House of Commons
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 10 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, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
I had an introductory call with Secretary Jim Mattis last Monday. We discussed our joint leadership in NATO, including modernising the alliance and encouraging all members to meet the 2% spending commitment. On Friday, President Trump confirmed he is 100% committed to NATO. We also plan to work together to accelerate the defeat of Daesh in Iraq and Syria. I look forward to meeting Secretary Mattis at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting in a fortnight’s time.
John Nicolson
The new American President supports the torture of prisoners of war. We do not and neither does the new Secretary of Defence. May I ask the Secretary of State not to reiterate the Government’s position, but instead tell us why he thinks a proponent of torture is an appropriate recipient of a state visit?
Sir Michael Fallon
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the Government’s position absolutely clear. We do not condone the use of torture in operations and nor does the new American Secretary of Defence, Jim Mattis. As I understand it, the President of the United States has made it clear that he will be guided by those in his Cabinet. On this issue, they are taking a different view.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
In my right hon. Friend’s discussions, did he mention Chancellor Merkel’s call for the remaining EU 27 to engage in closer military co-operation? Does he agree that it would be extremely dangerous and damaging to NATO if such co-operation was within the confines of the EU alone, and that co-operation between European countries should be in the context of NATO, not the EU?
Sir Michael Fallon
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. At the Warsaw summit in July last year, all NATO members agreed to improve collaboration between NATO and the European Union, particularly in areas such as hybrid warfare and strategic communications. EU Ministers have subsequently resisted the call for unnecessary duplication with what NATO is already doing.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
When countries announce xenophobic and destabilising policies, does the Defence Secretary think the right thing to do is to appease them?
Sir Michael Fallon
If the hon. Lady is referring to the United States, then as the United States’ deepest long-standing ally we will of course make our views known. Our Prime Minister was the first foreign leader to meet the new President. We will continue to offer the United States our candid advice.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister securing the President’s 100% support for NATO, along with General Mattis’s support for NATO, is hugely encouraging, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that some of the less than helpful remarks the President might have made about NATO in recent weeks and months are actually quite a useful wake-up call to NATO? We need to modernise some aspects of the administration of NATO, and we need to say to our NATO partners that they have to step up to the mark and pay their 2% like we do.
Sir Michael Fallon
Exactly. The new President has called for NATO members to fulfil the commitments we agreed—the UK and the United States agreed—back at the Wales summit in 2014. A number of other NATO members still have a long way to go to meet the 2% target. We also agree with the new President that we need to continue to modernise NATO to make it effective as a response and as a deterrent.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
What is the Defence Secretary’s attitude to the prospect of the US conducting joint operations with Russia in Syria, an idea floated by the President?
Sir Michael Fallon
The United States and Russia already have an understanding on operations in Syria that they will de-conflict their air operations. Our own aircraft, where they are in similar areas, are covered by that understanding. We see no plans from the American Government, inside the coalition, to co-operate more fully with Russia.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Cover to the Baltic states has been extended to Romania, given Russia’s direct threat to that country. What reassurance can the Defence Secretary give to the Baltic states, which are very nervous about an assertive and aggressive Russia?
Sir Michael Fallon
That is why we agreed, at Warsaw last summer, to deploy troops to all three Baltic states. Britain will be leading the enhanced forward presence by deploying a battalion there in Estonia, and contributing troops to the American battalion deployed in Poland, to deter Russia from any further aggression towards those countries.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
This weekend, we have been shocked and appalled by the US President’s decision to impose a blanket travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim majority nations. To do this on Friday, which was Holocaust Memorial Day, only adds to the horror and outrage that we feel. Has the Secretary of State made clear to his US counterparts that there is no place for such measures in the fight against terrorism, and that such actions only inflame tensions and risk losing valuable allies, such as Iraq, who are with us in the fight against Daesh?
Sir Michael Fallon
The hon. Lady and indeed the House may have the opportunity to discuss this matter a little later on, when a statement is made more formally about immigration policy, but let me be very clear that we look forward to working with a new United States Administration on the battle against Daesh. That includes, of course, measures to prevent and reduce radicalisation.
Nia Griffith
Many of us have also been embarrassed by and ashamed of our Prime Minister, who for all her rhetoric on Britain leading the world, decided to hold Trump’s hand instead of holding him to account. Her belated and limp reply of “We do not agree” was pathetic, especially when compared with Chancellor Merkel, who spelled out that even the necessary and determined fight against terrorism does not justify placing people of a certain origin or belief under general suspicion. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that if President Trump issues defence-related Executive orders that infringe national law or are an affront to humanity, the UK Government’s response will be prompt, robust and unequivocal?
Sir Michael Fallon
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister conducted a very prompt and successful visit to the United States, and was able to secure from the new President a 100% commitment to the NATO alliance and to work with him on a number of the issues that we deal with jointly, including the coalition against Daesh.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
The Government and the Royal Navy recognise the benefits of supporting the Sea Cadets and provide support through a grant in aid payment. This is paid to the Marine Society & Sea Cadets through a memorandum of understanding, which also sets out further support with regard to the provision of personnel, accommodation and training.
Scott Mann
I recently had the pleasure of meeting the Padstow Sea Cadets and their chairman, and fantastic work is done there. The chairman expressed concerns to me about some of their fixed costs, such as some of their utilities, insurance premiums, transport costs and tuition fees. Will the Minister look at this again, and see if he could make a contribution to the fixed costs of the service?
Mark Lancaster
The grant in aid payment to the Marine Society & Sea Cadets is currently £10 million. The MOU between the Royal Navy and the MSSC, which is currently under review, will ensure that there continues to be Royal Navy support for the Sea Cadets. I would be more than happy to ensure that discussions on property issues will continue.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
Female sea cadets make up just a third of all such cadets. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to encourage more females to join the Sea Cadets?
Mark Lancaster
It must be said that female representation in the Sea Cadets is actually higher than it is in the armed forces, but it is a matter that the Government take very seriously. We have set several targets to ensure that our armed forces are viewed as being open to both men and women, and we will continue to pursue that over the coming years.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Mark Lancaster
I think Milton Keynes may actually be further from the sea than Kettering, and we also have a thriving Sea Cadet unit. I am a great fan of the cadets. I started my military life in the Air Cadets some 32 years ago. It is something that I valued enormously. That is why I like to think that I am one of the greatest champions for the cadet forces.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
At the Wales summit, NATO agreed that security depends on both how much we spend and how we spend it. All 28 allies committed to meeting the defence investment pledge. The United Kingdom already meets NATO’s spending targets, and will continue to do so for the rest of this decade. I regularly encourage all allies similarly to meet this commitment.
James Berry
It is right for all NATO members to meet the 2% spending commitment which we make sacrifices here to meet, but in the course of his discussions on spending and NATO deployments, has my right hon. Friend met anyone who believes that deploying troops to a NATO ally’s territory is escalatory?
Sir Michael Fallon
The battalions that NATO is deploying to the Baltic states and Poland are combat-ready forces, but they are defensive in nature, and constitute a proportionate response to deter Russian aggression in the region. The only people who believe this deployment to be escalatory are President Putin and the leader of the Labour party. It is extraordinary that the official Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to back the deployment of British troops in Europe, but now favours some kind of demilitarised zone.
Chris Davies
Discussions are taking place in the European Union about an EU defence system. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that commitments on the part of our European allies to this new so-called EU army do not contradict commitments to spending 2% of GDP on defence?
Sir Michael Fallon
There is no agreement in the EU on the proposal for an EU army. We continue to make clear that nothing should undermine NATO, which remains the cornerstone of European defence, and we continue to press for closer co-operation between the EU and NATO. It is a fact, however, that 18 of the 22 EU members of NATO do not spend 2% of their GDP, and have much more to do to enable NATO to face the threats that confront it.
Simon Hoare
The Prime Minister played a blinder last week with the President of the United States in stiffening his sinews with regard to NATO, but President Trump’s vacillation in that regard over the last few weeks clearly exposes a weakness in NATO in respect of the many countries which do not pay that 2%. May I urge my right hon. Friend to make every effort that he can to ensure that those countries understand that we cannot always rely on the United States of America?
Sir Michael Fallon
There we agree with President Trump. Since making the defence investment pledge, the majority of allies have increased their spending in real terms, but it is still too low: 19 of the NATO 28 spend less than 1.5%, and five NATO members—by no means the poorest—do not even spend 1%. We will continue, with the United States, to encourage all allies to meet those spending commitments.
Jack Lopresti
As well as encouraging our NATO allies to maintain the spending of 2% of GDP on defence, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they do not achieve the 2% by including extraneous items such as pensions and other administration costs, rather than investing in frontline capability?
Sir Michael Fallon
The expenditure that NATO classifies as meeting or not meeting the 2% is something for NATO to judge against its own guidelines. I note that our own Defence Committee commended the Government’s commitment to UK defence and found that our accounting criteria fell firmly within existing NATO guidelines, but ultimately, as I have said, this is a matter for NATO to judge.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Since the Wales summit, 22 NATO countries have increased their defence spending in real terms, and 20 of them have increased it as a percentage of GDP. The number of allies spending 20% of their overall defence expenditure on equipment modernisation has also risen from eight to 10. Is the real risk to NATO not, in fact, defence spending, but a move away from transatlantic solidarity, which the present President is in danger of taking forward?
Sir Michael Fallon
Of course we welcome the increases in defence spending that have taken place—the baton is moving in the right direction—but I hope the hon. Lady agrees that a number of countries, including some that are quite wealthy, are still a long way from meeting the 2% target, and, in some cases, the 20% target as well. As for her latter point, I agree with her: this is a north Atlantic alliance, and it is extremely important for all of us to continue to assure the United States that that alliance is as much in the interests of the United States as it is in our interests here in Europe.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I think we should hear from a Lancashire knight: Sir David Crausby.
Sir David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Now that the United States of America has clearly become a less stable and reliable NATO partner, how pragmatic is the 2% spending target, and what consideration has the Secretary of State given to allocating more time for European defence, or is European defence simply not fashionable any more?
Sir Michael Fallon
So far as our partnership with the United States is concerned, it is the broadest, deepest and most advanced defence partnership in the world, and my aim is to continue to strengthen it with the new Administration, particularly in the shared programmes we have on the joint strike fighter aircraft and in the reinstatement of our maritime patrol aircraft capability.
So far as European defence is concerned, I believe that the President’s remarks during the campaign and subsequently are a wake-up call to all of us in Europe to make sure that when we make these commitments, we honour them.
Mr Speaker
I am sure the Secretary of State meant graciously to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Sir David Crausby) upon his knighthood, but as he did not, I do so on his behalf.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
The National Audit Office reports that the procurement budget will reach its peak in 2020-23, at a time when massive and vital projects such as the F-35, Ajax and the Type 26 and 31 programmes will reach their peak. Our NATO partners such as the United States have a much more thorough oversight of procurement projects, something that can be undertaken here only by the Defence Committee or the Single Source Regulations Office. What plans does the Secretary of State have to increase the oversight of these massive projects, to ensure that we not only meet the 2% GDP target, but our capability is delivered on time, on budget and—
Mr Speaker
I think we have got the general drift, and we are deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Michael Fallon
The hon. Gentleman knows that we are increasing the equipment budget with a programme of £180 billion of spending over the next 10 years, and we have taken a number of steps to improve the delivery of that programme to ensure that, as he says, these major projects are delivered on time and to budget. We have also, of course, established the SSRO to ensure we get best value for money for the taxpayer.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Despite the Government’s huffing and puffing, it is now very clear that their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence is more apparent than real. The Government are only able to say that they are achieving the 2% goal because they are including areas such as retired MOD civilian personnel pensions in their calculations, and my question is quite simple: will the Secretary of State instead commit to using the same method of calculation as Labour did at 2010?
Sir Michael Fallon
On the return we file to NATO, I have already told the House that it is for NATO to decide whether or not that expenditure is properly allocated, and the allocations we have made have been endorsed by a Select Committee of this House. Let me remind the House that our defence expenditure this year is £35 billion; next year it will be £36 billion, the following year £37 billion, and in the last year of this Parliament, £38 billion. It goes up every year.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Government are certainly not breaking any NATO rules in calculating the 2%, but may I remind Ministers and hon. Members that 2% is a minimum? It is not a target, and we used to spend much more than 2% in the cold war years, as recently as the 1980s. Does the Secretary of State agree that even if all our NATO European allies were to meet the 2% pledge as a minimum, we would still be unable to deter an aggressive Russia without the wholehearted involvement of the United States, which is why the Prime Minister’s visit to President Trump was so absolutely important?
Sir Michael Fallon
I had been hoping over the last few days to find something on which my right hon. Friend and I can agree, and we have now done so, because I absolutely endorse both legs of his proposition. The 2% is a minimum, and we comfortably exceed it at the moment, but it is important that other countries meet it, and, overall, it is important that the alliance continues to improve its investment.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
On Friday, the National Audit Office placed a serious question mark against the Government’s 2% commitment. Its report revealed that in order to fulfil the defence equipment plan following the collapse of the pound post-Brexit, the Ministry of Defence will have to use all its £11 billion contingency fund and make a further £6 billion of savings in defence spending across the board. Given that Trident is ring-fenced, will the Secretary of State tell the country whether it will be hard-pressed defence personnel and our conventional capabilities that will bear the brunt of those cuts?
Sir Michael Fallon
No. We have always been able to maintain conventional and nuclear forces in the past. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the scale and success of our equipment programme depends on our securing and releasing the efficiencies to which we committed at the time of the strategic defence review, and that work is now in hand.
Brendan O’Hara
The National Audit Office report cast further doubt on the Type 26 programme:
“Major changes to the requirement for the Type 26 Global Combat Ship mean that costings for this…will be unclear until 2018.”
With an ageing fleet in desperate need of renewal, a looming budgetary crisis and the uncertainty caused by Brexit, cuts to numbers, and delays, how does the Secretary of State intend to make good on the promise to maintain 19 destroyers and frigates in the Royal Navy? For how much longer does he believe that the Royal Navy can respond to global threats with its current fleet?
Sir Michael Fallon
We set out our commitment to the size of the fleet in the strategic defence review. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the budget for the Type 26 frigate, which is designed to protect the deterrent that he does not want to keep; that seems an odd project to be worried about. The terms of that contract have yet to be finalised, but I can assure him that the expansion of the Royal Navy is fully funded.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
With a rising defence budget and equipment plan worth £178 billion over 10 years, there are great opportunities to encourage innovation. We are spending up to 20% of our science and technology budget on research, creating an £800 million innovation fund and launching a defence and security accelerator to fund great innovative ideas fast.
Mary Robinson
Thales in Cheadle is a global centre for innovation and excellence in underwater combat systems and sonar. The delivery of that technology relies on the retention of high-tech skills. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to ensure that we continue to encourage the right environment for firms such as Thales and for smaller firms in my constituency by investing in complex engineering skills training and development to support innovation?
Harriett Baldwin
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the recently launched skills strategy, which is called “Securing Defence Skills for the Future”. The Ministry of Defence and the armed forces are already the biggest provider of apprenticeships in the UK. I know that Thales also runs highly competitive apprenticeships and graduate training programmes, and that it is particularly committed to increasing the number of women with these skills.
John Howell
How can small firms in my constituency that have great, innovative ideas bring them to the MOD without getting caught up in a bureaucratic procurement process?
Harriett Baldwin
I am sure that my hon. Friend noticed that, on Thursday, I launched the Enduring Challenge, which is run by the defence and security accelerator. It is designed to be a simple front door allowing anyone with a great idea that could benefit UK defence and security to enter into defence. The funding for that will be available throughout the year. On the other side of that door are helpful innovation partners who will guide small firms through a simplified procurement process, and I encourage firms from across the UK to visit the accelerator website on gov.uk to see how they can develop the next world-beating idea.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
But in order to innovate, companies must have markets and customers. President Trump has clearly proclaimed that he intends to buy American, so will the Minister assure us that, whether it is high-tech equipment, cars or supplies, her Department will actually start to buy British?
Harriett Baldwin
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are of course the industry’s biggest customer. He will also know that there are great examples of international collaboration. For example, we are purchasing 138 planes from the 3,000 in the F-35 programme, and 15% of each of those 3,000 planes is being built in the north-west of England. We have also been selected as the global hub for the repair and maintenance of those planes.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
How are the UK Government helping defence suppliers to innovate and secure part of the £1.4 billion that is spent on repairing the UK’s nuclear weapons systems? Does the Minister agree that it would help those suppliers if there was transparency and accountability about the weapons not working effectively?
Harriett Baldwin
That is another example of where we work closely with companies in the defence supply chain on a range of ways in which they can innovate. We put a premium on innovation right across the defence industrial base, and the right hon. Gentleman draws attention to one of the areas where human innovation has been outstanding.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)
The UK has a leading role in NATO’s enhanced forward presence. In Estonia, we are providing the framework battalion of around 800 military personnel, which is based around 5th Battalion the Rifles, an armoured infantry unit from Bulford that is equipped with Warrior armoured fighting vehicles. The battle group will also have Challenger 2 tanks from the Queen’s Royal Hussars and tactical unmanned aerial vehicles.
Daniel Kawczynski
Our Polish partners and allies will obviously appreciate such rotational deployments, but the Minister will know that they are keen to have a permanent NATO base east of Warsaw. Can he envisage that happening during the course of this Parliament?
Mike Penning
I had the pleasure of meeting my Polish counterpart only the other week. Not only did we discuss the deployment of 150 personnel and Jackal vehicles from the Light Dragoons, but I congratulated them on their spending 2% of GDP on defence. I heard what they said about NATO, but that is a matter for our NATO colleagues.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I learned a great deal about NATO on my very first visit to the United States, when I became a green card holder, so I am particularly worried about what is happening with immigration in the US. In the 1960s, NATO was the bedrock of our defence in Europe; it still is today. We need a stronger NATO and must convert President Trump into a great, positive supporter of the defence of Europe.
Mike Penning
I learned an awful lot about NATO when I was in uniform with the British Army of the Rhine back in the ’70s and ’80s. Our American allies were with us then, and they are with us today. We need to ensure that America is 100% behind NATO—that commitment has gone through—and the Labour party leadership should be, too.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Mike Penning
I could not agree more with my colleague. One thing that I know as a former serviceman is that our armed forces need to know that the country is behind them. I hope that the entire House will support our troops as they deploy to eastern Europe.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
The Prime Minister has set out our commitment to continuing to work closely with European allies and partners on shared defence and security priorities. We are already making a significant contribution to a wide range of European security challenges, and this year, in addition to undertaking our normal exercises, we will deploy troops to Estonia and Poland, and fighter jets to Romania.
Stephen Timms
The UK has long played a leading role in EU missions, including Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean and Operation Atalanta off the horn of Africa. Given the renewed commitment expressed by the Prime Minister, to which the Secretary of State has drawn attention, does he intend us to continue participating in EU missions after we leave the EU?
Sir Michael Fallon
These are voluntary missions in which we participate not simply because they are European, but because they are in our own national interest—curbing piracy off the horn of Africa, bringing peace to the Balkans and helping to stop the flow of migrants across the Mediterranean. The right hon. Gentleman is right that we will have the opportunity, if we wish to do so, to co-operate with our European partners on future missions where it is in our national interest.
Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the answers to earlier questions illustrate that we punch above our weight compared with many of our European partners, both in terms of spending and in terms of deployments to protect the eastern flank of Europe? Does he further agree that that is something that our European neighbours would do very well to keep in mind as we negotiate a new relationship with them after Brexit?
Sir Michael Fallon
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his knighthood, as I should earlier have congratulated the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Sir David Crausby). My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to continue to improve the effectiveness of our work within the European Union and NATO.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The 2015 strategic defence and security review considered the pressures on allies, and the undermining of our military and economic alliances and institutions, to be possible risks. With the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that we will mitigate the economic risk, especially given foreign currency fluctuations? The National Audit Office pointed out that the fluctuations pose a “significant risk” to the national equipment plan.
Sir Michael Fallon
I will not comment—the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to—on the current level of sterling vis-à-vis the dollar or the euro. Suffice it to say that the Ministry, like any other large organisation, takes precautions against fluctuations in currency rates. It is far too early to say—indeed, it is wrong to speculate—where those exchange rates will eventually settle down.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Ministry of Defence’s permanent secretary has said that the European Union is “operationally irrelevant” to defence, but does my right hon. Friend agree with me that there are many areas where there is room for continued collaboration, particularly on a project-by-project basis, through the European Defence Agency?
