliary staff—is subject to the criminal law. There is a lot of law circumscribing academic freedom and freedom of speech, including terrorism, equality and discrimination law. Academic staff are free to hold conferences at the university, but will not have protection —rightly so—if that conference promotes racial hatred or gender discrimination. I have often wondered about the example of a medical lecturer teaching students how to perform female genital mutilation, as opposed to how to how to discover it or take remedial action.
The extent of the teaching excellence framework also risks infringing on academic freedom if it goes as far as to tell a lecturer what, or perhaps how, to teach his or her class. We remain in dangerous water and the amendment is sorely needed. It is also a safeguard for lecturers against students’ censoriousness in this age of safe spaces and snowflake undergraduates. A lecturer must be able to lecture, despite the disapproval of his colleagues and students. I instance an LSE lecturer, Dr Perkins, whose well-researched views on benefits and their recipients were not welcome. The amendment would also incorporate the human rights of freedom of expression, assembly, thought and belief. It is sadly necessary that this be repeated as a direct responsibility on each university.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I very much regret delaying things at this hour, but I ask for a clarification on Amendment 139, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. It states that an English higher education provider is a higher education provider in England: we go back to this territory. I thank the Minister very much for the letter that was quickly sent to those of us who asked about it, but the clarification provided in the letter does not meet the need.
The letter states: “If an overseas university wishes to set up a base in England and wishes to appear on the register for its students to be potentially eligible for student support and to apply for English degree-awarding powers and university title, but most of its students are based overseas, then it will need to set up a presence in England as a separate institution”. It is not clear to me whether that separate institution is incorporated under English law or could be incorporated under other laws. That needs clarification. I think the letter is intended as a clarification of Clause 77. However, I do not think it really takes account of the reality of contemporary distance learning, because it continues: “But if it was the case that such an overseas university had more students based in England and overseas, it would be able to meet the definition set out at Clause 77 without establishing a separate institution in England”. The OfS will of course have to apply a risk-based approach to regulating such institutions and could impose stricter initial or ongoing registration conditions where it considered that such an institution presented a greater degree of regulatory risk.
If this overseas institution that has a majority of its students in England is not incorporated under English law, I am not clear how this will work. Maybe I am being thick about this but I think I can imagine an overseas institution that is primarily teaching via MOOCs that has, as it happens, more students registered in England than it has registered in whatever jurisdiction it is incorporated in. I ask myself whether that is an adequate protection. Would we need to be clear that an English higher education provider or the sub-institution it sets up be incorporated under English law? In particular, would any holding of property or funds by that subsidiary institution have to be under English law?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, in the interests of brevity I shall write a full letter addressing the main amendments in this clause. Just before I conclude, I want to say that the issue focuses on the provider which carries on some of its activities outside England. The only proviso is that it must carry out most of its activities in England. We are focusing on the English higher education provider.
The amendments, particularly Amendments 140 and 164, go to the important principle of academic freedom that we all agree underpins the success of our higher education sector. I believe that there is no difference of view on that matter. As I said earlier this week, the Minister in the other place and I are reflecting on this issue, taking account of the views that we have heard in this place. I listened carefully to the comments raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and, as a result of the letter that she received today, the very best thing to suggest is that I will meet her to take her points further and/or write to her.
While I understand and sympathise with the intention behind all these amendments—I promise that I will follow up with a full letter and the new clause—I do not think they are necessary, and ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Just before I conclude, I want to clarify one point and to address the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who asked me to clarify my position on the linking of the TEF fees. I have also had time to check the Conservative manifesto. I agree that the manifesto commitment was to introduce a TEF, and I want to make this quite clear to the House.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for that clarification. I am sure that we will return to the issue on a more substantive basis in the future.
I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for raising that question. I almost did a little riff at the beginning because I wanted to explain why my amendment looks like nonsense; the world of Alice in Wonderland came to mind. It was precisely because of my frustration because I could not get my mind round what was meant by an English higher education provider, and whether that was different from a higher education provider in England, and what did it all mean anyway? I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will write again about that because, like the noble Baroness, I have read the letter, but only briefly, and I do not think that it clarifies exactly where we need the clarification, which is: what is the constitutional position and where could these places be sued since it is all now on a contractual basis? Until we know how they are constituted and where they are, we will not be able to do that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lisvane
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee on the Bill, I should declare, as I did at Second Reading, that I am one of the founders of the New Model in Technology & Engineering university to be established in Herefordshire —and I am most grateful to the Minister for his mention of that in earlier proceedings. I am also an honorary fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall be as quick as I can with this slightly technical set of amendments, all but one of which are concerned with the concept of legal certainty. In each case, they seek to raise the standard required. The Bill allows the OfS to take action “if it appears” to the OfS that particular circumstances have arisen. The actions are rather serious ones—imposing monetary penalties; suspending registration; deregistering; or refusing to renew an access and participation plan.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment. I shall not repeat how subjective the test is,
“if it appears to the OfS”—
but it is entirely subjective. These are very wide-ranging powers that are envisaged; they are very serious powers that will be exercised. Of course, as the Minister said on 9 January, they are powers that will have to be exercised reasonably, not on a whim, and would be subject to a judicial review—but a judicial review of such a decision would succeed only if the decision made by the OfS were unreasonable in a particular legal sense, so that no body exercising these particular powers in this situation could have exercised them in this way. It will not succeed merely because the decision is wrong.