Sir Michael Fallon
The permanent secretary agrees with me on these matters. Of course, after we leave the European Union, we will still have the largest defence budget in Europe, the largest Navy in Europe and some major capabilities that our other partners do not have. We will continue to collaborate with our partners, including key allies such as France and Germany, but also northern European allies, on different programmes. Our leaving Europe does not mean that we will not continue to seek the efficiencies that come from future collaboration.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Ministry of Defence has said, quite correctly, that co-operation with our European partners can both be cost-effective and achieve worthwhile results. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments this afternoon, but can he specifically tell us whether he has had discussions with the Brexit Secretary about future European co-operation after we leave the European Union?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
The new US Defence Secretary, James Mattis, and I have already discussed a range of NATO issues. I welcome his public support for the alliance. The Prime Minister and President Trump also had positive discussions about NATO last Friday. The United Kingdom and the United States will lead forward battalions this year in Estonia and Poland, and I will work with Secretary Mattis on ways to improve NATO’s effectiveness.
Mr Cunningham
It is quite true that President Trump has said that he supports NATO 100%, but the American Administration have also said that they would like to see changes in NATO to bring it into the 21st century. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his opposite number about that? If he has not had such discussions, why does he not start them?
Sir Michael Fallon
I have had those discussions, and I look forward to having further discussions when NATO Defence Ministers meet in a fortnight’s time, because we, too, would like NATO to continue to modernise; streamline its bureaucracy and decision making; improve the movement of troops, armour and equipment across its internal borders; and ensure that it can respond more rapidly and more effectively in times of tension.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Like the Secretary of State, I was pleased to hear that the United States remains 100% committed to NATO, the bedrock of the mutual defence pact. Does he agree that the best indication of the role of the US in NATO is the co-operation that we are seeing on bringing our carrier strike force capability back, rather than some of the commentary we are hearing in the media?
Sir Michael Fallon
Yes. I was very pleased to be able to conclude an agreement with the US Government before Christmas on the US Marine Corps using the carrier to land its aircraft on. There are many more opportunities for deeper collaboration on that programme, and on the development of maritime patrol aircraft, where we are both using the same type of aircraft, as there are in the research and innovation areas that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), is leading on.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
The Royal Navy is growing for the first time in a generation, with new aircraft carriers, submarines, frigates, patrol vessels and aircraft all on their way; 2017 is the start of a new era of maritime power, projecting Britain’s influence globally and delivering security at home. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may ask his question from a sedentary position if he wishes. I am sorry that he is in discomfort. The House will want to hear from him.
Ian Mearns
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Select Committee on Defence recently said, in a fairly damning report, that the Royal Navy’s fleet of just 17 usable frigates and destroyers is
“way below the critical mass required”.
Does the Minister agree with the many former Sea Lords who gave evidence to the Committee that the number of vessels is just not sufficient, given that we are island nations, to protect our interests on the high seas?
Harriett Baldwin
My sympathies to the hon. Gentleman. I wish to emphasise that the 2015 SDSR announced that we will maintain our fleet of 19 frigates and destroyers, and committed to eight Type 26 global combat ships, three new solid support ships and two new offshore patrol vessels. That is in addition, of course, to the two new aircraft carriers, which, as he knows, are well on their way.
Mr Speaker
We all wish the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) well. Knowing what a robust character he is, perhaps I can say that no injury will dare to get him down for long.
Mr Speaker
No, the hon. Lady should come in on this question, to which her own Question 17 is similar; she should piggy-back on this question.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
Harriett Baldwin
I can confirm that as of 1 October 2016, some 9% of the naval service strength was female—the departmental recruitment target is 15% by 2020. The Royal Navy has a number of initiatives to encourage recruitment and address the retention of female officers, including having more focused career management and increased access to flexible ways of working.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In the 2015 SDSR, and again last December in the first annual report on the SDSR, the Government were very clear that the sea trials for HMS Queen Elizabeth would begin this spring, but in response to a parliamentary question last week, the Minister informed me that the trials would now take place this summer. What are the reasons for that? What will the operational service date be for HMS Queen Elizabeth?
Harriett Baldwin
I can confirm that she will commence her sea trials this summer and enter into the same programme so that she can sail into Portsmouth later this year.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in wishing Godspeed to HMS Diamond, which is shortly to leave from Portsmouth to lead the NATO taskforce in the Black sea?
Harriett Baldwin
I certainly will join my hon. Friend in wishing Godspeed to HMS Diamond and, indeed, to all our destroyers that are currently on a range of different tasks around the globe.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
The security situation in Yemen has been concerning since 2014, when Houthi forces and those loyal to former President Saleh took over the capital Sana’a and forced out the legitimate Government of President Hadi.
Hannah Bardell
As the suffering in Yemen unfolds, the world watches in horror. Nearly 2.2 million people are internally displaced, half of them women and girls. Evidence from Amnesty International shows that partially exploded, UK-manufactured BL755 cluster bombs are lying unexploded, injuring and maiming many people. Despite the Foreign Office Minister denying their existence, the UK Government’s own investigations back up media reports that such cluster bombs have been deployed in the war in Yemen, so when will this heartless Tory Government wake up, do a proper investigation, take on Saudi Arabia and stop the sale and deployment of these bombs?
Harriett Baldwin
I think the hon. Lady must have missed the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on this issue in December. I can confirm that the humanitarian situation is extremely serious. As a result, the UK is the fourth largest donor to Yemen and is committing more than £100 million this year.
Peter Grant
The single biggest contributor to the humanitarian disaster in Yemen is the Royal Saudi air force, which has systematically destroyed almost the entire infrastructure of the country, leaving 7 million people in danger of starvation because food cannot be got to them. How much worse does the humanitarian crisis have to get before the United Kingdom stops selling £2 billion-worth of weapons per year to a Government who are accused of 250 different war crimes in Yemen?
Harriett Baldwin
The UK position is of course that a political solution is the best way forward to bring long-term stability to Yemen and end the conflict there. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the coalition in Yemen is supported by United Nations resolution 2216. He will also be aware that there are regular incursions into Saudi territory, and I am sure he will recognise the legitimate self-defence of the Saudi-led coalition under United Nations resolution 2216.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Harriett Baldwin
Yes, I can confirm that the Government regularly urge Saudi Arabia to sign the cluster munitions convention. I can also confirm that, in his statement in December, the Secretary of State welcomed the announcement that UK munitions would no longer be used.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Harriett Baldwin
I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to my previous answer about how we welcomed the Saudi Government’s commitment. We do not routinely hold records of other nations’ use, storage or location of UK-manufactured equipment, particularly items that were supplied decades ago under previous Governments.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
As the Minister knows, there are serious allegations that both sides in the conflict in Yemen have broken international humanitarian law. Those claims are particularly worrying to us in this country because we now know that United Kingdom-supplied cluster munitions have been used in Yemen. What action are the Government taking to push for a full, independent, United Nations-led investigation into the alleged violations of international law in Yemen?
Harriett Baldwin
We do not oppose calls for an international independent investigation into these incidents but, first and foremost, we want the coalition to investigate allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law attributed to those groups and for the investigations to be thorough and conclusive.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Finally, and with rapier-like speed, I am sure, I call Sir David Amess.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
This Government are committed to increasing our maritime power to project our influence across the world and to promote our prosperity. Over the next decade, we will spend £63 billion on new ships and submarines. The Royal Navy will have two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, new submarines, frigates, aircraft, patrol vessels, support ships and tankers.
Sir David Amess
When the Queen Elizabeth sets sail, does my hon. Friend agree that it will be testament to the skill of British workers and our superb Navy? It will show Britain as a global force, so will she make sure that Portsmouth gives the ship a wonderful welcome?
Harriett Baldwin
It will be a moment of enormous pride this year when the Queen Elizabeth sails into Portsmouth harbour. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join many people on the pier at Southend, hoping for a glimpse and waving as she sails past.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
My priorities remain our operations against Daesh, strengthening NATO, and implementing our defence review. I can announce today that Her Majesty the Queen will unveil the new Iraq Afghanistan memorial, with a service in London on 9 March, as a reminder of the huge contribution that our armed forces, aid workers and civilians make to the security of the United Kingdom and to help build a more stable future for the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Vicky Foxcroft
So far, 6,981 people from my constituency have signed the petition to cancel Trump’s visit, and minute by minute the figure is going up. Will the Secretary of State publicly condemn the entry ban that Donald Trump has imposed on seven majority-Muslim countries under the pretext of defence?
Sir Michael Fallon
I think that the Government’s position on this has been made very clear. We do not agree with the way in which the ban is being applied to British citizens, and the hon. Lady may have an opportunity later this afternoon, if she catches your eye, Mr Speaker, to pursue this directly with my colleague the Foreign Secretary.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
I can confirm that the Dreadnought submarine programme is a major national investment programme that will sustain thousands of jobs across the UK. The benefit will extend well beyond the major companies leading the programme.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Army recruitment levels are now worryingly low, due in no small part to the Government’s total failure to manage the contract with Capita, allowing that parasitic company to sponge off the public purse while bringing in only 6,900 of the target of 9,500 Army recruits? Will the Minister review Capita’s contract and improve his Department’s monitoring procedures to stop leech-like companies siphoning off taxpayers’ money for little or no return?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)
We need to be careful, because comments like that undermine the morale of our armed forces. Let us have some facts. On 1 December 2016, the fully trained strength of our regular forces was 143,680, of whom 29,400 were in the Royal Navy; 83,360 were in the Army; and 30,870 were in the Air Force. We have more work to do on retention and recruitment, but those sorts of comments are not helpful to our armed forces.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
Our service leavers have many transferrable skills, and I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Defence is working with the National Offender Management Service to encourage service leavers to join the Prison Service as part of the Government’s recruitment of 2,500 new prison officers.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Sir Michael Fallon
We already publish a huge amount of information about the number of strikes that the Royal Air Force has carried out. That information was updated today on the Ministry’s website. It gave details of operations last week in and around Mosul, and a strike to the west of Raqqa. That information has already been made public but I will, of course, look again into whether we can improve on it.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Harriett Baldwin
I was very impressed when I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency earlier this month. Of course, Leonardo helicopters will support our existing Apache Mk1 helicopters until they are retired from service. I am delighted that Boeing announced last week that it will make the UK its European base for training, maintenance, repair and overhaul across its defence platforms. I am sure it will want to discuss that with Leonardo, which is well placed to secure subcontract work on the next generation Apaches.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
When will the Secretary of State answer calls to grant an independent inquiry into the botched Trident II D5 missile test to inform this House and our constituents what went wrong? What plans has he made to ensure that the House can be confident that the procedure for providing information is reliable and timely?
Sir Michael Fallon
I have no plans to commission the kind of inquiry that the hon. Lady proposes because, as I have made clear to the House, we do not on the Floor of the House comment on the details of nuclear submarine operations or on the details of the demonstration and shakedown operations, except to conclude that HMS Vengeance successfully carried out that operation last summer and has now rejoined the operational cycle.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Sir Michael Fallon
As Iraqi forces become increasingly capable and are deployed across the country, we now need to deliver our training more flexibly. In addition to training in Besmaya, Taji and al-Asad air bases, I have authorised UK personnel to deliver training at other secured and protected locations in Iraq. This aligns with our approach in the Kurdish region and ensures that we continue to deliver the infantry skills, counter-IED, combat first aid and bridge training that the Iraqi forces require.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Ministers are well aware and, no doubt, very concerned that RAF serviceman Corrie McKeague has been missing since September. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) has done sterling work keeping Members informed of the work that is taking place to find him, but this is clearly a very distressing time for his family. Will the Minister place on the record the Government’s concern about Corrie’s whereabouts? Will he also give an assurance that all work is being done and all resources are being put towards the search to bring him home?
Mike Penning
Naturally, there is an ongoing police inquiry, but I am sure that Members across the whole House will want to register that their thoughts are with Corrie’s family, loved ones and his service colleagues from the RAF Regiment who I had the honour of meeting at RAF Honington just after he went missing. On a daily basis, I have ensured that all available military kit, personnel and surveillance equipment are available should the police request them, and they have requested them on several occasions. I thank the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, who has done diligent work in Bury St Edmunds to ensure that the local community knows what is going on. We all want Corrie to come home safely, and the MOD will do all we possibly can.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Following the revelation of a very rare failure of a Trident missile test, will the Secretary of State confirm that our nuclear deterrent still meets what might be termed the Federer criterion of being able to deliver lethal projectiles at high velocity, in rapid succession and with total accuracy over a very long period of years?
Mr Speaker
It is a very high bar to imitate the accuracy and genius to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes.
Sir Michael Fallon
I am very happy to confirm the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to speak to his American counterpart over the weekend, because many of us would hope that he would have pointed out to the Americans that Trump’s ban is potentially a massive recruiting sergeant for terrorism and is not going to protect anybody at all?
Sir Michael Fallon
I have already made it clear that the Government do not agree with aspects of the ban that was announced on Friday. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity later this afternoon to ask more detailed questions about it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we will need to increase the study of what is happening in the South China sea, where the strategic threats are changing?
Sir Michael Fallon
Yes, we are concerned at the rising tensions in the South China sea. We continue to encourage all parties that may be contesting the sovereignty of particular islands or other areas to take those disputes through the international forums that were established for that purpose, and therefore to de-escalate the situation as far as they can.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The whole country will welcome the memorial to our 625 brave soldiers who perished in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also welcome the Prime Minister’s admission that we will never engage in wars of that kind in future. Would it not be appropriate now to investigate why we went into Helmand in the belief that not a shot would be fired, yet that resulted in 425 deaths of our soldiers? Should we not investigate that to make sure that we do not repeat it?
Sir Michael Fallon
I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has long held these views, will take the time to read in full the Prime Minister’s speech in Philadelphia last Thursday, where she spoke of the importance of standing by the fragile democracies in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where we have increased our troop presence and where we will stay until the job is done, which is to reduce the threat to our own people here.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House will have heard with some joy that the MOD’s procurement process is to be simplified and diversified. To help us to judge the success of this, will the Minister say how many people currently work in procurement at the MOD and whether that number will go up or down between now and the end of the Parliament?
Harriett Baldwin
I can provide in writing the exact number of people, as of today, who work there. As this is a bespoke trading entity, the aspiration is that we do not manage the head count in terms of our procurement but manage down the cost of procurement.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
In the light of recent events, how relaxed is the Secretary of State about Trump having his finger on the nuclear button?
Sir Michael Fallon
The United States has always been a good partner to this country and has played a leading role in NATO, and is a key part of the nuclear alliance that we and the United States share together. It is worth remembering that NATO is a nuclear alliance. I look forward to working with the new Administration on precisely that.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the Heads of Government agreement signed at the weekend between the UK and Turkey, securing over 400 jobs in Lancashire? Does that not send out a signal that Britain post-Brexit is open for business?
Sir Michael Fallon
It does. I, too, am delighted that the agreement has now been signed in principle on the TFX programme, which will combine Turkish and British technology and brainpower into the development of a new fighter aircraft. I hope that that will lead to many more jobs being created both here and in Turkey.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
In October, NATO appointed its first ever assistant secretary-general for intelligence. If the new US President follows through with his stated intention to reinstate rendition and torture, the NATO allies would be legally obliged not to work with him on intelligence. Will the Government ensure that the alliance rules out the use of torture in all respects, for the good of NATO effectiveness?
Sir Michael Fallon
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We do not condone the use of torture and there are obviously implications that flow from that.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will Ministers take action to make sure that more of the new light tanks we buy are made in Britain?
Harriett Baldwin
I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend is referring to the Ajax programme, but I can confirm that we have taken extensive steps to ensure that a significant portion of the manufacturing processes of the Ajax vehicles takes place in south Wales, and we will continue to work with our suppliers to ensure that we get significant UK content in all our procurement.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
What are the reasons for the delay in the HMS Queen Elizabeth’s sea trials, and what will its in-service date be?
Sir Michael Fallon
It has always been our intention that HMS Queen Elizabeth should be accepted into the Royal Navy before the end of this year. We are not giving specific dates as to when the sea trials are likely to commence. Queen Elizabeth will set out on those sea trials when she is ready to do so.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
In 2020, Plymouth will commemorate the Mayflower leaving in order to found the American colonies. Is my right hon. Friend willing to meet me and potentially some other people to discuss how we can put together a review of the NATO fleet, not only for Her Majesty the Queen, but potentially for the President of America?
Sir Michael Fallon
I am very happy to consider that suggestion, which is the first I have heard as to how we might commemorate that particular anniversary at sea. It is certainly worth looking into.
Jobcentre Plus Offices: Closure
(7 years, 10 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
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on the proposed closure of Jobcentre Plus offices throughout the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
On Thursday 26 January, the Department for Work and Pensions published proposals for the future of its estate, including jobcentres and back-office sites.
The Government are committed to helping people who can work to get back into work. Since 2010, the claimant count has dropped from almost 1.5 million to about 800,000, and employment has risen by 2.7 million to near record levels.
Old office contracts that are held by our jobcentres and benefits centres are now coming up for renewal, and in the 20 years since those contracts were signed the welfare system has undergone large-scale reform.
The roll-out of universal credit and our reforms of Jobcentre Plus have increased the number of digital interactions that claimants now have with us. Eight out of 10 claims for jobseeker’s allowance are now made online, and 99.6% of applicants for universal credit full service submitted their claim online. That has resulted in the DWP buildings being used much less: 20% of the DWP estate is currently underutilised.
As we renegotiate our out-of-date contracts, we are merging some smaller jobcentres with larger ones and co-locating others with local government premises. That will help the DWP to offer a better service to people looking for work, while delivering a better deal for the taxpayer, saving about £180 million a year for the next 10 years. That means that we can bolster the support that we offer jobseekers, with a recruitment drive to hire 2,500 new work coaches.
Of course, DWP staff will be consulted on those changes and the vast majority will have the option to relocate or be offered alternative roles. For any vulnerable claimants that may be affected, we will put in place robust procedures, such as offering home visits or maintaining a claim by post, to make sure that they get the support they need.
Ronnie Cowan
The UK Government’s proposal to drastically cut the number of jobcentres and DWP offices across Scotland and, indeed, the UK, including in my constituency of Inverclyde, will have a profound impact on thousands of people desperately seeking work and the support to which they are entitled. It is an insult that there has been a distinct lack of consultation with the communities affected and with our Government in Scotland. That lack of consultation is against the principles of the Smith agreement. Can the Minister explain to me why no consultation took place before the announcement of the closures?
In my constituency, the proposal is to close Port Glasgow jobcentre and make people from Kilmacolm, Port Glasgow and the east of Greenock travel miles to access DWP services. Disappointingly, this model has been replicated across the UK. That is an utter disgrace and it could push vulnerable people further into crisis, what with the added travel distance and cost placed upon individuals, many of whom have little or no readily available funds to pay for that commute. What assurances can the Minister provide to my constituents that they will still have ready access to Jobcentre Plus and DWP services?
This should be far more than a spreadsheet exercise. I ask the Minister to put people first. Many Jobcentre Plus staff work hard to build good working relationships with service users, and they are aware of specific issues and needs. Can the Minister guarantee service users the continuity and quality of those working relationships? If the Minister is so certain that the measures are required, will she at least halt their implementation until a full equality impact assessment has been conducted and a full consultation of all sites has taken place; and if not, why not?
Caroline Nokes
There are lots of points to reflect on. Most importantly, we want to see service delivery to claimants, and the hon. Gentleman was right to focus on claimants in his constituency. As he will be aware, the claimant count in his constituency is down by 39%. I believe it is critical that we seek to maintain the relationship between work coaches and the claimants they have been working with, which is why we will seek to replicate that when work coaches are moved to a new jobcentre.
Claimants will be able not just to go to the jobcentre that falls in the catchment allocated by us, but to choose the one that works best for them. We are very conscious of the fact that many people in employment already travel significant distances to work. We are making sure that when changes fall outside the ministerial criteria, there is a public consultation, and we will use that to reflect on our public sector equality duty, which we take very seriously indeed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate the very considerable interest in this subject, but I should point out to the House—and remind those colleagues who previously knew—that there is a statement by the Foreign Secretary to follow, and thereafter other important business, which is likely to be well subscribed. There is a premium on brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the Government’s success in reducing unemployment leads to the need to look at reducing the number of Jobcentre Plus offices?
Caroline Nokes
As my hon. Friend will have heard me say, the jobcentres that we are looking at are, in some cases, 20% under-occupied. It is absolutely critical and appropriate that we look at how we use our estate, and that we reflect on providing not only the best service that we can to jobseekers, but value for money to the taxpayer.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Opposition strongly oppose the Government’s latest plans for the closure of one in 10 jobcentres in the UK. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of these closures on claimants, in terms of travel times and additional costs? Will the Department consider issuing guidance to staff to take into account increased travel times when issuing sanctions? Accessibility is a major issue for many disabled people. The Government have said that they aim to halve the disability employment gap in the lifetime of this Parliament. How do the planned closures fit with that aim?
From this April, lone parents will be obliged to prepare for work through interviews with work coaches once a child is three years old, rather than five years old as is currently the case. We are particularly concerned about the impact on women, children and people with disabilities. Will the Government publish an assessment of the impact of these proposals on equality issues?