If I may make it more personal, two reasonable people can disagree with each other and both can still be reasonable. If the Minister disagrees with me—perhaps he will, perhaps he will not—I may respectfully suggest to him that he is wrong, but I would certainly not suggest to him that he was being unreasonable. It is a point of view. There is a great deal to be noticed in the context of what the reasonable exercise of powers actually amounts to.
These amendments are designed, as I see it, to secure from the outset that the office must believe that there are reasonable grounds for its decision to deploy its statutory powers. Framed in this way, the grounds for relief can themselves be examined. Although there are passages in the schedule which deal with that, it would encourage greater thought and analysis being given to any process of deploying the draconian powers that are being vested in the office.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I do not rise to add anything to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—I am not able to do so; the points they make sound very sensible and backed up with legal opinion. I hope that the Minister will take them on board. I rise on an amendment on which I and my colleagues have no involvement to make the more general point that I am sure that the Minister is going to say, “This is all very well, it sounds fine, but it’s not necessary—in the best of all worlds it will all be fine”. It is getting very tiresome. This is not the way in which legislation is meant to progress in your Lordships’ House. There have been absolutely zero concessions so far from the Government since the Bill came to your Lordships’ House. It is inconceivable that anyone outside looking in would accept that every amendment put forward is unnecessary or does not fit in with the Bill. That cannot be the case. I say in all good faith to the noble Viscount the Minister—and to the noble Baroness the Minister—that I am not making a political point as it is not one of my amendments but, with so many amendments on this Bill, they cannot all simply be turned down flat. I hope that he will bear that in mind, if not on this group of amendments then as we move forward.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I shall address the points raised by the noble Lord directly. He will know that we are and have been listening and that I gave some very warm words on certain amendments on the previous day in Committee. I therefore ask him to take back that point. I think that it is uncalled for, if I may say so.
I want to be brief in responding to this group of amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for raising these issues. I will be brief, as they were. The Bill states that the OfS may take these actions if it appears to the OfS that a breach of conditions has occurred. While I understand and respect the honourable intentions of noble Lords here, this test is used in other legislation, as I have mentioned before. For example, under Section 151(1)(a) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, Ofqual may impose monetary penalties on a body that it has recognised for the purpose of awarding or authenticating certain qualifications where,
“it appears to Ofqual … that a … body has failed … to comply with any condition to which the recognition is subject”.
This provision has been in force since 1 May 2012.
It is also the case that the usual public law considerations will apply so that the OfS may be legally challenged if it acts irrationally or unreasonably or fails to follow the proper procedure. The OfS, as a public body, must at all times act reasonably and proportionately in accordance with public law when exercising its powers. In addition, before suspending a registration, imposing a penalty or deregistering a higher education provider, the OfS must give the reasons for the action. Decisions to deregister or to impose a penalty are subject to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. So it is my belief that,
“it appears to the OfS”,
requires the OfS to make a judgment and take responsibility for its decisions—and that, we believe, is the right approach. The OfS is obliged under Clause 2(1)(f) to regulate in a,
“transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent”,
way. It is in all of our interests to want a more engaged OfS applying its judgment flexibly and sensibly. And Clause 2 of the Bill is relevant here too—making it clear that the OfS must follow the principles of best regulatory practice, including that its regulatory activities should be,
“transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and … targeted only at cases in which action is needed”.
I think it is best that I write in full on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, when he spoke to Amendment 159. Therefore, without further ado, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 142.
Lord Lisvane
I am very grateful to the Minister. If I may borrow the phraseology of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, I think this may well be an occasion on which two entirely reasonable people can disagree without either one of them being unreasonable. Given that, the lateness of the hour and the delightful promise of another of the noble Viscount’s splendid letters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.