The Government continue to roll out universal credit, and, for the first time, people who are actually in work will have to attend interviews at jobcentres. Will the Government delay their plans to reduce their estate until they have a clearer idea of what the demands on jobcentres and staff will be under universal credit? The Government’s hope seems to be that universal credit claims will be made and managed online, but many people are not confident using IT and they may not have access to a PC, laptop or tablet. What provision will be made for claimants who have difficulty using PCs and the internet in areas where jobcentres are earmarked for closure?
These plans have simply not been thought through, and they will have a damaging impact on the way in which vital employment support is provided. The Government should think again.
Caroline Nokes
As the hon. Lady will have heard me say, the vast majority of our UC claimants now access services online, and we welcome and encourage such a relationship. We have made it very clear that vulnerable claimants will be able to make claims by post in some circumstances, particularly where they find it difficult to access a jobcentre or have childcare responsibilities, and it is very important to make that distinction. The hon. Lady talked about accessibility. Where there is a difference under the ministerial criteria of more than 3 miles or of 20 minutes by public transport, we will seek to hold a public consultation, which will then feed in to our equality analysis so that we can best understand the impact on claimants.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
One of the things that really impressed me during my spell at the DWP was the quality of the work coaches and their capacity for supporting real, positive change in people’s lives. If there is an opportunity to spend less on near-empty bricks and mortar and to invest more in a greater number of work coaches, is that not exactly the right thing to do?
Caroline Nokes
My right hon. Friend is of course right. Our work coaches are on the frontline of delivering services to claimants, not just helping them into work but helping those who are in work into more and better-paid work. That is why we are recruiting more work coaches and looking to make sure that our DWP estate both best reflects value for money for taxpayers and provides the services we need for claimants.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
May I tell the Minister that the Government appear to be making exactly the same errors as they did with the announcement of the Glasgow closure programme? Will the Minister tell us why the Scottish Government were not consulted, as per the Smith agreement? Why did she say in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) that jobcentres have catchment areas, when written answers to Members of the House have suggested that there are no catchment areas for jobcentres? Will she also tell us why the written ministerial statement indicated that redundancies may be required, and may we have further detail on that? Finally, what support, if any, will be available to claimants, particularly those with caring responsibilities, who have to travel greater distances?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will of course be conscious that, as an employer, the DWP has sought to put its staff first and to make sure that they are informed first about the proposals. It is important to reflect that we need to make sure we have good working relations with the Scottish Government, and he will be aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment travelled to the Musselburgh jobcentre the week before last. It does matter to us that people get to go to the jobcentre most convenient for them. That need not be the one allocated to them by the jobcentre, but could be one they choose for themselves. In every instance, we are seeking to make sure that claimants can work with their work coach and go to the jobcentre that is most appropriate for them.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I received notice on 26 January of a proposal to relocate the jobcentre from Red Lion Street in Chesham to Chesham library on Elgiva Lane. Will the Minister say what consultation has taken place with the 14 members of staff, and will she confirm that there will be no reduction in services for my constituents in the surrounding areas? We all want to see value for money, but will she send me the detailed analysis of the costs and savings that derive from this move, because it is just around the corner and we need to ensure that it makes sense and provides the value for money that she is rightly seeking?
Caroline Nokes
In many instances, co-location provides the best solution, exactly as my right hon. Friend has described, for claimants and indeed for our own staff. She will be aware that we have consulted jobcentre staff closely and looked at how we can best make sure that the new location for their roles fits with what they want, or, where essential, that they can be redeployed to other DWP roles.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2010, I had three jobcentres in my constituency. Old Swan was closed by the Minister’s Department at the start of 2010, and now she wants to close the other two, in Edge Hill and Wavertree. My constituency has the 39th highest level of unemployment in our country. Why does she want to make it harder for the 2,950 people who want to access support but will have to pay £8.80 every month to do so?
Caroline Nokes
It is important to reflect that we are trying to make it easier for claimants who interact with the DWP online to do so. We are looking at instances where we can get involved in outreach projects, as has happened in various places around the country. When there are special circumstances and when people are vulnerable, we are trying to ensure that they can be given assistance with travel to jobcentres.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Shipley jobcentre has an excellent local rapport with the Salvation Army, which is situated next door and provides additional help and support for many of the people who go to the jobcentre. Will the Minister look again at such local circumstances before she goes ahead with her closure programme? In doing so, will she tell me what consultation will take place with the local community and staff at the Shipley jobcentre to ensure that any decisions taken are the right ones for my constituents and the people in the surrounding areas?
Caroline Nokes
We are seeking to ensure that we consult our staff, local stakeholders and claimants to understand what is best for them. This is part of a process brought about because the prime contract expires in March 2018. It would be grossly irresponsible of us not to reflect on how we make best use of our DWP estate, particularly when up to 20% of it is underutilised.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give it a rest with the jargon about relocating or co-locating, because she is actually closing jobcentres? Hyson Green jobcentre in Nottingham, where we have twice the national average unemployment and are in the 5% least employed, was opened by Lord Heseltine after civil disturbances in the city. It has been important in matching people with vacancies. Please will she think again?
Caroline Nokes
It is important to match people with vacancies, but it is also important to reflect on making the best use of our estate. This is an opportunity to reflect on the fact that 20% of our space is underutilised. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that this comes at a time when we should not be wasting taxpayers’ money.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I support the rationalisation and modernisation of any service, but Brighouse is the largest township within the Calder Valley, so relocating our jobcentre uphill and down dale out of the constituency will be a disaster to the long-term unemployed who rely on it for job advice and training. Will my hon. Friend assure me that those who have put forward the proposals have visited places such as the Calder Valley to understand the demographics and geography, or have they just sat in their offices in Whitehall using Google Maps?
Caroline Nokes
This is not an exercise using Google Maps. We have engaged in the exercise over very many months to make the best use of our DWP estate. When we are not using the space we have but are paying for it, it is critical that we think very hard about how we can best provide services to our claimants.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Has the Minister done another Glasgow? Before Christmas, her Department announced the closures of eight out of 16 jobcentres in Glasgow, calculated using Google Maps. Has she done the same again?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman and I discussed this matter in Westminster Hall just a few weeks ago. It is important that we reflect not only on geographic location, but on travel patterns so that people can get to the jobcentre that is most convenient for them. We should not simply allocate them to the jobcentre that we want them to go to. They should have the ability to choose and work with their work coaches to ensure they have the best access to facilities.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
In 2013, I sat on the Work and Pensions Committee when we produced a report on jobcentres. Overwhelmingly, we found that it is more important to have quality over quantity. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more important to have modern and efficient services in our jobcentres, such as disabled access? At the end of the day, it is all about outcomes. We have more jobs than ever in our country, and it is all about getting the long-term unemployed into work.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have done a great job in getting people into work, but it is important that we do so through our work coaches, whom I have visited in many jobcentres up and down the country. They are working as hard as they can to help individual claimants. We must focus on those relationships.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is there not a more sinister reason as well as some of the ones discussed earlier—namely, the operation of agency workers in most of the ex-mining areas, where people do not use the jobcentre, principally because as many as 500 people at a time can be brought in to work on zero-hours contracts? As a result, they do not go to the jobcentre at all. That is one of the reasons.
Caroline Nokes
I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that this is not about anything sinister. This is about us looking at the best use of the DWP estate, value for money for taxpayers, and the unemployment rate, which is down significantly since 2010.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
The staff and users of the Bury Jobcentre Plus office will be delighted that it will remain open, but will my hon. Friend say when her Department next plans to review the number of Jobcentre Plus offices?
Caroline Nokes
As I indicated, this review is part of the prime contract established in 1998. It is nearly 20 years old and expires next year. All the proposals are a part of our making the best use of that contract and looking forward to what we need to provide now and in the future.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Two jobcentres in my constituency are being relocated to another jobcentre in my constituency. I need to understand why that decision was taken. We have no evidence or anything on our equality duty. I am very concerned that in Lambeth there is still a problem with gang culture, and young people in particular do not want to move from one area to another. Will the Minister please look at this again and talk to people in Lambeth before the decision is taken?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. We want people to be able to access the jobcentres they feel most comfortable with. In some circumstances, for example where people feel sufficiently vulnerable that they do not wish to go to a jobcentre, we send the DWP visiting. I have seen that at first hand, with claimants accessing services by telephone—perhaps in instances of domestic violence—where they feel vulnerable about having to go to a public building. I absolutely take on board her points about our public sector equality duty, which we take very seriously. That is why we are carrying out an equality analysis and talking to our claimants to understand how this will impact on them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In my constituency over the past seven years, unemployment has more than halved. That is good news, but it means that the people who are still unemployed are the more difficult people to place and they need more intensive work. The good people of Edgware will be wondering what they have done to upset their public services, with the closure of two libraries and the jobcentre. Will my hon. Friend consider the potential for not only home visits but satellite visits using commercial premises so that job organisations can run them and workplace coaches can coach a number of people together?
Caroline Nokes
I reassure my hon. Friend that the DWP is doing exactly that. Outreach is an important part of our suite of products to enable claimants to be get back into work. We will continue to look at the best ways to deliver that in the best locations across the country.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Closure of the last jobcentre in my constituency will require those who sign on fortnightly to pay an extra £6 a month in bus fares to get to a more distant jobcentre. Can the Minister reassure me that Jobcentre Plus will reimburse claimants with those additional costs?
Caroline Nokes
Where claimants are required to sign on more frequently than fortnightly we will look to reimburse costs, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that across London the claimant count is down 24.6% since 2010. There are fewer people claiming and we are trying to work with them more intensively.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
It is all very well to talk about jobcentres in London, but in rural Lancashire my constituents in Edgworth will have to travel for over an hour to get to Blackburn if we close the Darwen jobcentre. They are supremely hardworking and supremely successful, and anyone who thinks they can get from Darwen to Blackburn in 23 minutes is living in la-la land.
Caroline Nokes
Like me, my hon. Friend represents a rural constituency. Our constituents are used to having to travel long distances to access services. Where claimants will have to travel for over an hour by public transport, we are considering what arrangements we can put in place, including claiming by post.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Leytonstone jobcentre, which is bang in the middle of my constituency, is due to close. I deal with vulnerable people week in, week out for whom that centre is highly important. They will have to travel to either Walthamstow or Stratford to receive advice and sign on. What impact assessment was made before the announcement on the effects across north-east London?
Caroline Nokes
The consultation that we are carrying out with both our staff and claimants will feed into the equality analysis that we are carrying out.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The good news in Kettering is that the number of unemployed people has fallen from more than 2,000 in May 2010 to just over 900 today, and record numbers of local people are in employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key achievements of hard-working jobcentre staff is to get many people online for the first time, thus improving their employability?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We should celebrate not only the high number of people in Kettering in work, but the additional skills with which they have been helped by our hard-working work coaches.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Unemployment may be falling now, but numerous forecasts suggest that the effects of Brexit might reverse or stagnate this decline. What assessment have the Government made of the ability to scale up support in the already overstretched jobcentre pluses if, as many expect, unemployment begins to increase in the future if the cuts go ahead?
Caroline Nokes
I would like to direct the hon. Lady’s attention to the National Audit Office report of 2005, which says:
“One of the Department’s main needs is flexibility in the amount of accommodation it uses.”
I reassure the hon. Lady that we are ensuring that we retain enough flexibility within the system to be able to cope with future changes in the jobs market.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
For those out of work or in other difficulties, it could be incredibly useful if citizens rights bureaux, jobcentre plus offices, council offices, local law centres and possibly agencies for those with disabilities were found in the same place—more or less co-located. Will the Minister update us on the extent to which regional Jobcentre Plus managers are discussing that with local authorities?
Caroline Nokes
I do not intend to give a blow-by-blow account of the sensitive commercial negotiations, but my hon. Friend will be aware that we are working very closely with local authorities, the voluntary sector and the education sector to make sure that we can put co-location in place. I direct him to the co-location that has taken place in Lincoln, which has proved to be a beacon of how we can best deliver services.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Some of my constituents do not use the internet, and they use jobcentre resources to complete their job searches. With the closure of Batley jobcentre, will the Minister confirm that she will reimburse those who wish to travel to use Dewsbury jobcentre for visits which, while not mandatory, are absolutely and utterly essential?
Caroline Nokes
What we are looking at is how best to support the vulnerable. The hon. Lady makes a really important point about those who are not able to deal with their claims online. It is crucial to continue to look at how our work coaches can work with those people to make sure that provision, whether it be in the shape of outreach or at a different location, is best tailored to their needs.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Wellington Jobcentre Plus office is due to relocate to Telford later this year, and Telford is 4 miles away. While we have record employment in Shropshire and in my constituency, which is most welcome, what can the Minister do to mitigate the increased costs for those who are long-term unemployed to get from Wellington to Telford to seek work?
Caroline Nokes
Many jobseekers will already travel more than 4 miles to access their nearest jobcentre, and it is important that we remember not just that, but that people in employment will also be travelling significant distances in their daily commute. We are seeking the best solutions for individuals by looking at outreach and co-location—to find ways that people can access services online so that where possible we can minimise the disruption to their looking for work.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
The DWP administration centre in my constituency is closing, and 300 jobs will be transferred out of Paisley. Has there been any assessment or consideration of the economic impact on the area? Has there been any consultation whatever; and if not, why not?
Caroline Nokes
The most important aspect when it comes to relocations such as that one is, of course, the staff. That is why we have been working closely with all our DWP staff to make sure that we find roles for them elsewhere and give them the assistance they need, should we choose to relocate them.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Many of my constituents use the jobcentre or the council’s housing services, so I welcome the decision to move Kingston jobcentre to the council offices when the lease expires in a few months’ time. It will be much more convenient for my constituents.
Caroline Nokes
Co-location is an important part of our strategy, and I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes it. We need to identify the ways in which our claimants can best gain access not only to DWP services, but to the services of other organisations such as, in this instance, the local authority.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister has refused to answer this question, so I am going to give her another chance. Is she saying that she will repay the bus fares of my constituents who will now have to travel from the west end of Newcastle into the centre, or is she seriously proposing to make the most vulnerable people in Newcastle pay the cost of her failure?
Caroline Nokes
One of my first visits as a DWP Minister was to the jobcentre in Newcastle, and it was a great opportunity to see the universal credit full service being delivered at first hand. It is important to reflect on the specific criteria, and I am happy to answer the hon. Lady’s question. When people have to attend a jobcentre more than once a fortnight, we will reimburse them. As for those who are vulnerable and have childcare responsibilities, we are considering various ways in which we can deliver the service, which include allowing them to claim by post. We are very conscious that many people already travel much further than the distances that the hon. Lady has mentioned, either to go to work or to gain access to jobcentre services.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
In Corby and east Northamptonshire unemployment has also fallen by more than 50% since 2010, but what assessment has my hon. Friend made of the actual outcomes for jobseekers when Jobcentre Plus facilities are co-located with other services?
Caroline Nokes
We should reflect on some of our successful co-locations. For instance, as I mentioned earlier, we have worked closely with the local authority in Lincoln. The outcomes for jobseekers who are able to gain access to many services in the same place are as good as, or better than, the outcomes at individual jobcentres. It is important for us not to get hung up on the bricks and mortar, but to focus on the services that our work coaches provide for people who are looking for work.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
On 23 January, in a written question, I asked the Secretary of State what the criteria were for the equality analysis. I was told:
“The criteria for equality analysis requires us to pay due regard to the requirements of the Equality Act 2010… We will be undertaking an equality analysis…This will include feedback from public consultation”.
As the only promotion of that public consultation has been carried out by my colleagues and me, how can the Minister ensure that due regard has been given to the Equality Act?
Caroline Nokes
In fact, there are also notices in all the Jobcentre Pluses indicating that the consultation is ongoing. We have communicated with our claimants, and it is very important that it is their views that feed into this process.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Does the Minister or her Department think that there is any correlation between ease of access to jobcentre facilities and those who are seeking work? Can she give a cast-iron guarantee that no one will be sanctioned as a result of the closure of jobcentres in a locality?
Caroline Nokes
What we do know is that those who are on universal credit full service are spending more time looking for work. We also know that the vast majority of those job searches are conducted online, and that they are more successful.
It is important for individual claimants to have a relationship with their work coaches, because circumstances may change. That was emphasised to me in a Westminster Hall debate relatively recently. What is someone misses a bus? What if missing a connection means that a person is late for an appointment with the work coach? We want people to have a good relationship with their work coaches, so that they give them the necessary information. It is critical that if people miss appointments, they tell us why.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I am extremely worried that closing jobcentres will make employment even less accessible to disabled claimants. Will the intensive support that needs to be given in person—not online or by post—be afforded to that group, and will home visits be afforded to all disabled constituents?
Caroline Nokes
Of course, many disabled claimants access our services very successfully online, but, as I have said, the DWP has a home visiting service which we can extend to all disabled claimants who ask for it when their circumstances make it difficult for them to go to a jobcentre. We want our work coaches to provide tailored support for each of their claimants, to have a relationship with them, and to understand their specific needs.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is difficult to square the Minister’s claim that she is merging smaller jobcentres into larger ones with her plan to close Hammersmith, our busiest jobcentre in our main town centre. Coming on top of the closure of courts, post offices and police stations, is this not the hollowing out of vital public services from our towns and cities?
Caroline Nokes
No, it is not the hollowing out of public services; it is finding the best way to deliver services to our jobseekers at the most cost-effective price for the taxpayer.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The proposal to cut the back-office functions at Corunna House and Portcullis House in my constituency came on the back of the proposal to shut the Jobcentre Plus office in Bridgeton, one of eight being closed in the city of Glasgow—and before the consultation which closes tomorrow had even concluded. This proposal is a bolt from the blue, with no consultation with agencies in the city or with the Scottish Government. What do this Government have against the people of Glasgow?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady will have heard me say earlier that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment was in Musselburgh just two weeks ago, and she will remember that the claimant count in her constituency is down 42% since 2010.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister has talked a lot about jobseekers choosing the jobcentre that works best for them. For many of my constituents, that is the one on Eastern Avenue, which she is proposing to close. She has talked about claimants who have to attend more than fortnightly, but does she not recognise that, even for claimants who have to attend fortnightly, she is imposing huge additional travel costs on those who can least afford them?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that we expect claimants to be prepared to travel for up to an hour to seek work, and it is important that we get feedback from claimants and talk to our staff and understand the impacts. As I have said, we are looking at outreach options, we can do DWP home visiting, and many claimants will be able to conduct their claims either online or by post.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
One of the “super co-location” proposals we have heard about applies to Ayr jobcentre: Russell House, a medical centre, is going to close down and be relocated to the jobcentre. The medical centre has a car park with disabled parking spaces and a bus stop that my constituents can use, but it will be moved to a jobcentre with no parking that is half a mile from the nearest bus stop. How does that meet an equality impact assessment?
Caroline Nokes
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say, we are very concerned that disabled claimants make us aware of their circumstances so that they can nominate the jobcentre that is most convenient for them, benefit from DWP home visiting or conduct their claims online.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Rhondda has one of the highest unemployment rates in this country, so how on earth does it make sense to close the debt management service—the only one in Wales, at Oldway House in Porth in the Rhondda—taking the 93 jobs and sending them somewhere else? For that matter, why on earth are they closing the office in Llanelli as well? Is the plan just to put everything in Cardiff, because I simply say, like the Prime Minister said last week, yes, Cardiff is in Wales, but not all Wales is in Cardiff?
Caroline Nokes
No, of course the plan is not to put all services in Cardiff. As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say many times, what we are seeking to do is make the best use of our estate, learn from what claimants and our Jobcentre Plus staff are telling us about these proposals, and make sure we get value for money for the taxpayer.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The DWP said that it wants to reduce its estate by 20%, but in Glasgow it is closing 50% of the estate, and in Inverness, where I grew up and my father once worked at the jobcentre, it is reducing locations by two thirds. Why is Glasgow losing out disproportionately?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be conscious that the Jobcentre Plus estate in Glasgow has grown up historically and has many more smaller jobcentres than other parts of the country. This is about making best use of the premises we have and making sure we do not have empty desk space in our buildings.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Lewisham has a higher than average unemployment rate, yet the Government are proposing to close the main jobcentre in Rushey Green. They want to squash it into an alternative, less accessible premises in Forest Hill. That defies common sense, to be honest. Will the Minister confirm that she will seek to find alternative premises in Lewisham town centre?
Caroline Nokes
This is not about squashing anything; it is about making sure that we have full desks in buildings, not empty desks. In some instances, we have jobcentres where more than 20% of the desks are unused. The hon. Lady will be aware that unemployment is down nearly 5% across London since 2015, and it is very important that we make the best use of the facilities we have and get the best value for taxpayers.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The DWP guidance says that it is a reasonable expectation that claimants should have access to an office within 3 miles or 20 minutes’ travelling time. The Minister is planning to close the Broxburn centre in my constituency, which will result in claimants travelling 6 miles or 30 minutes. Given that that closure is in breach of her own guidelines, will she reverse the decision? If not, will she put on a free, accessible bus for my constituents and others so that they will not be left out in the cold?
Caroline Nokes
The circumstances that the hon. Lady has outlined are outside the ministerial criteria, and that is exactly why we are having a consultation with the public on the matter.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Torrington Avenue office in my constituency is due to be closed and its claimants sent into the centre of the city. Does the Minister not realise that this will cause great inconvenience and great cost to my constituents, who live in one of the least well-off areas of Coventry? What is she going to do about that?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we expect jobseekers to be prepared to travel for up to an hour for work. This is about making the best use of the DWP’s estate and making sure that there are no empty desks in jobcentres up and down the country.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
Contrary to the Minister’s assertion, it was confirmed to Glasgow’s MPs at meetings with DWP Ministers and representatives before Christmas that the Department used Google Maps. The Government have stated that they are consulting in areas where service users would be forced to travel more than 3 miles or for more than 20 minutes on public transport. I have checked, and it takes 23 minutes to travel the 3 miles from Easterhouse to Shettleston. Given that I made the Minister aware of this fact in last week’s Westminster Hall debate, will she tell my constituents why Easterhouse was not included in the consultation, either initially or subsequently?
Caroline Nokes
As I have said several times this afternoon, we expect people who are looking for work to be prepared to travel for a great deal longer than 23 minutes to get to the workplace. The hon. Lady makes an important point about the consultation, which I will raise with the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The industrial injuries team in Barrow has accumulated many years of experience, and that expertise has enabled the team to take the claimant handling time for one of the nation’s most complex benefits down from 175 days to 33 days. That reduction has meant that some of the most vulnerable people in the country, with terminal conditions such as asbestosis, have been able to receive their benefit before they died. Will she listen to the concern that if that expertise is dissipated when a new team comes in, the waiting times will go back up and many people will die before they receive their benefit?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. It is crucial that we do not lose expertise, which is why we will be listening to all DWP staff to see how we can best use that resource in future.
Margaret Ferrier
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have been out on the streets of Halfway and Rutherglen in my constituency over the past two wet weekends, collecting signatures for the petition to keep the Cambuslang jobcentre open. Collecting the signatures has not been a difficult task; people are outraged by the DWP’s decision and they want to make their views known. Will the Minister please allow them to do that by doing the right thing and opening up the consultation process to all DWP sites marked for closure?
Caroline Nokes
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment will be delighted to receive the petition from the hon. Lady’s constituency and that he will reflect on the views expressed.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Does the Minister agree with those of us losing local services, such as the Alexandria jobcentre in my constituency, that the Prime Minister’s vision of a shared society is nothing other than this Government’s camouflage for attacking the most vulnerable in our communities and putting them at risk?
Caroline Nokes
We are talking about a shared society in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where unemployment has gone down by 56% since 2010. It is really important that we ensure that our DWP estate and our work coaches are in the right locations to provide the best service to claimants and value for money to the taxpayer.
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to all colleagues, and I thank the Minister for her splendidly succinct replies. Perhaps she should send a copy of her textbook to all her ministerial colleagues.
US Immigration Policy
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the implications for this country of the recent changes in US immigration policy.
In view of the understandable concern and uncertainty, it may be helpful if I describe for the House the consequences for British citizens and dual nationals of the Executive order issued last Friday. Let me begin by saying that it is not UK policy—this is not our policy—nor is it a measure that this Government would consider. I have already made clear our anxiety about measures that discriminate on grounds of nationality in ways that are divisive and wrong.
On 27 January, President Trump issued an Executive order banning citizens of seven countries from entering the US for a period of 90 days. Those countries are Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Sudan. The order makes it clear that no US visas will be issued to citizens of those states and that anyone who already has a visa will be denied entry. The immigration policy of the United States is of course a matter for the Government of the United States, but on the face of it this Executive order has consequences for some British citizens. For that reason, I spoke yesterday to the US Administration and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today spoken to General Kelly, the Secretary of Homeland Security. I am able to provide the following clarification: the general principle is that all British passport holders remain welcome to travel to the US. We have received assurances from the US embassy that the Executive order will make no difference to any British passport holder, irrespective of their country of birth or whether they hold another passport. In any case, the Executive order is a temporary measure that is intended to last for 90 days until the US system has added new security precautions. This is of course a highly controversial policy that has caused unease and I repeat that it is not an approach that this Government would take.
Let me conclude by reminding the House of the vital importance of this country’s alliance with the United States, which I am sure Opposition Members appreciate. On defence, intelligence and security, we work together more closely than any other two countries in the world. That relationship is overwhelmingly to our benefit. The Prime Minister’s highly successful visit to the White House last week underlined the strength of that transatlantic alliance. Where we have differences with the United States, we will not quail from expressing them, as I have done today—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me just say to the House that it is obvious that there is huge interest in this matter, which colleagues can rely upon me to accommodate. I understand the strength of feeling, but the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and his upcoming answers to questions, must be heard.
Boris Johnson
Where we have differences with the US, we will not hesitate to express them, as I have done today—if Opposition Members were listening —as the Prime Minister did yesterday, and as she did in her excellent speech in Philadelphia last week. We also repeat our resolve to work alongside the Trump Administration in the mutual interest of both our countries. I commend this statement to the House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing sorrow at last night’s gun attack on a Canadian mosque, which left six dead and eight injured. They were all victims of hate, and we all have a duty to stand up to hate whenever, and in whatever form, it appears.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I must say that I thought that it was missing a few pages—apparently not—so I hope, Mr Speaker, that you will allow me to ask about some details that were missing from the statement and about its timing.
First, on the detail, as the Secretary of State knows, thousands of people in Britain live here on a permanent basis but are nationals of the seven listed countries and have no dual citizenship. Many of them are here with indefinite leave to remain, having fled persecution or war. Can he confirm, based on what he has said today, that these thousands of British residents are now barred from travelling to the United States? Dr Hamaseh Tayari, an Iranian national living and working in Glasgow, was told on Friday that she was not allowed to fly home from Costa Rica because she needed to change planes in New York. Similarly, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that a Somali national with a temporary US visa who is currently in the UK visiting their family cannot now return to the US under these rules? I hope he can clarify those points.
On the timing of the announcement, the order was issued at 9.45 pm on Friday, UK time. It then took No. 10 until midnight on Saturday, a full 27 hours later, to say that it would consider the impact on UK nationals. It then took the Prime Minister until Sunday morning to tell the Foreign Secretary to telephone the White House, and it took him until midday on Sunday to call the travel ban “divisive and wrong”—that is 38 hours. It took 38 hours to have the courage to say what everyone else was saying on Friday night.
Forty-six hours after the Executive order, we got clarification that UK nationals and dual nationals would not be affected. If that was because the wheels in Washington were slow to turn, it might be understandable, but Canada was immediately in touch with its American counterparts on Saturday and by that evening it had secured the travel rights of Canadian nationals, a full 17 hours before we had secured the travel rights of ours. Canada is supposed to be five hours behind the UK, so why was it a day ahead of us in resolving this issue?
Finally, on the timing, the order was signed barely an hour or two after the Prime Minister left the White House. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether this imminent order was mentioned in the discussions about terrorism and security? I do not know what is worse: that the President has such little respect for the Prime Minister that he would not think of telling her, or that he did and that she did not think it sounded wrong. If it was the first, it would hardly be a surprise; but if it was the latter, we really do have a problem because, when it comes to human rights, when it comes women’s rights and when it comes to torture and the treatment of minorities, President Trump is already descending a very dangerous slope. When that happens, we need a Prime Minister who is prepared to tell him to stop, not one who simply proffers her hand and silently helps him along.
Boris Johnson
I listened very carefully, and I think the hon. Lady’s most substantial point was about the particular case of a Glaswegian doctor. I appreciate that there will be all sorts of cases—particularly difficult cases, heart-breaking cases—in which people have experienced a lot of frustration as a result of this measure. I repeat, because perhaps Members did not follow it first time, that this is not the policy of Her Majesty’s Government but a policy that is being promoted elsewhere.
What we will do is make sure that all our consular network and all our diplomatic network are put at the service of people who are finding difficulties as a result of these measures, but, as I said, because of the energetic action of this Government, of the Prime Minister and of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary we have an exemption for UK passport holders, whether dual nationals or otherwise. I think that most fair-minded people would say that that shows the advantages of working closely with the Trump Administration and the advantages of having a relationship that enables us to get our point across and to get the vital protections that UK passport holders need. The approach taken by the Labour party, of pointlessly demonising the Trump Administration, would have achieved the very opposite.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary welcome the joint statement by Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham expressing their fear that this Executive order will be a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. What the interventions of Senator McCain and Senator Graham possibly show is that this is a subject for lively debate on Capitol Hill, as it is here in this House. I repeat that we do not support this—it is not a policy we agree with—and it is clear from what my hon. Friend says that others in the US do not agree with it either.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Without a thought to the context, on Holocaust Memorial Day President Trump issued an Executive order to ban those who were born in seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the USA, including those “bad ‘dudes’” who are actually the real victims of violence fleeing the conflict in Syria. This action is inhumane, racist and immoral, and I welcome the fact that this House is now treating the threat posed by President Trump with the seriousness it deserves.
We on these Benches would also like to pay tribute to and support the strong statements made on this issue by Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and welcome the work that has already been done by so many—[Interruption.] You can learn some lessons from Scotland’s First Minister. I also pay tribute to the work being done by so many on the ground in Scotland, particularly Women for Independence, who have provided moral and practical support to those who have been unjustly affected by this despicable action. Given the Prime Minister’s blossoming and frank relationship with President Trump, did she know in advance that he was going to issue this order, which has concerned so many of our citizens? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with senior national security experts in the US and elsewhere that this will have national security implications for the UK, given that the US Administration have now adapted Daesh’s false narrative that its conflict is one between the west and Islam? If we want to be a global leader, this Government need to show global leadership—where is it? The Prime Minister has been tested and she has failed on this, her first challenge.
Boris Johnson
As the hon. Lady will know, when it comes to tackling the scourge of Daesh—she is absolutely right about that—this country is the second biggest contributor to military action in strikes against Daesh in Iraq and in Syria. We continue to be the second biggest donor to dealing with the humanitarian crisis in that region. Everybody in this House should be incredibly proud of the leadership that the UK is showing in that respect. I have already set out my views. It is up to Members of the House of Commons if they wish to exhaust the wells of outrage in the denunciation of this policy. I have made my position clear—I made it clear yesterday. I said it was wrong to promulgate policies that stigmatise people on the basis of their nationality, and I believe that very profoundly. What we have done in the last few days is to intercede on behalf of UK nationals—that is our job—and UK passport holders. We have secured very important protections for them.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
President Trump is what we might call a “known unknown”: we know that he will do and say unpredictable things, and often just as quickly abandon those positions. He will learn as he goes along, and what we have to remember is that our security and that of Europe depends on the Atlantic alliance. So does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be no question of our refusing to welcome him to these shores, in the hope of setting him along the right path as soon as possible, to our mutual benefit?
Boris Johnson
My right hon. Friend is entirely right, in the sense that the Prime Minister succeeded the other day in getting her message across about NATO and President Trump affirmed very strongly his commitment to that alliance; it is vital for our security, particularly the article 5 guarantee, and the new President is very much in the right place on that. [Interruption.] He said so. It is totally right, of course, that the incoming President of our closest and most important ally should be accorded the honour of a state visit. That is supported by this Government and the invitation has been extended by Her Majesty the Queen, quite properly.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This is not just about the impact on British citizens. One of our closest allies has chosen to ban refugees and target Muslims, and all the Foreign Secretary can say is that it would not be our policy. That is not good enough. Has he urged the US Administration to lift this order, to help refugees and to stop targeting Muslims? This order was signed on Holocaust Memorial Day; for the sake of history, for heaven’s sake have the guts to speak out.
Boris Johnson
As I say, it is open to Opposition MPs—indeed, MPs on both sides of the House—to come forward with yet fresher expressions of outrage about the presidential Executive order. They are entitled to do that. I share the widespread disquiet and I have made my views absolutely clear. I have said that it is divisive, I have said that it is wrong, and I have said that it stigmatises people on grounds of their nationality. But I will not do what I think the Labour party would do, which is disengage from conversations with our American friends and partners in such a way as to do material damage to the interests of UK citizens. We have secured important protections for people in this country, and that is the job of this Government.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Given our new-found closeness to the Trump Administration, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to try to persuade the Administration, after the 90 days, to abandon what to many is a despicable and immoral policy? Would he agree —to paraphrase a far wiser President, John. F. Kennedy —that those who ride on the back of a tiger end up inside it?
Boris Johnson
I am sure that my right hon. Friend’s words will be heard in Washington, but all I can say is that we will continue to engage with the Administration to make our points about the interests of UK nationals and, of course, to convey our feelings about the global consternation that this measure has caused.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary clarify what the position would be for an Iraqi national resident in the United Kingdom whose child was a dual British and Iraqi citizen working in the United States, in the event that that child died? Would her mother be able to travel from London to the United States to bury her daughter, under the current US arrangements? If not, would he agree that that would be quite simply inhuman and outrageous?
Boris Johnson
Of course, it is possible to create all sorts of hypothetical situations that are yet more outrageous. As far as I understand the matter—the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is for the US to explain that aspect of its policy—the answer is that such a case would be treated very expeditiously and particular arrangements would be put in place to ensure that that person was able to travel to the US.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will do my best to accommodate the extensive interest in this subject, but may I gently and perhaps tactfully point out that Members who toddled into the Chamber after the Foreign Secretary’s statement had begun should not be standing? It is in defiance of the conventions of the place, and I am sure they would not be so unreasonable as to think that they would have a right to be called. That would be perverse, and I feel sure that they would not behave in a perverse way.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The United States Congress and courts, as well as the President and diplomacy, will play a part in arriving at a solution to this question. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a universal threat from jihadists? For example, Europol has estimated that up to 5,000 jihadists have come over from several of the relevant countries. Furthermore, we should remember the victims of 9/11 in New York and 7/7 in London, and in Paris, Brussels and Berlin, not to mention Lee Rigby.
Boris Johnson
We understand the threat from jihadists both at home and abroad, so it is ever more vital that we work with our American friends to combat that threat.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary for a moment try to recall, along with me, what it was like as I hid under the stairs when two fascist dictators, Mussolini and Hitler, rained bombs on towns and cities in Britain? Now this Government are hand in hand with another fascist, Trump. I say to the Foreign Secretary: do the decent thing and ban the visit. This man is not fit to walk in the footsteps of Nelson Mandela.
Boris Johnson
I hesitate to say it, but the hon. Gentleman’s memory is at fault if he thinks that Mussolini rained bombs on this country. I hear the comparison that he makes, but I do not accept it; I believe that it is in our interest to work with our American friends and partners, to show our disquiet where appropriate, and to get the best deal for UK nationals and dual nationals.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
When President Obama imposed a similar ban on a single country in 2011, American democracy ensured that it did not last, and other action was taken. Can we not rely on American democracy this time to do the right thing and take the right moral pose, and is it not the job of British Ministers to speak for British policy?
Boris Johnson
My right hon. Friend is entirely right; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) has pointed out that there is already disquiet about this policy on Capitol hill. I have no doubt whatsoever that the American political system will help to introduce the requisite balances in the end. It is our job to intervene now and get the best deal we can for UK nationals.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
In November 1938, the then Conservative Government prepared a Bill that led to the Kindertransport that transported Jewish refugee children to this country. Does the Secretary of State not realise that in making his statement he should uphold the Geneva convention and speak truth to power in the United States? He has let the House, and his job, down.
Boris Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman is taking sanctimony to new heights. Most fair-minded people would say that we have made it clear to our friends in America that we do not agree with their policy and that we disapprove of discrimination on the grounds of nationality. However, we have worked with them to get the best possible outcome for UK nationals and dual nationals. We have also made clear to the American Administration—I am sure that he will approve—the widespread consternation felt by individuals such as him around the world.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on condemning America’s policy, which, by any standards, is completely unjustified. Like many of us, I am delighted that Sir Mo Farah can apparently go home and see his wife and children. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with Sir Mo Farah, who described the policy as based on nothing more than prejudice and ignorance?
Boris Johnson
I savour the rare congratulations from my right hon. Friend on any matter whatever. I am particularly delighted that Sir Mo Farah can continue to go back to the United States, where he trains and can get fit to win the many medals that he does.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary knows that this policy is counterproductive, immoral and wrong. His attitude and approach is to get an exemption for UK citizens and invite the perpetrator to a full state visit. That does not seem like the wholehearted condemnation that the House deserves to hear given. What will he do to make it absolutely clear, in no uncertain terms, to the American Administration that this kind of discrimination is counterproductive, wrong and immoral?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Lady says that the policy is counterproductive, immoral and wrong; I have said that it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong. If anyone thinks that there is a substantial difference in our positions, I invite them to write to me and explain.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I commend the Foreign Secretary on the work that he did on Sunday into the night to ensure that Britons had safe travel to the United States of America. Has he had clarification from the Administration on whether they have updated the advice to their embassies, because there is confusion? Some embassies are still turning dual nationals away and not allowing them to enter the United States of America.
Boris Johnson
I am thrilled that neither my hon. Friend, with whom I have travelled many times, nor Sir Mo Farah will be affected by this presidential Executive order. I can confirm that the embassy advice has been updated as we have been speaking.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Most of us condemn xenophobia without hesitation and reject racism almost by instinct. Which of the Prime Minister’s Great British values informed the initial response to Mr Trump’s order?
Boris Johnson
The Prime Minister’s primary duty, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is to the safety and security of everybody in this country, and to protect their rights and freedoms. That is what has been achieved by the agreement that we have struck. He will also know that the Prime Minister was first or very early out of the box in saying that she disagreed with this policy.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making those words in our passports that refer to allowing Her Majesty’s subjects to travel “without let or hindrance” a reality, and on being the first Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to defend domestic policy in the United States since Lord North. May I encourage him to defend our interest, as he is doing, and not seek to tell America how to run itself?
Boris Johnson
I am not seeking to defend, explicate or rationalise in any way the policy of the presidential Executive order. I merely seek to explain how it may affect UK nationals and dual nationals, and what we have done to mitigate its effects.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
On Holocaust Memorial Day on Friday, the Prime Minister told us:
“Our commitment to remember the Holocaust is about more than words…It is about…standing up to prejudice…wherever it is found today.”
Why, then, was the Prime Minister unable on Saturday to adhere to her own call to action?
Boris Johnson
The Prime Minister made it very clear that she did not agree with the policy.
Boris Johnson
She did, and I have made it abundantly clear several times during the course of these proceedings that the policy is entirely a matter for the United States, but that my view is that it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is to be congratulated on working to protect the rights of British nationals, but will he also consider that he would not be telling an ally how to run its own country by reminding it, in calm and firm terms, that our shared relationship is based on mutual respect for the rule of law, both nationally and internationally? Persisting with this policy does America no good in that regard at all.
Boris Johnson
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I would just point out that we are more likely, as a nation, to get a hearing on these vital issues if we treat our long-standing friends and partners with the respect that they deserve.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It seems that fake news has come to the House of Commons with a vengeance, because the Foreign Secretary has just said that our Prime Minister was one of the first out of the blocks to condemn the words of President Trump. She certainly was not; we have heard that it took 38 hours. Her failure shames this whole country. I am proud that more people in my constituency of Brighton, Pavilion, have signed the petition to stop the state visit than in any other. They recognise that our Prime Minister has been not involved in diplomacy, but complicit with tyranny. What does the Secretary of State say?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Lady’s constituents are, of course, perfectly at liberty to sign the petition and express their views. I have expressed my views about the measure, but I also think it would be a good thing for the visit to go ahead, because the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is the single most important geopolitical fact of the past 100 years, and we are going to keep that relationship going.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I strongly agree with the Foreign Secretary on the importance of this country’s alliance with the United States, but does he agree that, whatever others may do, refugees arriving in this country will be dealt with with patience, courtesy and respect?
Boris Johnson
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his point. I am glad to see that the bust of his grandfather has been rightfully restored to its place in the Oval Office. I remind him that of course Winston Churchill took a very strong view on a country being able to control its own borders and immigration policies.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I do not think the Foreign Secretary understands that so many people in this country feel such contempt for what Trump has done. Can the Foreign Secretary clarify what he said earlier? If indeed the visit of this wretched, bigoted man is going to take place, can we be reassured that under no circumstances will he address Parliament in Westminster Hall? That, in itself, would be a disgrace.
Boris Johnson
I am sure that the mood of the Chamber of the House of Commons will be reflected in all discussions about how the visit is to go ahead, but we should bear in mind that he is the elected Head of State of our closest and most important ally, and there is absolutely no reason why he should not be accorded a state visit, and every reason why he should.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Certainly, if we got the Queen to have tea with the President of China, I do not see why she should not have tea with the President of America. As all our security for 70 years depended on the special relationship, and with regard to our prosperity and a future trade deal, was not the visit of the Prime Minister an absolute triumph? We are all thoroughly proud of her. Is not the first fruit of this special relationship the fact that the Foreign Secretary has ensured the rights of British citizens?
Boris Johnson
I agree with my hon. Friend about the Prime Minister’s visit. I think it was a very great success, and the two evidently kindled an important relationship. The parallels that were drawn extensively in the US commentariat between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and our Prime Minister and the new American President were very apposite. We can look forward to a new era of security and stability, working together with the US.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The British embassy in the United States has a very important page on a website that shows a list of presidential visits to the United Kingdom. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that George W. Bush and Barack Obama were President for more than two years before they made a state visit, and that many previous Presidents did not have state visits at all, although they did visit this country in the course of their duties? Why on earth has Theresa the appeaser got this President here within a few months? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the response to what he said, but my immediate reaction is that the matter—[Interruption.] Order. I do not require any assistance. My immediate reaction is that the matter is one of taste, rather than of order—and I certainly do not need any help from the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), who would not have the foggiest idea where to start.
Boris Johnson
May I therefore say, with your guidance, Mr Speaker, that I do find it distasteful to make comparisons between the elected leader of a great democracy and 1930s tyrants? I really have to say that I think it is inappropriate. As for the exact protocol of when the visit should take place—something about which the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) obviously cares very deeply—I cannot give him any guidance about that; it is a protocol matter.
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
May I offer the Foreign Secretary my commiserations on his being sent out to bat on a very sticky wicket? Will he tell the House whether, when he intervened in Washington, it was through the State Department or the President’s son-in-law?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that ingenious question. I am sure that the House will appreciate that we have very good relations with the US Government at all levels now. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had an excellent conversation today with General Kelly of the Homeland Security Department, confirming the very important exemptions that we have achieved for UK nationals and dual nationals.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary does not like outrage, so does he understand the dismay felt by millions of Britons at the Prime Minister’s failure to condemn immediately and unequivocally Trump’s Muslim ban? Does he acknowledge that the ban may have increased the risk to British citizens in the seven countries affected by it?
Boris Johnson
I will simply have to repeat what I have already said about 15 times this afternoon about my views on this policy, which I think are exactly the same as those of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle): it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong. That is our position. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) can find all sorts of other adjectives, if he chooses to. Let him reach into his thesaurus and exhaust the wells of outrage, by all means. We have made our position clear, and we have also secured an important exemption for UK nationals.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
As recent barbaric attacks across Europe demonstrate, we all face a continuing threat from Islamic fundamentalism, which we are all trying to address in our different ways. Although we may not have adopted the same policy as the United States, surely this is a matter for the newly elected Administration in America, its courts and its people. Our position has been immensely enhanced by the fantastic visit by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Britain now has influence, thanks to her.
Boris Johnson
May I just say something in defence of that great democracy, the United States of America? If we look at all the migrants in the world—all those who are living in a country other than that in which they were born—fully 20% of them are in the US. Some 45 million people in the US were not born in that country. I do not think that it is possible to say credibly that that country is hostile to those from overseas. Of course, it is vital that we work with the United States in combating terror and that we deepen our relationship, as we are doing.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
May I congratulate the Government on a very successful visit to the United States of America, and on putting the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the front of the queue? Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a touch of a double standard here? People from Ulster have been told for decades that they must talk to, and work and be in government with, the most objectionable people, yet they are now being told by the same people that the President of the most democratic country in the world should not come to this country. May I encourage the Secretary of State to ensure that the state visit proceeds? Could he also advise Northern Ireland citizens who hold Irish passports but who are entitled to full British passports on whether they should apply for British passports for ease of travel to the United States?
Boris Johnson
I completely agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly makes. President Trump and his Administration have not, to the best of my knowledge, been engaged in terrorist offences on mainland Britain, unlike those with whom the hon. Gentleman and his party were asked to negotiate.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given the reservations that my right hon. Friend has expressed and the mitigation that he has secured, what further opportunities will there be to maximise our influence? May I suggest that a return visit by the President is a rather obvious one?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very good thought. The presidential visit will, of course, be an occasion for deepening the relationship and having further such conversations. I will meet my US counterpart at the Munich security conference in just a few days’ time.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
In addition to the general dismay, does the Foreign Secretary realise that those of us with constituencies with large Muslim populations—my constituency has the largest Arabic-origin population in the country—are feeling deep concern and anxiety? Many of them travel regularly to America for work and family reasons, and they are looking for the strongest possible reassurance from the Government. Can the Foreign Secretary help me on one specific point? A very diverse school party will leave for America in a few days, and a couple of the students have already been refused visa waivers. Will he do what he can to ensure smooth passage for those students, who are going to America to study the great tradition of American democracy?
Boris Johnson
We will, of course, do everything we can to help the party of schoolchildren that the hon. Lady refers to and to make sure that they have a great trip to the US. If there are any difficulties with their visas, we will assist. As for the Arab Muslim minority in her constituency, of course we must speak up for them and defend their interests and rights. That is why we have made the points that we have about the needs of duals and the needs of UK passport holders.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement of condemnation. Is he aware of the speech in 1940 in which Winston Churchill said:
“Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last”,
in reference to the countries that remained neutral in the war? The dangerous trend towards nationalism, which we have not seen since the 1930s, inflicting itself on the western world has wrongly been defined as populism. It is clear that this Executive order needs to be condemned. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the House must make its stand, here and now, for the weight of history stands on our shoulders?
Boris Johnson
I completely agree that we must stand up against bigotry and nationalism, but I do draw the line at the comparison that has been made relentlessly this afternoon between the elected Government of our closest and most important ally—a great democracy—and the anti-democratic, cruel and barbaric tyrannies of the 1930s. Continually to use the language of appeasement demeans the horror of the 1930s and trivialises our conversation.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
People feel strongly about the matter because of the great love held for the United States in this country and in this Chamber. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that our deep friendship brings with it the ability to be candid. Strength also brings with it the ability to be candid; is not the lesson from the weak response to these announcements that desperation leads to the opposite of candour?
Boris Johnson
The important point, I stress again to the House, is that the Government have earned the right to speak frankly to our friends in the US. We have done so, and we have made our views about this measure known. As the House has heard, my views are ad idem with the views of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and other Members here today. The Prime Minister does not approve of the measure, but the important thing to do is to talk to our friends and partners in the US—to reflect and relay some of the global consternation that we detect, but to get a positive outcome for UK nationals.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on securing the rights of dual British nationals. Will he undertake to look into the case of some middle eastern and other Asian countries refusing entry to dual nationals from this country?
Boris Johnson
I am aware that there are other countries, particularly in the middle east, that ban the citizens of at least one country from entering their own.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Why did the Foreign Secretary make no reference at all in his statement to the Americans’ suspension of their refugee programme? Should not our Prime Minister have echoed the words of the Canadian Prime Minister by saying that we welcome those who are fleeing persecution, terror and war, regardless of their faith?
Boris Johnson
Our policy on receiving refugees has not changed, and we have a good record. The United States, to the best of my knowledge, has taken about 12,000 Syrian refugees alone. As I said earlier, I do not think that anybody could reasonably fault the United States of America as a great recipient of migrants from around the world. If we look at the numbers—45 million people in the US were not born in that country—we see that it has a very distinguished record.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that so many Members of this House have got so used to our not having control of our own immigration policy that they appear to resent another sovereign country having control of theirs?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend puts it bluntly, but accurately. Whatever Members may think about this policy—there is a wide measure of agreement about the policy across the House—it is the prerogative of the President of the United States and the American Government to do this.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The world is an increasingly dangerous place and if the special relationship is to mean anything, surely we, as friends of America, should be deploring this in the strongest possible terms and saying to President Trump that he must desist. This is not about making clear our anxiety, as we read in the Foreign Secretary’s statement; it is about the leadership we must show to deliver peace and security in the world.
Boris Johnson
With great respect, the hon. Gentleman must have failed to pay attention during the previous 15 answers I have given on exactly that point. We do not agree with the policy, but we are engaging with the United States to improve it.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I know the Foreign Secretary understands the fear that this Executive order has struck into the hearts of some of our British citizens, particularly as during the Obama Administration British citizens of Iranian extraction in my constituency had their bank accounts at UK banks closed, ostensibly because of US banking rules. May I urge the Foreign Secretary not to disengage from the USA, but to seek protections and assurances to ensure that the Executive order does not lead to further personal financial sanctions on British citizens originally from these seven countries?
Boris Johnson
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I would just remind the House that the reason the particular seven countries have been singled out—there has been a certain amount of confusion and controversy about this—is that they were in fact the seven selected by the Obama Administration for the withdrawal of the visa waiver scheme for anybody who had been to those countries.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am sure that the three Members of this House who were born in Yemen are grateful to the Foreign Secretary for allowing us to travel to America, but a British citizen who happens to be an aid worker in Yemen or has visited Yemen for humanitarian purposes will be caught by this ban because— as I understand it, but he may have other information—the United States will not allow those who have visited or worked in Yemen to visit the United States, even though they are nationals of Britain.
Boris Johnson
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he was born in Yemen, and there must initially have been some anxiety in his mind about exactly how he would be treated were he to go to the US. I am happy to say that he will face no obstacle whatever because he is a UK passport holder; nor will any UK aid worker in Yemen, because that is what we have achieved.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
We did not need the Executive order to be signed to realise that this was President Trump’s policy. After all, it was an election pledge in an election he went on to win. Given that we knew, or should have known, that this was going to happen, did the Foreign Secretary raise the issue in his meeting with President Trump’s transition team or did the Prime Minister raise it when she met president Trump? We should have known about it, and we should have raised it.
Boris Johnson
The reality is that conversations between the new Administration and the UK Government have been going on for many months. I have to say that we became aware of the policy when it was enacted by the President on Friday evening, and since then we have worked very hard to secure the exemptions and protections that we now have.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Given that the Foreign Secretary has said today that the US President’s policy is “divisive, discriminatory and wrong”, can the House safely assume that he will strengthen any representations he makes to our friends in the US on this policy by working closely in co-operation and partnership with our counterparts in the European Union and the Council of Europe?
Boris Johnson
We already work very closely—hand in glove, cheek by jowl, locked at the hip—with our friends and partners in the EU on matters of common foreign and security policy, and by the way we will continue to do so once we have left the European Union.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Many thousands of people will be comforted by the fact that all British passport holders will be able to travel into the US, and that those who have the legal right to be here will be able to apply for a visa. Seven countries are on President Trump’s list—their citizens are banned from entering the US for a period of 90 days. Every one of those countries bans Israeli passport holders from entering their country. Has the Foreign Secretary had any representations from dual British-Israeli citizens regarding that immigration policy, which is similarly divisive, discriminatory and wrong?
Boris Johnson
I am glad my hon. Friend has pointed that out. I had alluded to it in an elliptical way, but it is right that the House should be aware of that discrimination and the ban that exists. By the way, the House should reflect on the fact that all immigration and visa policies are by their nature discriminatory as between individuals and nations.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is right about one thing: we have lots of friends in America. I stand with our friends there today who are standing up against this ban, which affects Muslims and others from those countries, but may I turn the Foreign Secretary’s attention back to the humanitarian cause in the middle east? Many of those affected will have been striving to save lives in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. What contact has he had with humanitarian leaders to ensure that they can travel to the United States if they need to do so?
Boris Johnson
What I can say about the conversations we have had so far is that, where people have diplomatic or political reasons to travel, or if they are travelling because they are aid workers, there should be expeditious systems for ensuring that they get through fast. That also applies to some of the people who are resident in this country but do not have either dual or UK nationality.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has touched on this point. Sixteen countries currently forbid admission to Israeli passport holders. What the US is doing is without question misguided and wrong, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be consistent in our condemnation?
Boris Johnson
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a point about which many Members of the House would have been ignorant until this afternoon. [Interruption.] There we go. Opposition Members knew it. In that case, why did they keep silent?
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Many in our academic community are not British passport holders. At the weekend, my constituent Hamaseh Tayari, a specialist vet at Glasgow University, was prevented from boarding a flight because it involved a transfer in New York. The holocaust did not start with the gas chambers. Only days after Holocaust Memorial Day, the parallels are clear. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation, but will he condemn the restrictions in any discussions he has with his US counterpart? Will he assure the House that the price of trade with the US will not be our complicit acceptance of the new rules?
Boris Johnson
I said in my answer to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who speaks from the Front Bench, that we are aware of the problem with the Glaswegian vet and will do everything we can within our consular power to help her. The hon. Lady’s repetition of comparisons—they have been made all afternoon—between these events, the second world war and the holocaust trivialises the holocaust.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that, while America pursues this terrible and divisive policy, which I utterly condemn, the United Kingdom will always be a place where refugees are welcome and made to feel welcome? In that spirit, will he join me in praising and thanking voluntary groups such as Refugees Welcome in Richmond, which do great work in this field?
Boris Johnson
Absolutely. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to be a great open society in the UK. I was very proud when I was Mayor of London that 40% of Londoners were born abroad, including me. She has repeated condemnation of the Executive order, which has been heard on both sides of the House. As I have said, it is not my place to defend or explicate that policy, but it is there for 90 days and 90 days only, and will be subject to the full scrutiny of debate on Capitol Hill. As we have heard, there is doubt there, too.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
President Trump’s decision to issue this Executive order is deeply divisive and dangerous. It has sent shockwaves around the Muslim world, including in Muslim communities across Europe and here in this country. As a Muslim, I find it deeply worrying and disturbing. Living in this country, I am deeply fearful of reprisals like the attack in Canada. When political leaders amplify tensions, when they fail to show courage and leadership, and when they fail to stand up in the face of division and hatred, we send the wrong message. I appeal to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to show courage and leadership, and to take steps to provide protection for those communities across Europe who are feeling very, very worried about their safety after this Executive order.
Boris Johnson
I agree very much with a lot of what the hon. Lady says, which is why the Prime Minister and I have taken the line we have on this measure. She speaks of hate crime and is absolutely right to do so. I do not want to see anything that stigmatises, entrenches divisions or causes communities to feel unwelcome, whether in this country or elsewhere. That is absolutely wrong. We take hate crime very seriously in this country. We can be proud of some of the achievements we have made in the past 10 to 20 years in cracking down on those who foment mistrust and division between our communities.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s speech in Philadelphia was one of the best expositions I have heard in recent years of the importance of the Atlantic alliance. I urge all hon. Members who doubt that to read her speech and they will see why this is a relationship worth holding on to. Will my right hon. Friend, in considering these issues, recognise the warm response the Prime Minister received from Congressional leaders, and redouble our efforts to reach out to them across the aisle as wise counsel and friends of the United Kingdom in Washington?
Boris Johnson
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There is a wide measure of agreement across the Atlantic on some of the essentials that unite us: the importance of NATO and our collective western defence; and the importance of promoting our values and our belief in freedom, democracy, the rule of law, equality and human rights. They are shared by many, many people in the Republican party on Capitol Hill. They also share our strong desire to develop our trading relations with a new, free trade deal, one of the great achievements of the Prime Minister’s visit.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I have to say to the Foreign Secretary that the emptiness and hollowness of his statement demeans his great office of state. Given that during President Trump’s campaign he very clearly set out a policy to ban Muslims, does he agree that the Executive order amounts to banning Muslims?
Boris Johnson
No. The hon. Lady will understand that it does not amount to that. Certain states have been singled out. As I have said, I believe that to be wrong in the sense that it discriminates against people on the grounds of their nationality.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
When President Obama came over here during the EU referendum, he voiced his concern about what we were trying to do. We told him in no uncertain terms that it was none of his business—it was entirely ours. Friends should be able to speak to each other, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the American people have voted Donald Trump to be their President and it is their business how they defend their borders?
Boris Johnson
I agree with my hon. Friend up to this point: it is also our duty, as many Members have said today, to make our views about this measure clear to the American President. We do not like it. We disapprove of it. We think it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong, as I have said repeatedly. As he rightly says, however, this is a sovereign Government of a friendly country and they have taken this decision by due process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate remaining interest. If colleagues have been listening, they will have noticed that the Foreign Secretary has been giving pithy replies, so I would now ask for pithy, single-sentence questions without preamble. If people want to go for preamble, let me politely say, “Keep it for the long winter evenings that lie ahead; we do not need you today.”
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the impact of this Executive order on British foreign policy objectives in the middle east and other areas in the world with substantial Muslim populations, and how will a state visit from President Trump assist them?
Boris Johnson
Of course, most countries in the middle east are exempt from these provisions, but we will work with the incoming Administration to address all the crises in the middle east, including those affecting the countries concerned.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on standing up for British nationals. It is right that we remain a close friend of the United States, but will my right hon. Friend also point out as a candid friend to the US Administration that we should steer clear of policies that could act inadvertently as a recruiting sergeant for Daesh?
Boris Johnson
We have been extremely candid with our American friends and partners, as indeed I have been candid with the House this afternoon about our reservations, which include the grounds that my hon. Friend mentions.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
In the hope that he will now answer it, let me repeat the question put by the shadow Foreign Secretary that the Foreign Secretary did not answer. In the light of our special relationship with the United States, why did it take the Government of the United Kingdom over 17 hours longer to get the same assurances that the Canadians got much quicker?
Boris Johnson
It is our duty to secure the best possible deal for citizens of the United Kingdom. What Canada does is a matter for Canada, and I have no knowledge of what deal the Canadians may or may not have secured. It is important for the House to understand that this is an Executive order that caught many Departments of the American Administration on the hop, as it were, and it has taken them some time to elaborate the policy that we now have.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Given that Donald Trump is the democratically elected President of our closest ally and our single biggest trading partner who is carrying out a promise that he made to the American people in their general presidential election, I commend the Foreign Secretary for standing firm on the state visit, which is absolutely in our national interest. After all, if pursuing policies that the UK Government did not agree with or pursuing policies in a ham-fisted manner barred any country from a state visit, no country would ever get a state visit.
Boris Johnson
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. To the best of my knowledge, both Nicolae Ceausescu and Robert Mugabe have been entertained by Her Majesty the Queen, and I think most Members would concede that it is our duty and the right thing to do to make preparations now for receiving our friend, our partner, the leader of a long-established great democracy and our most important ally.
Mr Speaker
What a great relief it was for those of us who did not have to meet either of those two people.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that the reciprocal ban imposed by Iraq on US nationals may damage the bids to further increase stability and security in that fragile country?
Boris Johnson
I am very aware of that particular problem, and I have already heard representations from Iraqi politicians. There are, as the hon. Gentleman will know, specific exemptions for those involved in politics or diplomacy, and I hope that their applications will be treated expeditiously by the US.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that while we can of course say that we would not have such a policy in the UK, interfering in the affairs of another country can be counter-productive, as President Obama found out when he tried to influence the outcome of the EU referendum last year?
Boris Johnson
That is entirely right. As things turned out, I was rather grateful for President Obama’s intervention. If I may say so to the House, I think we have got the balance just about right. It is very difficult, and we have had to be clear with our American friends and partners, but we have also had to secure important protections for duals and for UK citizens.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary referred earlier to matters of taste. Well, I personally find a man who refers to grabbing a woman by the pussy very distasteful. A tearful constituent called me yesterday to say that he was devastated by the Prime Minister’s failure to condemn the actions of President Trump. Does the Foreign Secretary agree?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Lady will know very well that the Prime Minister has herself said several times that such language is unacceptable.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House and answering questions so fully. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing such a debate so that we can move swiftly on to the Pension Schemes Bill afterwards.
If the Foreign Secretary had a very special friend who had been invited to a big party, which would be the better way of influencing them: banning them from the party, or taking their hand and saying to them quietly what you would like them to do?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend has made the point very elegantly. We do not agree with this policy, we do not support it, it is not something that we would do ourselves, but we think that the best way to effect change and influence the White House is to engage, and to be as positive as we possibly can.
Mr Speaker
My keenness to accommodate colleagues is undiminished, but may I very tactfully say that if people feel that they are going to add further insight to our proceedings with their contributions they can of course continue to stand, but it is not compulsory to do so?
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister wants to do business with President Trump, presumably in the same way that she does business with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Muslim majority countries that are not on the banned list. Not a single terrorist attack on United States soil has come from one of the seven countries on the list, yet 90% of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Has the Foreign Office made any assessment of a potential conflict of interests between the President’s personal business dealings and his domestic policy?
Boris Johnson
I am afraid that the hon. Lady must have been momentarily thinking of something else when I pointed out earlier that those seven countries had already been singled out by the Obama regime for very substantial visa restrictions.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
In March, I shall be attending a United Nations conference in New York. Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that I, as a British subject born in Yemen, and others like me will not be detained for questioning at the airport’s immigration area?
Boris Johnson
Yes, I certainly can. If my hon. Friend has any problems, she should get on to us.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Ceausescu, Mugabe and, for that matter, Putin did indeed make state visits, but none of them was invited to address both Houses of Parliament. Whose idea was it that Mr Trump should be invited to do so? Was it the Foreign Secretary’s, the Prime Minister’s, or whose?
Boris Johnson
I like the way the Labour party is obsessing about points of protocol, but all this has yet to be determined.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has said that British citizens should be treated on an equal basis regardless of religion or ethnic origin. May I say this to him? When I entered the United States before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was stopped by United States immigration officials and asked what country I had been born in. I was born in Pakistan, but I am a British national. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that anyone who experiences the same treatment should write to the Foreign Office, so that we have a record of it and can make the appropriate representations to the United States?
Boris Johnson
I assume that that took place under the Obama Administration. Obviously I should be happy to receive correspondence about it, but, again, my hon. Friend and every other possessor of a United Kingdom passport will be free to travel to the United States without let or hindrance.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I am sure that, as a man of catholic literary tastes, the Foreign Secretary will be as familiar with that great book “The Art of the Deal” as I am. In the book, Mr Trump says that a good negotiating position is to start with something so utterly outrageous that it will incite fury throughout the world, and then move to something that may initially seem outrageous, but by comparison appears almost reasonable. As a responsible Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman will have analysed possible future actions by the President. What conclusions has he drawn?
Boris Johnson
I think the conclusion that anybody looking at the President’s electoral rhetoric and what he is in fact doing will draw is that his bark is considerably worse than his bite. I think we have every opportunity to do a very good deal with him on all sorts of things, not least free trade.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
What assessment have the UK Government made of the risk to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) referred a few minutes ago, namely that the Islamophobia being propagated in America may make it easier for Daesh to recruit terrorists to operate in the United Kingdom?
Boris Johnson
I understand the phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, and we all need to work harder, and to work with our American friends and partners, to tackle that sense of exclusion and isolation which can drive extremism.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
When it comes to refugees, women’s rights or torture, we are either on one side or the other. Can the Foreign Secretary explain how many refugees we will take to offset the ban and how many women’s organisations will receive additional funding from us to offset the cut in their funding from the US Government, and will he rethink that state visit—that honour, that highest honour?
Boris Johnson
As I said earlier, this country has a proud record of taking refugees, and, indeed, of funding international organisations and of campaigning for female victims of sexual violence in conflict. We have done, I think, more than any other country in the world in that regard, and we continue those pledges. As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about the state visit, which has been made repeatedly this afternoon, I repeat: Her Majesty the Queen has extended that invitation, it is right and proper that it should go ahead, and it will.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Could the country come to the conclusion that the Government and Foreign Secretary’s response to this abhorrent and pernicious policy shows that they are so desperate for a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States that they are willing to become an apologist for the Trump Administration?
Boris Johnson
I think that any fair-minded person would, having listened to what has happened over the last 48 hours, understand that far from supporting the policy, far from acquiescing in the policy, and far from approving or agreeing with the policy, we have worked with the incoming Administration to modify that policy and to secure important protections for UK nationals and for dual nationals.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I refer the House to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. Given that a number of psychologists have now suggested that President Trump displays traits of narcissism and may be dogmatic in policy approach, how will the Foreign Secretary seek to reason with him, and will the Foreign Secretary be seeking psychological opinion himself?
Boris Johnson
Irrespective of the psychological traits of various world leaders, in which I am sure the hon. Lady is an expert—I have not had a chance to consult her register of interests to discover whether she is indeed a psychologist—we will work with the President, and indeed with all our friends and partners, to get the best outcome for our country. The partnership with the US is absolutely vital, not just for our stability and security but for that of the entire world.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
This order stigmatises not just on the basis of nationality, as the Secretary of State says it does; it stigmatises on the basis of faith. This is a Muslim ban, and that has been admitted by those the American President asked to help him implement his Muslim ban legally. Why is the Secretary of State persisting in pretending that these people are not doing the very thing that they themselves are telling us they are doing?
Boris Johnson
To the best of my knowledge, the President has himself dissociated himself from that characterisation of this policy, and I just remind the House that these seven countries do not comprise the entire Muslim world, and indeed, they are the very countries that were singled out by President Obama for thoroughly restrictive visa regulations.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Given that the Trump Administration seem intent on trading in man’s inhumanity to man, when was the first time the Secretary of State called his opposite number to express his disquiet?
Boris Johnson
As the hon. Gentleman may know, my putative opposite number has not been finally confirmed in office yet, but we have had abundant conversations with representatives of the Trump Administration about this policy.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary could comment on the blog that has just come up from Gary Gibbon at Channel 4, which states that the Prime Minister was
“told a US refugee ban was coming”
prior to the signing of the Executive order. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm or deny that fact?
Boris Johnson
I do not comment on confidential conversations between the Prime Minister and the US President, but I can tell the House that as soon as we had a full understanding of the measure that the US had brought in, we decided to intercede to get the protections that we needed.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
So when the Prime Minister visited the United States and Trump held her hand, did he whisper sweet nothings or did he tell her what his intentions were? Will the Foreign Secretary remind the Prime Minister that
“no deal is better than a bad deal”?
Boris Johnson
I am afraid that I could not quite make out the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I totally agree with the last bit.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Holocaust survivors have said that this reminds them of the 1930s, so is this a time for appeasement or a time for standing up for British values?
Boris Johnson
I think that it is time for perspective and time to stop demeaning the holocaust.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I was in Washington last week with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. While we were there, members of NATO, high officers of state in the United States, congressmen and senators took us to one side and said, “Stand by us, because our values are under attack under this Administration.” Does the Foreign Secretary not appreciate that what comes out of this Chamber and the statements that we make are important for those Americans who want to fight to retain their values?
Boris Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for what she is doing with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. It is important that we talk to our friends and partners in NATO about the vital importance of that organisation. She is right to suggest that we have many friends on Capitol Hill who agree profoundly about the importance of NATO—as, indeed, do many in the new Trump Administration—but the way to nail down those arguments is to engage with that Administration in the way we are doing.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The ban affects the resettlement of refugees from seven countries, many of whom had been waiting in the camps for years and who had been cleared and were ready to go to the US before the ban came in. How will the Foreign Secretary use this much vaunted special relationship to speak up for the rights of those people, who are themselves the victims of war?
Boris Johnson
We have made our position clear on this policy. We believe that the US has a proud record of taking in refugees; it has already taken 12,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict, and I hope that it will think again.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary not share my concern that, although extending this invitation to the President might earn us some short-term brownie points from the new Administration in Washington, it will lose us the respect and trust of many more countries with which until recently we shared the common values of decency, tolerance and respect?
Boris Johnson
I will turn the hon. Gentleman’s entire proposition on its head: I think that other countries around the world are looking to us to engage with the new American Administration in order to reflect their concerns and to get across our key messages on NATO, on trade and on the values that unite us.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The shameful lack of an immediate condemnation and the insular, complicit platitudes from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are a disgrace to this House. The Government often talk about their global influence, but they do not seem to have the necessary influence—or perhaps the guts—to condemn this disgraceful racist order. Why does the Foreign Secretary seem unable to condemn the impact that it will have on some of the most vulnerable people on the planet simply because they are Muslims?
Boris Johnson
I must say in all candour to the hon. Lady that it strikes me that her question was composed long before she came to the House for this statement and heard what I have had to say. Any fair-minded person listening to what I have had to say about the measure and about what the UK Government have done over the past 48 hours would not conceivably have put things in the way that she did.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, regardless of the exemption for UK nationals, the Trump presidency is tainted by this bigoted, immoral ban, that the Prime Minister is tainted by her hand-in-hand association and that he is tainted by his craven complacency? [Interruption.]
Boris Johnson
A ministerial colleague makes from a sedentary position the important point that the leadership of the Labour party is currently in the hands of somebody who advocated talking to the IRA not so many years ago, and possibly still does. We are advocating engagement with the Government of the most powerful nation on earth, on which the security of the world depends.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Can the Foreign Secretary not understand why the measure is perceived as discriminatory against Muslims? The seven countries have Muslim majorities and the President himself said that those of minority faiths from those countries, such as Syrian Christians, will be exempt from the order.
Boris Johnson
I do not think that there is much between our perspectives on this. I have said repeatedly this afternoon that I believe the measure to be divisive, discriminatory and wrong, more or less parroting the hon. Lady’s words—in fact, she parroted me. That is my view. In so far as the measure may turn out to be counterproductive, which is the view of many hon. Members, we are also making that point.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that such action is exactly what ISIS wants and plays into its false narrative that the west is anti-Muslim? What President Trump has done is not only immoral, but a threat to our national security. That is why we cannot be seen to endorse it.
Boris Johnson
Everybody understands the scope and extent of the challenge that we face from radical Islamic extremism. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the danger of pushing people into a corner and making them feel more isolated. He is quite right to raise that. However, we are working with a huge coalition of Muslim countries, many of which are completely unaffected by this measure, to defeat that extremism and radicalisation.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Did the Foreign Secretary at any point in his conversations raise the Geneva convention and the US Government’s obligations, or was that left to Chancellor Angela Merkel?
Boris Johnson
At the risk of repeating myself, and as I have said several times already this afternoon, we have expressed our clear views about the policy in respect of both refugees and migration from the seven named countries.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) raised an important point a few moments ago to which the House did not get a full answer. It would appear that the Prime Minister was told in her talks about the refugee ban, so will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether that was the case? If so, what was her advice to the President?
Boris Johnson
I think that I gave an answer a moment or two ago. I do not comment on the confidential conversations that take place between the Prime Minister and her opposite number. We have worked with our friends in the White House, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to understand exactly how the measure is to be implemented and to ensure that we secure the protections that this country needs.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
James Rottger, my constituent, emailed me to say that being received with the pomp and ceremony of a state visit will be presented by Trump and his cronies as a ringing endorsement from the UK and therefore, unfortunately, Scotland. Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that we are judged by the friendships we keep and by the way in which we react to our friends?
Boris Johnson
I understand the feelings of many people in this country and around the world. They have expressed themselves. I have seen the numbers on the petition. I will repeat my point to the House: it is our job as a sensible Government to work with the most powerful democracy in the world, the leadership of which is absolutely indispensable for our security and for the stability of NATO and the western alliance. That is what we are going to do. Just as every other President before him who has come to the UK, it is entirely right that Donald Trump should receive a state visit.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary realise that the special relationship with the Americans is partly based on the strength of our leadership and its candour, rather than its weakness and compliance? Does he recognise how much it undermines that special relationship when we have a Prime Minister fawning over the President, rather than standing up to him?
Boris Johnson
It is obvious to the meanest intelligence that we have not complied meekly with this policy but have sought changes and improvements so as to protect the rights of UK nationals and of dual nationals who may have been born in the seven countries that have been identified.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
A country must be judged by the company it keeps. How will the Secretary of State answer should history judge that it took the Prime Minister so long to condemn President Trump’s Executive order because, after cosying up to him, she set off to sign trade deals to arm the increasingly dictatorial and out-of-control President Erdogan?
Boris Johnson
I refer the hon. Lady to what I said earlier, but I would add that, while the repercussions of that Executive order were being felt in the US alone, the Prime Minister was in transit to Turkey for another very important visit where she secured a fantastic deal for this country—an agreement to supply Turkey with British-made fighter planes.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The US has been a leader of so much that is best in the world, and this policy has let the US down and let the world down. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether he knew that the Prime Minister knew about it in advance? Was he asked to brief her and, if so, what did he say that she should say in response before the Executive order was signed? If he did know, did he make any preparations in advance of this coming into force?
Boris Johnson
I have answered that question already, with great respect, and I do not comment on the conversations that take place between the Prime Minister and her opposite number.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
More than 4,000 of my constituents have signed the petition against the state visit, more than 100 of them in the two hours since the Foreign Secretary took his feet, so he is clearly not convincing many people. If the state visit does go ahead, what opportunity will they have to protest peacefully and visibly?
Boris Johnson
I am delighted that 100 of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have been waiting with bated breath for him finally to get that question—I cannot remember what it was—off his chest. I hope he will forgive me. The views of his constituents are important, and they clearly disapprove of the prospect of a visit by the President of the United States. I must humbly and respectfully say to them that I think it is in the interests of this country that, as with every other President of the United States, Donald Trump should come to the UK.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the Floor of the House this afternoon. Does he agree that it is striking that supposedly the largest democracy on earth has excluded from this Executive order the four nations whose citizens have killed the most American citizens in the American homeland over the past 40 years? If this was a decision of defence, it is clearly lacking because there is not the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, there is not Egypt, there is not Turkey and nowhere is there the United Arab Emirates. Is the United States making a big mistake?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening when I pointed out—I think I am now pointing it out for the third time—that the list of the seven countries in question was drawn up not by the Trump Administration but by the Obama Administration when they applied their own thoroughly restrictive measures on people travelling from those countries.
Points of Order
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to make this point of order, of which I have given prior notice to you and to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames). I understand that during my response from the Scottish National party Benches to the Foreign Secretary’s statement, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex, who has always afforded me courtesy and respect, was making “woof, woof-sounding” noises at what I was saying, which of course I find extremely disrespectful. This is an opportunity, through you in the Chair, for the right hon. Gentleman to set the record straight if that is not the case. If it is the case, perhaps you would be able to rule whether that is in order.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me the courtesy of advance notice of it. The right hon. Gentleman is in his place and of course I would want to hear from him.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Like you, I thank the hon. Lady for her kindness in warning me that she was going to complain of this. I thought that in her question to the Foreign Secretary she snapped at him a bit at the end, so I offered her a friendly canine salute in return. No offence was intended, and I apologise to the hon. Lady if she was offended. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we should leave it there. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order about the certification by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. He made the following statement:
“In my view the provisions of the…Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”—
the convention being the European convention on human rights. His statement is incorrect, having regard to the terms of the Supreme Court’s judgment, which made it clear that the triggering of article 50, for which the Bill provides, will affect the rights of “UK residents granted through EU law”
and that withdrawal from the EU will remove some of their existing rights, including the right to freedom of movement. This means that the provisions in the Bill will interfere with the rights of UK residents under article 8 of the convention, which guarantees the
“Right to respect for private and family life”,
and with the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of national origin set out in article 14. If I am correct, that means that the provisions of the Bill are incompatible with the convention and that the Secretary of State has made his declaration of compatibility in error. I seek a ruling to this effect and/or clarification on what procedure I might follow to ensure that this mistake is rectified and that the declaration is withdrawn before the Second Reading debate of the Bill.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady, to whose point of order I shall come momentarily. I do not wish to dwell on the previous matter, but my response was, if truth be told, incomplete. I thanked the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), and I stand by that, for his courtesy in remaining for the point of order, which was proper, and for his apology. However, I neglected to respond to a particular part of the point of order from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), which was: would such a statement have been in order? The short answer is no, it would not have been in order; it is discourteous and that expression should not have been used. That said, the right hon. Gentleman has apologised, with considerable grace and very succinctly, and for today we must most certainly leave it there.
Mr Speaker
I beg your pardon, but I am getting ahead of myself. So enticed was I by the prospect of hearing a further point of order from another hon. Member that I neglected to respond to the previous one.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West has raised her point of order, and I thank her again for her courtesy, but the issues to which she refers are matters for debate. However, what I would say to her is that the Joint Committee on Human Rights not infrequently reports to both Houses on the human rights implications of Bills, and I have a feeling that this Bill may be no exception.
Hannah Bardell
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Friday, the world lost a giant of British politics, and I feel that I must put on record my sorrow and sadness, and that of my constituents and I am sure of the whole House, at the passing of the former MP for West Lothian and for Linlithgow, Tam Dalyell. He served this House and his West Lothian constituents with immense dedication and distinction for some 43 years. Latterly, he was Father of the House, and he was known locally, in particular, for his absolute commitment to his constituents. Our thoughts at this very sad time should go to his wife, Kathleen, his daughter, Moira, and his son, Gordon, as well as their wider family and friends. Tam brought us the West Lothian question, which, for the time being, remains unanswered, and he was famous for grilling the then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, about the sinking of the Belgrano. I know he will be a desperately sad loss to his colleagues and friends across the political spectrum, particularly those in the Labour party.
On a brief personal note—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently say to the hon. Lady that I absolutely respect her sincerity and very proper generosity of spirit in taking the opportunity, but I hope she will understand when I say that I have to be sensitive to the wider interests of the House? What she has said already has been very powerful, and I think it will be widely echoed across the House. I have, of course, written to Tam’s widow, Kathleen and to both of the children to express my condolences. He was a parliamentary giant whose contribution was enormous. He never held ministerial office but achieved a great deal, and we thank him greatly for that service. I hope the hon. Lady will not take offence, but we must move on.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it discourteous to the House for the Foreign Secretary to leave during an application for an emergency debate in his area? I appreciate that this did not come up on the screens, but it had been widely telegraphed. Indeed, in case there was any doubt about it, I wrote him a note to tell him it was coming.
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that these are matters upon which Members can form their own views. As to whether there is anything disorderly about the conduct of the Foreign Secretary, the answer is no, there is nothing disorderly about it. The Foreign Secretary was here for exchanges lasting approximately an hour and a half, and the question of which Minister is fielded by the Government is a matter for the Government. They have fielded the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan). The hon. Lady can form her own view of him, but he is certainly not disorderly; nor is he in any way, on any occasion that I have ever observed him, remotely dishevelled.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. How do we get on the record our thanks to you, Sir, for allowing that statement to run for so long that everything was discussed that could possibly want to be discussed? We do have important other business, such as the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords], to continue with. How do we get that on the record?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has found his own salvation. If he is implying that the appetite for commentary, and possibly even speech making, on a matter of immediate interest has been satisfied, I can say only that he is a braver man than I am.
On the assumption that points of order have indeed been exhausted, I call Mr Edward Miliband to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The right hon. Gentleman has up to three minutes in which to make such an application.
Changes in US Immigration Policy
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration: the need for repeal of President Trump’s discriminatory, divisive and counterproductive ban on entry to the United States for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the indefinite ban placed on Syrian refugees.
I am supported in this application by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and a number of other hon. Members. This ban has provoked outrage around the world and in our country, and I believe it to be of sufficient urgency and importance to qualify for immediate debate under the Standing Orders of this House. Notwithstanding the statement we have just had, I believe that it is right, given the gravity of the issue, that this House has a proper debate today on these matters, so that Members from across all parties can express their views.
The ban is not an attack on terrorism; it is an attack on those of a particular religious faith: Muslims. It is clearly discriminatory, it represents a repudiation of the 1951 UN Geneva convention on refugees and it will not make the world a safer place—it will make it a more dangerous one. From the exchanges earlier, we can see that there is a host of unanswered questions relating to UK residents who have passports from the countries concerned. Given our close, historical alliance with the United States, it is particularly important that this Parliament speaks up—preferably with one voice—to seek to get this ban revoked. An emergency debate would represent an important opportunity to do this; indeed, it is for an eventuality such as this—a matter of pressing and immediate importance—that the Standing Orders were designed. So I ask you, Mr Speaker, to grant this application under Standing Order No. 24 for an emergency debate.
Mr Speaker
I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Gentleman and I am satisfied that the matter raised by him is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House? The answer is that he does—that is clear from the evident demonstration of compliance with the requirement of the Standing Order entailing the standing of no fewer than 40 Members.
Application agreed to (not fewer than 40 Members standing in support).
Mr Speaker
I must advise colleagues that the debate will be held immediately as the first item of public business today. It will last for three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the right hon. Gentleman’s application.
The scheduled business for today will take place afterwards and, under Standing Order No. 24(7), may continue for the same time beyond the moment of interruption as that taken by the emergency debate. Obviously, there is no list of speakers because Members were not to know whether such a debate would take place. Therefore, analogous to Report stages in debates on Bills, Members who wish to catch the eye of the Chair should simply stand in order to do so.
Changes in US Immigration Policy
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the need for repeal of President Trump’s discriminatory, divisive and counterproductive ban on entry to the United States for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the indefinite ban placed on Syrian refugees.
May I place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate? It is right that Members from both sides of the House of Commons have a clear opportunity to address these pressing issues. I will seek to keep my remarks brief to allow others to contribute to the debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for co-sponsoring this debate. Throughout the past couple of days he has acted with great dignity and great eloquence, as recognised on both sides of the House. He and I are approaching this debate in the hope of sending a clear and united view from this House about President Trump’s measures.
I should say at the start that this debate is not about our respect for the United States or our friendship with that country. I have lived there and I have friends there, and the declaration of independence is one of the most powerful political documents. Since its foundation, the United States has been built on the back of immigrants from around the world. Indeed, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty is the phrase:
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
It is precisely the role of the United States historically, and our friendship and unique relationship with America, that gives us a special responsibility, given what has transpired over the past few days.
At the heart of this debate are three simple questions. First, is it right for President Trump to ban indiscriminately people from certain countries of the world from entering the US, and to indefinitely ban Syrian refugees?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech, as usual, but will he tell the House who gives the most funds to support Syrian refugees? Is it not the United States?
Edward Miliband
The US plays a role and this country plays a very important role, but that is really beside the point of whether the US should impose an indiscriminate and, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon—my hon. Friend for the purposes of this debate—said to me over the weekend, an indefinite ban in relation to Syrian refugees. I shall come to that later in my speech, as I am sure will other Members.
The second question is crucial: will the President’s actions make the world a safer place or a more dangerous one? My contention is that they will make the world a more dangerous place, and that on its own reflects our national interest in this matter. The third question follows on from that: what is Britain’s responsibility in speaking up on these issues?
I shall discuss those three questions briefly, but let me say first that Americans and, indeed, people in this country are fearful about the threat from ISIS and wider terrorist networks. Those fears are understandable and we must respond to them. There is no dispute about that. I support measures that keep our citizens, and those of the United States, safe, but it is not enough to say that we are fearful, or that our citizens are fearful; we then have to weigh whatever actions are proposed or taken. Understandable fears cannot be an excuse for the suspension of reason and rationality—that applies to the Trump Administration in a whole number of areas. The only way to understand the ban is that it represents the suspension of reason and rationality. Indeed, it has perversity, discrimination and divisiveness at its heart.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
One of the key aspects is the dramatic effect of the ban on those who had boarded aircraft, ready to go to the United States with valid visas, only to arrive and be told that they had to go back. It is that physical, emotional effect that is the most damning part of what is being proposed.
Edward Miliband
My right hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on this issue and the wider issues raised. One of the most chilling things—I am sure that other Members found this as well—was that the accounts of what happened to individuals over the weekend sounded like the results of the actions of a tin-pot dictatorship. They did not sound like what we would expect or hope for from the United States.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but does he agree that we have a responsibility to act and speak responsibly in this Chamber? The seven countries of concern were identified by the Obama Administration, and restrictions were placed on migration in 2015.
Edward Miliband
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will perhaps say something personal about that, but I say to the hon. Gentleman—this is very important, because President Trump is trying to sow confusion on this issue—that President Obama’s action was about the visa waiver scheme in relation to those countries. It was most emphatically not about a blanket ban on individuals from those countries coming to the US.
The countries selected for the ban are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen. There is no question but that those countries, in their different ways, are extremely dangerous places, but does a blanket ban on people from those countries make any sense? In my view, it does not. If we read the Executive order—it is worth reading it, along with the annotations to it—we see that it falls apart at the first hurdle. Section 1 of the order, right up at the front, states the rationale for the President’s proposals. What does it cite? It cites the 9/11 attacks on America—absolutely appalling events that shocked us all—but none of the 9/11 attackers came from the countries on which the ban has been imposed. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others are not on the list, so the very justification offered in the Executive order frankly falls apart.
Nobody is against the proper vetting of people from those countries—the strongest security checks—but a blanket ban cannot be the answer. I do not think I can do better than to read the words of Chancellor Merkel, who said earlier:
“The necessary and decisive fight against terrorism does not justify a general suspicion against people of a certain belief—in this case people of Muslim belief or people from a certain country. That way of thinking is against my interpretation of the basic tenets of international refugee support and co-operation.”
Chancellor Merkel put it incredibly well. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, we have seen the dreadful results of this blanket ban playing out over the past few days.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the statesmanship that has been shown by Chancellor Merkel was not shown in our name by our Prime Minister this weekend?
Edward Miliband
The intention of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I is to maintain as much unity as we can in this debate so that we send a clear message. I would have liked the Prime Minister to be much clearer, much earlier, and I would still like a clearer message from the Government.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is there not a danger that the ban could increase hate crimes in this country and elsewhere? Is there not another danger that it will give ammunition to the violent extremists? It will almost be a recruitment sergeant, as we have learned from other experiences—for example, in Ireland.
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it very well, and anticipates what I am going to say. What message does this send to a quarter of the world’s population? What message does it send to Muslims around the world? It sends the message that they are not wanted in the United States because of their religious faith. What more of a recruiting sergeant, as my hon. Friend says, could there be for ISIS and others?
I was saying that we have seen the dreadful results of the order over the past few days, and I will briefly mention some of them. One of the first people detained, I believe for 19 hours, was an Iraqi interpreter who had worked with the US military for 10 years. If that is not a perverse result, I do not know what is. There are instances of green card holders being handcuffed and held in detention for 16 hours. A five-year-old was apparently detained for several hours, and then there is the issue—it is welcome that the Foreign Secretary clarified this—of dual citizens, including our own, such as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and Sir Mo Farah, being caught up in this.
As bad as the substance of the Executive order—“cavalier” is not putting it nearly high enough—is the appalling way in which the US Government have gone about this. It is the action of a tin-pot dictatorship. I think that the Foreign Secretary acknowledged in his statement when responding to a question from one of my hon. Friends that people had been caught on the hop. This draconian measure was imposed without even consulting the people responsible for its implementation.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech. I think that everyone in the House loves, admires and respects America and its democratic traditions, and is saddened by what has happened. One concern is the fact that the federal court rulings often do not appear to be implemented in the airports and points of entry. The message about respect for the rule of law is one that we all endorse and want to be heard. We want to get that message out.
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks very eloquently. I noticed that the Prime Minister told President Erdogan that human rights and the rule of law were incredibly important. The same thing applies to President Trump. All of us have to make that clear, and it is good to see in the Chamber the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who—I do not want to cause him trouble—issued a good statement earlier today. He is nodding.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in one way the Executive order is not a surprise, because it was a key plank of President Trump’s election campaign last year? Simply because it was an election pledge does not in any way suggest that it is right.
Edward Miliband
That is completely right. The person who coined the phrase that people were taking Mr Trump seriously but not literally has turned out to be wrong, because the President is acting literally. Whether he talked about this in the campaign or not, we all have a responsibility to decide both how we respond and the strength of our response. I will come on to why it is important that we speak up.
Edward Miliband
I am conscious of the fact that other Members want to speak in the debate, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Robert Jenrick
I do not wish to diminish the topic that we are discussing, but my wife, who is a British citizen, was born in Israel. She will not be able to travel to Malaysia, where many people in this country go on holiday, and she will not be able to travel to 17 countries in and around the middle east. If the right hon. Gentleman cares so passionately about this—and I do not dispute that he does—what does he intend to do about that?
Edward Miliband
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about what he says. These are definitely important issues. I do not want to sound like the old man of the sea, but I recall the debate on intervention in Libya in which I supported the then Government. A Back-Bench hon. Friend got up and said that they could not support the measure—and different people had different views on intervention—because there were many other terrible things happening in the world, so what were we going to do about them? Two wrongs do not make a right. This is, after all, supposed to be our closest ally and the people who are supposed to uphold human rights and the rule of law all around the world. It is hard to lecture other countries on respect for human rights if the President of the United States fails to do so.
I would like to mention a specific case that brings home the lunacy of the proposal. I read yesterday about the case of an 18-year-old called Mahmoud Hassan from Syria. He was recently accepted for a degree in engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The letter that MIT sent him described him as
“one of the most talented and promising students in one of the most competitive applicant pools in the history of the Institute.”
That young man from Syria who wants to study engineering at MIT said:
“Now Trump's orders will prevent me from going there. My dreams are basically ruined.”
I hope that on the question of students, as on the issue of green cards, the US Administration find a way of changing their position, but that brings home the reason why a blanket ban is nonsense. There are countless other examples, and doubtless other hon. Members will want to discuss them.
I would like to deal briefly with the issue of whether or not this is a Muslim ban. It clearly is. That was the President’s original intention. Rudolph Giuliani said on television yesterday—I paraphrase—“Donald Trump rang me up and asked how we could get a Muslim ban and make it work. I said, ‘Here’s a way we can make it happen.’” As for the Executive order itself, we all recognise the persecution, in particular, of Christians in the middle east. It is important to take special note of that and, indeed, that is already done in the way in which refugees are handled.
The Executive order singles out the possibility that minorities from predominantly Muslim countries will receive special treatment, which draws into the order the idea that this is being done on the basis of religious faith. It is a ban aimed at Muslims.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
What my right hon. Friend is describing emphasises why it is important that we as a country can contribute to, and serve as members of, organisations such as the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, otherwise we will lose the ability to join other nations to make exactly the points he is making.
Edward Miliband
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I would like—and perhaps the Minister will ponder this—a more co-ordinated European response on this issue. We are still members of the European Union, and if there is any area where Europe should speak with one voice, this is it. I do not see why there could not be a European Heads of Government meeting to discuss the issue and Europe’s response. It is important that President Trump knows that there is a co-ordinated and clear voice from Europe on this issue.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, along with how abhorrent this is to many people looking on, we must save a thought for the staff in the embassies and consulates around the world? I worked for a time with the US State Department in the consulate in Edinburgh, and I know how strong the feeling is in many offices. It is difficult for staff to have to execute the order and serve on the front line.
Edward Miliband
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Lots of people who are trying to implement the order are wondering why they have to do so. Apparently, on Friday night some of them were saying to people who were victims of the proposal, “You’d better call President Trump if you don’t like this.”
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am concerned. Will he clarify the difference between orders from President Obama’s Administration and those from President Trump’s?
Edward Miliband
Well, there is a huge difference. President Trump’s order is a blanket ban on people from seven different countries. President Obama’s proposal —if I am allowed to say so, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has had personal experience of this—was a specific issue about the visa waiver scheme. It was not about saying that there would be any kind of blanket ban on people coming into the country.
My final point on why the order is such a terrible thing for President Trump to have done is one that other hon. Members will want to talk about: the ban on all refugees from Syria. I recommend a piece that my brother wrote on the matter in The New York Times. Refugees are the most thoroughly vetted people in the world, with up to 36 months of vetting and screening by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Department of Defence and others. There has been summary detention of the innocent, clear discrimination on the basis of faith, and a decision to depart from the UN convention relating to the status of refugees. This ban is neither rational nor fair, and it will not make the country or the world safer; indeed, quite the opposite. I can do no better than to quote Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who yesterday said
“we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism…This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”
I believe they are right.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I am sure that I am not alone in saying that my office has today been besieged by phone calls from tearful, upset constituents asking, “Why has the world abandoned us when someone is basically saying that we are all terrorists?”
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. In fact, I was about to come to that point. We already see the implications of the order playing out. We are in partnership with the Iraqi Government against ISIL, and today we have seen their response to the Trump ban, as the Iraqi Parliament has asked its Government to retaliate against the measures of the US Administration. As my hon. Friend said, we should think about what this order signals to 1.6 billion Muslims all around the world. It sends the message that they are not welcome. Indeed, it precisely buys into the clash of civilisations narrative that politicians from across the political spectrum have tried to avoid ever since 9/11.
Regarding our responsibilities, the United States has always been our oldest and closest ally, and some will say that this is not a matter for us as long as our citizens are protected. I profoundly disagree. It is absolutely a matter for us because the fundamental and dangerous betrayal of values that this measure represents is an affront to us all—the Muslims living here and every other citizen of this country—and it will make the world a more dangerous place. Allowing the measure to stand and shrugging our shoulders will amount to complicity with President Trump. These actions are not normal, rational or sensible. President Trump is a bully, and the only course of action open to us in relation to his bullying is to stand up and be counted.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case about why the order should be challenged. Does he share my despair that it has become apparent today that our Prime Minister knew about this before she walked into a room, looked President Trump in the face and chose to say nothing?
Edward Miliband
I heard my hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary a powerful question earlier, and she makes an important point. On the wider issue, I understand the need for a trade deal with the United States—although a whole set of issues surrounds that deal—but we cannot, on the basis of our keenness to get a trade deal, shrink from speaking truths to the most powerful man in the world. That would just be the wrong thing to do.
The only course of action open to us regarding this Executive order in the United States is to act on the basis of our values. That is the purpose of the debate, which I thank you again, Mr Speaker, for granting, and that is the purpose of the motion before the House. I hope it will be approved by hon. and right hon. Members.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the request made by my friend, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and I to discuss this critical issue. I thank hon. Members of all parties in this House, and people beyond, for their private and public messages of support during the past 72 hours of anguish for my family.
In February last year, my wife and I had our visa waivers revoked in the wake of heightened security measures undertaken by President Obama’s Administration because of our status as Iraqi-born individuals, although we are both British citizens. The precaution seemed fair at the time. We were required to present ourselves for interview at the US embassy in order to guarantee the future security of our travel to America. That was understandable, but none the less uncomfortable. It was not, though, nearly as uncomfortable as this weekend has been for my family and me.
I learned that ability to travel to the United States—a country that I revere so much for its values, for which I have such great affinity, affection and admiration, and to which I have sent both my sons to university—was to be denied to me. I learned that this great nation had put in place measures that would prevent my family and me from travelling, studying and feeling welcome there. I was concerned about the next time I would see my boys, given our reluctance to let them fly home in case they were prevented from returning to university. My wife and I despaired at the thought that, had one of our sons again been taken as seriously ill as he was last year while at university, we would not be able to go to him when he needed us most. Similar sentiments have been felt by many families in the UK and around the world over the weekend.
I fully recognise that I am speaking from a position of great privilege: I have been very lucky as a businessman, and I am hugely privileged to represent Stratford-on-Avon and to have a strong platform from which to state my views. But we need to remember that many people do not have this platform or this voice, many of whom, through no fault of their own, will be seriously affected by the policy and will still be unsure how it affects them or their families. I praise our Prime Minister for the manner in which she spoke up for those people in the United Kingdom. She rapidly instructed our Foreign and Home Secretaries to make representations to their US counterparts. I am relieved that their endeavours have had some success, at least in the British case, but sadly and regretfully, the order remains in force.
Every country is undeniably entitled to set its own immigration policy, control its own borders and do what it thinks is in the best interests of its citizens’ safety. On those issues alone, no nation should interfere, but the UK has an obligation to speak out and to be a critical friend to the United States of America because of the ramifications of the order for the internal stability and security of our country and the rest of the world. The order undermines what our Prime Minister said so eloquently in her speech to Republicans of both Houses of Congress last week in Philadelphia about the need not only to defeat Daesh on the battlefield, but to defeat its ideology and the ideology of those who support it.
I know that I will have vast amounts of support from hon. Members across the House when I say that the Executive order is not only wholly counterproductive in combating terrorism and the narrative of Daesh, but will worsen the situation, playing into the hands of those who would see more terrorist atrocities, not less. Those sympathetic to Daesh will link the order to abhorrent recent events—most notably, the burning of a mosque in Texas and yesterday’s tragic shootings at another mosque in Quebec, Canada. They will link it to rhetoric surrounding the so-called Muslim ban, and to the President’s comments revealed by the former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, to which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North referred. On Fox News on Saturday night, Rudy Giuliani confirmed that the then presidential candidate approached him and, after announcing his intention to impose a total shutdown on all Muslims entering the USA, instructed him to
“Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.”
Over the weekend, pro-Islamic State social media accounts have already begun to hail the order and the President’s comments as clear evidence that the USA is seeking to destroy Islam. They have even called it the “blessed ban”. Articles in Daesh’s English-language publication Dabiq have consistently said that the intention behind Daesh’s attacks on the west has been to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash. This Executive order has done exactly what it wants; it has, in effect, put at the disposal of Daesh and its supporters a useful recruiting sergeant to radicalise more impressionable young men and women, creating the danger of more home-grown terrorism, not less. This blanket order will marginalise many moderate Muslims, warping their perception of the west and giving Daesh’s claims that the US is the enemy of Islam more credibility where there should be none. This marginalisation will continue into the UK, presenting further threats of radicalisation here, too. This must not be allowed to happen.
I was delighted that at their joint press conference our Prime Minister and President Trump pledged to renew the special relationship between the UK and the USA—a relationship that has proven so beneficial for both countries and the world. The uniqueness of the special relationship has meant that the Prime Minister and our Foreign and Home Secretaries have rightly been able to convey their concerns to the President’s Administration, with some success.
If this strategy of calling for a sensible review of the order is to continue, with the intention, I hope, of replacing it with a reasoned, measured, evidence-based alternative, then we cannot accept calls for a cessation of relations with the President—or, I might add, the postponement of his state visit here—until this order is revoked. We cannot possibly have a constructive discussion with the President unless we maintain exceptionally close relations and dialogue. For this reason, I think we should welcome President Trump to the United Kingdom at the earliest opportunity, so that we might personally engage in meaningful dialogue with our closest ally in the hope of a change in stance.
My message to the President would be this. He is a big man—a powerful individual—and what he says and does has profound effects throughout the world. In his last statement, he spoke of his compassion. As a Christian, he should reconsider this order and look at the evidence that suggests that it will have precisely the opposite consequences to the ones he intended to achieve. He should think again on his policy to impose an indefinite ban on thoroughly vetted Syrian refugees who are in desperate, desperate need. The America I know would welcome them; it would be a cradle of comfort, and would not seek to reject them or others like them. Lastly, he should always, in everything he does, remember the values on which his great country was built.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for calling for this Standing Order No. 24 debate, and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for making such a very moving speech on such an important issue.
There is a brave seven-year-old called Bana Alabed, a Syrian refugee who has drawn the support and praise of the whole world for tweeting from Aleppo throughout the bombing—tweeting about her reading, her friends and the fact that she wants to be a teacher, and tweeting a desperate plea for peace. She and her mother are now in Turkey, and she is continuing, as a seven-year-old, to be an ambassador for peace. She has been tweeting again about her wish to meet up with friends from across the world who have supported her in this. Giving a voice to refugees from all over world, she has already met international campaigners and leaders, yet she has been banned from the United States indefinitely for being Syrian—and she is just seven years old. That is the destructive impact of this ban.
With the flick of a pen, the President has banned not only Bana Alabed but a Syrian family who had spent many years building up their savings, got all the visas correct, and been given clearance to come to the United States as refugees to join family in Pennsylvania; they were turned away at Philadelphia airport on Saturday morning and sent back. They had done everything right, but they were turned away. This comes from a country that has always led the world in welcoming the poor, the hungry, those fleeing persecution and the persecuted—the huddled masses—to its shores. That is what makes this Executive order so tragic for all of us.
What is happening right now also feels so tragic because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North said in his powerful speech, we cherish the values that the United States has always shared with the world—the values that we, too, have tried to champion. The Executive order bans refugees from Syria indefinitely, those from other countries for at least several months, and everyone from several Muslim countries, but there is a readiness to exempt those who are not Muslims.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Members who secured this debate. Does the right hon. Lady share my concern about the case of the Glasgow vet, Hamaseh Tayari, who was denied even a transit visa through the United States because of the confusion that this policy has caused? Does she welcome the support that Glasgow University, where she is a vet, has offered? Is she aware that Glasgow University educated James McCune Smith, who was the first black doctor? He was born a slave in New York in 1813, and after his education in Glasgow returned to the United States and had a very important career as a medic and an educator. Does she wonder what sort of opportunities would be allowed to the likes of him if this kind of policy remains in place?
Mr Speaker
Order. That intervention was rather long. I encourage colleagues to contribute for approximately five minutes each, but that will not be much help if Members who intervene choose to imitate those who have the Floor.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) is right. There are so many of these irrational cases and personal stories that make no sense for the United States or for us.
For the Foreign Secretary to have said earlier that this is not a Muslim ban is the worst kind of diplomatic obfuscation. The Trump Administration themselves have made it clear that it is a Muslim ban. The fact that it targets particular countries but has a potential exemption for those who are not Muslim shows the prejudice and discrimination that lies at the heart of this, and it is something for which President Trump campaigned for very many months.
Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
It seems that while UK nationals with dual nationality may be admitted to the US, the European Commission cannot at the moment verify whether that would also apply to those from other EU member states. Could my right hon. Friend comment on that?
Yvette Cooper
There is a whole series of unanswered questions about what happens not just in the case of dual nationals or UK citizens, but EU citizens and other nationals who may be resident in the United Kingdom and want to travel to the United States.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon described his personal experiences. I know that everyone in the House would want to stand with him against any sense of discrimination that he feels and wrongly faces. I think he would agree that, as he said powerfully, this is not simply about the rights of British citizens—it goes so much further and wider. It is about the shared values that have underpinned generations of co-operation between this country and one of our closest allies. Under our democracy and our common humanity, we have both built into our written and unwritten constitutions a condemnation of discrimination. We have worked together, over very many years, against prejudice and hatred, so it is deeply immoral for this ban to target Muslims in this way, and we should not be afraid to say so.
We have also worked together on international policy on refugees—to support the Geneva convention and the UN’s work, and to resettle refugees, including Syrian refugees from all over the world. The US has always played a historic role in resettling those refugees. For the United States to, in effect, pull out of the Geneva convention and that international co-operation is deeply damaging to a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees programme that all of us should want to champion. We should be prepared to speak out about that.
The ban also threatens our security. It is immediately counterproductive to prevent from entering the US those Iraqi citizens in the Iraqi Government and armed forces with whom the US may need to work in the fight against IS. Inevitably, the Iraqi Parliament has responded by saying that American citizens will be prevented from entering Iraq. We need these countries to work closely together, and with us, in order to defeat terrorist extremists. We should be fighting against them together, and not be divided.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Obviously, most people in this country are appalled by the actions of the President of the United States in relation to the Muslim community. Having said that, on immigration, only about 15,000 refugees have been taken by the United States, so it is not as though it has been swamped.
Yvette Cooper
It is true that, as a proportion of the United States population, the number of Syrian refugees who have gone there is relatively small. However, as a proportion of those who need support and resettlement, that contribution has been important, so it is very damaging to our international support for refugees for the United States to pull out of that co-operation. That is why the United Kingdom Government have a responsibility, not to just say a few words under pressure in this House, but to raise concerns directly with the US Administration, and why so many Members are concerned and frustrated. The Government delayed making any response or criticism. We hear now that the Prime Minister was told about the ban before it happened on Friday, yet she did not speak out about it, even when the Turkish President, standing alongside her, was prepared to do so. The British Government were prepared, rightly, to raise the issue of human rights with Turkey, but they did not raise concerns about what President Trump was doing.
There are limits to what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are prepared to say, even now. When I asked the Foreign Secretary directly whether he had urged the US Administration to drop the ban, he refused to say. Frankly, from everything he did say, we can only conclude that the UK Government still refuse to ask the US Administration to drop this ban, abandon this targeting of Muslims and do their bit again to help refugees. I hope that the Minister will put me right and say that we have got it wrong, and that Ministers have, privately behind the scenes, been urging the US Administration to change their policy. It is crucial that they do so. That is the point of having a special relationship and a good friendship: being able to speak the truth to power and say the difficult things. If Ministers are not prepared to do that, what does that say to British Muslims and others around the world who feel targeted? And what does it say to those whom President Trump may target next? This could be only the start—we do not know. This is what President Trump has done within just a few days of taking office. Where will he go next? What will it take for us to be prepared to speak out, if our Government are not prepared to speak out yet?
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that, given that this is a brand-new relationship between our Prime Minister and the President, now is the time to set the ground rules? This is the beginning of the relationship and we need to set out, for all the world to see, what we consider to be appropriate in terms of behaviour and policy.
Yvette Cooper
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady. It is immensely important to establish the principles on which we will work.
I will explain why I think the state visit matters. I want the Prime Minister to meet President Trump frequently, and I want her to influence, persuade and challenge him. I also want President Trump to hear the views of people across Britain and to understand the strength of feeling about a country that we care about, but with whose actions we disagree. I am deeply worried that it will be not a normal visit by a Head of Government, but a ceremonial state visit involving our royal family, who for so long have united the country and whom we have tried to ensure are kept separate from politics and the deep, divisive arguments that countries across the world sometimes have.
By rushing into this state visit, I fear that the Government will do the opposite of what they want to achieve, and that instead of it being a celebration of friendship and shared values and a sign of increased co-operation, it will show huge divisions and our huge concern about what President Trump is doing. It will look like an endorsement of a ban that is so morally wrong and that we should be standing against.
We should also remember that the Executive order was signed on Holocaust Memorial Day. If ever there was a day to remember why we need to have the courage to speak out against prejudice and hatred, Holocaust Memorial Day is it. The Prime Minister’s words in the book of remembrance on Holocaust Memorial Day state:
“Our commitment to remember the Holocaust is about more than words—it is about action. It is about raising awareness, spreading understanding, ensuring the memory of the Holocaust lives on, and standing up to prejudice and hatred wherever it is found today…Together we will educate every generation to learn from the past and to take responsibility for shaping a better, brighter future in which through our actions, as well as our words, we truly never forget.”
That really is a responsibility not just on all of us, but on our Prime Minister, who was told on Holocaust Memorial Day about this ban, which targets Muslims because of their faith and turns away refugees who are fleeing genocide and persecution. Just as we have been advised so many times to speak out when we see prejudice and discrimination, there is an obligation on the Prime Minister to speak out now.
I, like many, feared that the decision to offer President Trump a state visit was too hasty, because we did not know what he would do or the direction in which he would take his country. Now that we do know, I urge the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office to work with the US Administration to find an alternative way and to make this an ordinary visit, so that they can hold discussions and debates, and so that we can put pressure on the United States to change its position. The United States is proud of its constitution and of the words on the Statue of Liberty, which proclaim:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe…
Send these…tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
It is because we want our countries together to be able to lift the lamp beside the golden door that the Prime Minister and the Government should speak out now.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) on securing this timely and important debate? It is with a degree of sadness that we have to have it in the first place.
America has a proud tradition of being a nation of immigrants. People fleeing torture and persecution from around the world have sought refuge on the shores of the United States and, metaphorically, I suspect that Miss Liberty is holding her head in shame because of the events of last Friday. The Executive order is shameful and immoral, but, as I said in my intervention on the right hon. Gentleman, it should not come as a surprise to any of us. Throughout the campaign last year, President Trump made it plain that, as well as building a wall, he was going to ban all Muslims—not security threats, but a religious grouping. It was rather frightening, if one looked at the audiences to which he made that pledge throughout the United States—north, south, east and west—to see the reaction of the crowds. That shows us that not only is he honouring his election pledge, but he is playing to a gallery of people who are prejudiced in favour of this sort of action. That is very sad, because it will not achieve what I assume he wants it to achieve, apart from gaining a potential narrow party political electoral advantage with a core base.
America should be stronger together, and it should be building bridges, not walls. The Executive order will alienate moderate Arabs and radicalise further those on the radical wing of the Arab world, at a time when we should be building bridges to enable us to expose the evil and violence of some of the terrorists who come out of the middle east, and working with moderate Arabs to end the evil threat not only to us, but to moderate Arab opinion in the middle east.
Sir Simon Burns
No; I do not have time. The Executive order will result in further radicalisation. It will do the exact opposite of what some people think it will do. It will not make the United States any safer; it will make it a more dangerous place. That is an irony, and it is unacceptable.
I take issue with some of the comments I have heard during this debate and during the statement, in that I think it is absolutely right that the British Government continue the work of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to build bridges with President Trump so that we can, through engagement, seek to persuade him and to minimise or reduce the danger of his more outrageous policies. We can do that only by being a candid friend, but we have to be a candid friend.
I believe that very little would be achieved by cancelling a state visit to which the invitation has already been extended and accepted. It is part of a process of seeking to engage, encourage and persuade. There is, however, one area at which we should look very carefully. Some will remember that in 1982 or 1983, President Ronald Reagan had a state visit to this country, but it was decided by the then Thatcher Government that there should not be an address to the joint Houses of Parliament.
Similarly, I remember, as a Member of this House, the state visit of President George W. Bush. Apart from a sojourn in Durham at Trimdon Labour club, I believe, for lunch with the then Prime Minister, all President Bush did was to travel in the Beast from Buckingham Palace to No. 10 and back again. There was no address to the joint Houses of Parliament. In the circumstances, I think that that was rather wise. We and the Government —and you, Mr Speaker—should think very carefully before considering such an address as part of the programme for a state visit by President Trump, because it might not go as well as everyone would naturally expect.
In conclusion, this ban is nasty, it is immoral and it will not succeed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his deputy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), as well as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have a key role to play because the ban will last for 90 days, which in theory means that it is part time and transitory. I am not convinced that that will be the case in reality. The challenge for the Government is to do all they can to influence President Trump about its counterproductive nature and the danger that it will pose in radicalising rather than pacifying those who espouse radical extremist thinking; and to persuade him that there are better ways than this very blunt weapon to pursue a policy of reconciliation. The best way to do so is to communicate and negotiate with the reasonable elements in the middle east and work together to overcome the threat to this country, the United States and elsewhere.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) on securing this timely debate. I have listened to it, and I now feel rather emotional, speaking as a Muslim Member of Parliament. People have talked about refugees, but I will talk, as a Muslim woman, about Islamophobia. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked earlier, how do Muslims feel? The words of the President of America go to the heart of every Muslim in the country.
I will start by sharing an experience from this weekend, when I hosted the Jewish Board of Deputies in my office in Bradford. I shared with them a publication from the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, “Path to Genocide”, which sets out the stages along that path. In stage 1, “classification”:
“The differences between people are not respected. There’s a division of ‘us’ and ‘them’. This can be carried out through the use of stereotypes, or excluding people who are perceived to be different.”
Stage 2 is
“a visual manifestation of hatred. Jews in Nazi occupied Europe were forced to wear yellow stars to show that they were ‘different’.”
In stage 4, “dehumanisation”:
“Those who are perceived as ‘different’ are treated with no form of human right or personal dignity. During the Genocide in Rwanda, Tutsis were referred to as ‘cockroaches’; the Nazis referred to Jews as ‘vermin’.”
This weekend, I went to the Holocaust memorial service at Bradford cathedral. Rudi Leavor, who leads the Bradford synagogue, shared his story of how he fled Nazi Germany. His father, who was a dentist, took the family away and they fled persecution. As they left on the train, they saw a family on the platform who were the last to wave them off; that family did not survive.
For me, the matter is very personal. It is personal because if my daughter decides to wear a hijab, what are the chances of her not being persecuted? We have seen videos and read news reports of hijabs being ripped off and of women being thrown down steps just because of what they are wearing, and here is the so-called leader of the free world telling us that it is okay to ban Muslims. Donald John Trump says that he is tackling terrorism with his Executive order, but the fact is that the chance of being murdered in the US in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is one in 3.64 billion each year. More people have been killed in America by gun crime than by people from the countries that have been banned. If the President really wants to save Americans from death, he needs to look at gun crime.
How do American Muslims feel right now? They are as entitled as anyone else to representation by their President, but they are being singled out and victimised by him. What about the 700,000 asylum seekers and 3.25 million refugees who have sought refuge in America since 1975? Having contributed and been accepted, how do they feel about now facing the blame for everything that is wrong? America, the self-proclaimed land of immigrants—proudly and rightly so—now turns its back on those who do not fit the President’s accepted mould, not because they are a threat but because they are deemed to be less worthy than others.
My skin colour is a few shades darker. That does not make me a terrorist, and it does not make me a threat. The colour of their skin does not make the Muslims in this world a threat to America or to western democracy. The thing that poses a threat is the Executive orders issued by the so-called leader of the free world, who incites hatred, demonises Muslims, sees women and others as second-class citizens and courts organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan. That is what creates terrorism—what threatens democracy, the world we live in and our children’s future—not Muslims, and not refugees.
We do not differentiate refugees on the basis of their religion; we support them because they are fleeing persecution and war. They do not choose to leave their homeland or to leave their surroundings. Bradford is a city of sanctuary—I am proud to come from a city of sanctuary—that hosts Syrian refugees. Can hon. Members imagine what they would feel like if we in this House ordered that we would not take any more refugees or any more Syrian refugees? That would fly in the face of what this House stands for.
I am a Muslim from Bradford West, and I have the privilege to stand here today and contribute, as many hon. Members have, but what do we really stand for? Before I get rather emotional, I will finish with the words—the famous words—of Pastor Martin Niemöller:
“First…they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me”.
I do not want to be on the wrong side of history when there is another genocide; Srebrenica happened in my lifetime.
Where does the slippery slope really lead when we demonise Muslims and those seeking refuge on our shores? Offering refuge is what being British stands for, and this House cannot abdicate its responsibility and stand silent about what is happening with our closest ally. We must engage with it, and try to stop and reverse this Executive order. We cannot stand by silently: to do so would be the greatest shame of our nation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently point out that if we are to accommodate all colleagues, it will be necessary to have an informal limit of approximately five minutes? I ask Members not to exceed that limit from now on.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) on securing this debate. It was of course your decision to allow it, Mr Speaker. If the emotion we have already heard in the British House of Commons is anything to go by, what on earth will the effect of the order be right around the world, particularly in those nations on the list or in those that might be on any future list?
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), carefully put forward the more obvious and ludicrous consequences of such an ill-thought-out measure. I very much want to compliment my fellow member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, on combining what was undoubtedly an emotional speech with calm rationality and reasonableness in making an immensely powerful case to the American Administration. I want to use the rest of my speech to turn to the case that our country should make to the American Administration as a whole.
I did not agree with the critique of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee about the actions of the Prime Minister. I am not entirely sure that her suggestion that the Prime Minister was aware of this and had a chance to make her views known during her visit to the United States can be substantiated. As far as I understand it, that is not the case, but the Minister will be able to confirm that in his winding-up speech.
We need a strong voice into the White House, and we have secured it, although it may have taken the prospect of a state visit to ensure that the Prime Minister was the first foreign leader to visit the White House. During that visit, she was able to secure the pre-eminent European requirement of the visit, which was the President of the United States overturning—audibly and verbally, in answer to her challenge at the press conference—his purported position on NATO. That is of immense importance not just to the United Kingdom, but to the whole security of Europe.
This goes to the heart of what we are to do about this particularly unwise Executive order. On the previous day, the Prime Minister had addressed the Republican caucus in Philadelphia, where she was very warmly received. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has already referred to the values that she spoke to in her remarks to the caucus. We have to remember that the Administration is not just the President. One of the failures of the order was the failure to consult the other Departments in the United States. There is a separation of powers in America: the President is not the whole Administration. The effect of our Prime Minister’s early visit is that she is in a place to ally herself with the Secretaries of the various Departments that make up the Cabinet in the United States and to be an important ally in internal debates in the Administration. Such a debate ought to have taken place on the order and there should have been proper consideration, but that process plainly did not take place.
We also have allies on the Hill. The success of her speech in Philadelphia is shown by the position taken by Senators McCain and Graham. They have made an outstanding joint statement, which ends:
“Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”
Those arguments were eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon in his very remarkable speech.
It is not only in Congress that we have allies. The legal system of the United States is already cranking into action, and judges are already ruling against the legality of the Executive order. I very strongly suggest to right hon. and hon. Members in the House, as well as to the wider public, that we need to be effective in advancing the interests of the United Kingdom and the values of the liberal democracies that both we and the US are. Such values—of the rule of law and, in the United States, of the separation of powers—are already beginning to make themselves felt.
Our Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the fact that she will now be listened to by President Trump because of the actions she has taken, as our Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary have plainly already been listened to as well. There is very much more work to do to get the order rescinded and recast in an intelligent, sensible way so that it advances the interests of both us and the United States, and we need the kind of relationship that will enable that to happen.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) on securing this debate and on putting the case so eloquently, and I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) on bringing home so movingly the pain that this has caused to so many people.
My mother was a proud American from Ohio. Her forebears made the journey across the ocean to seek a better life, and they found safety and opportunity in equal measure. Perhaps that explains why those of us who have a family connection with the United States of America felt, I must confess, a sense of shame and rising anger as events unfolded this weekend. We have seen that passion expressed in this debate, which tells us something about the nature of the decision that we are objecting to. It is precisely because we have such respect for the United States of America that we yearn for something better—much, much better—than this, and why we have a responsibility as friends to speak out.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that Donald Trump’s mother was a migrant? She was not just from Scotland but from my constituency. Donald Trump’s first cousin’s wife was my English high school teacher, but we can leave that to one side.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned shame. As a Hebridean, I feel utter shame at how Donald Trump, the son of Hebridean woman, is behaving on the world stage. It is absolutely disgraceful and shameful. I hope he rescinds and changes the measure—not recasts, but rescinds it.
Hilary Benn
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We hope he rescinds the measure.
I want to make three very quick points, the first of which is that however much the Foreign Secretary may seek to argue that this is not a ban on Muslims, our fellow Muslim citizens and our constituents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and I, know that it is. Why do we know that it is? We know because Donald Trump said during the course of his election campaign that that is what he wanted to do. The fact is that people listen to that. They see the order. They know he is talking about them. Imagine the conversations in families when children say to their parents: “What is it about us that means that country doesn’t want us?” What message does that send to the next generation? Frankly, the message it sends is offensive, divisive and misguided.
Secondly, I agree absolutely with the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) that the order will not help us or anyone else in the fight against the brutal ideology of Daesh. Instead, it will act as a recruiting sergeant for Daesh. I simply observe that our security is too important to be damaged in that way when populism triumphs over reason, as has happened in this case. Our best defence against the lethal obscurantism of Daesh is to cleave ever more strongly to the values that make us proud to be British.
My final point is about the international rules-based system. Why did we create these institutions after the end of the second world war, including the United Nations? We knew that out of the ashes of that terrible conflict, we needed to work together to observe and uphold certain principles to enable humanity to thrive in the world we were seeking to create. Article 3 of the refugee convention states:
“The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin”,
and the truth is that the order offends against article 3 of that convention. We have other worries—the Paris climate agreement and the Iran deal—but they are all expressions of the international rules-based system that we have fought so hard to create and sustain.
I conclude by saying this: if we are going to deal with the challenges we face as a world as this century unfolds, we must seek and strive to bring people together and not to drive them apart. That, after all, is the very principle on which the United States of America, which we respect so much, was founded.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is very difficult to follow the excellent and wise words of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I add my congratulations to my new friend the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and my dear friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who so ably represents his constituency.
Mr Speaker, I agree with everything that has been said, and you will be pleased to know that I do not intend to repeat any of it. One danger of these sorts of debates is that we become like an echo chamber—we fall over one another to agree, exposing in us in some cases large “L” Liberal values, but in most of us small “l” liberal values, as we unite in condemnation of this Executive order for all the reasons that many other hon. Members have expressed.
Sir Mo Farah said that the Executive order was based on prejudice and ignorance flowing from Donald Trump, but many others in that great nation unfortunately no doubt support what he has done. We must be honest that, in this country, we too suffer from much of that prejudice and ignorance. It is all well and good for hon. Members to talk as we do, but we must now ensure that we face up to the reality in our country where, unfortunately, too many people share some of the views we see mirrored in the order.
I would love to say that such things are a fancy in my constituency. We have welcomed four Syrian refugee families to Broxtowe. I am very proud of that. I am a Conservative as it happens—it really does not matter—but everybody on my council has come together to give those four families the sort of warm and generous welcome that we would expect. I do not know whether the situation is the same in America, but it is worth remembering the tough bar for Syrian refugees coming to our country. I praise our Government for the generosity and good work we have done in bringing so many Syrian refugee families into this country, but they have to pass quite a high test. They are among the most vulnerable refugees—they have suffered either sexual abuse or torture.
It gives me no pleasure to say this as someone who has spent almost the entirety of my life in Nottinghamshire, but one of those four families did not come straight to my constituency. They started off in another town in the county of Nottinghamshire and had to leave it, such was the prejudice and lack of welcome and the blatant hostility towards them. I am proud that my constituency has taken them in. I am equally proud that our deputy mayor, Halimah Khaled, happens to be a Muslim. I have always thought of it in that way—somebody happens to be a Muslim, happens to be a Jew, happens to have brown skin, happens to be gay or happens to be straight.
I remember once seeing a documentary that shocked me to the bottom of my boots. I must have been about 11 years old. A black woman explained what it felt like to see a sign that said, “No dogs, no Irish, no blacks.” I understood how she felt, but I found it shocking that anyone would discriminate against someone because of the colour of their skin. When we were in our salad days as student politicians back in the ’70s, I genuinely thought we had made great progress over the decades. The attitude was that nobody cared what colour or race someone was.
All those wonderful things had begun to flourish in our country, but something has happened—and it has happened not just in America, but in our country. I gravely fear that that spirit of tolerance has gone from too many. Seeds that I had thought lay dormant, or had been destroyed by the power of tolerance, have germinated and grown, whether in the EU referendum campaign or the presidential campaign. If we are not careful, they are in danger of flourishing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) rightly said that our Government have a role in challenging the American President, taking him on in his views and seeking to change them. Each and every one of us in the House has a duty to stop just agreeing with one another. We have to take those messages out into our constituencies, build the campaigns of tolerance, peace and understanding, and abolish stereotypes. We have to do the hard job that lies ahead of us to ensure that the absolutely fundamental British value of tolerance once again dominates our society. If we do not, we are in danger of finding that too many people in our own nation support this abominable Executive direction from the President. It is our job to ensure that tolerance is always the overriding principle at home and abroad.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for securing the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I have followed her in other debates, but not on anything as important as this.
As a child, a long time ago, I listened to my parents with little understanding when they talked of their lived history. As an adult, I listened in shock to my father when he told me that he had helped to liberate a concentration camp. He told me that only once and never spoke of it again. In spite of the Foreign Secretary’s outrage at the repetition of references to the holocaust, I feel absolutely no shame in linking my family to what happened then and to what is happening now.
My grandchildren will wonder how I felt after this Executive order was signed and what effect it had on people in Scotland, the United Kingdom and across the world. I am able to record in Hansard that I feel fearful, upset, distressed and very, very angry. My condemnation of this vile act will matter little in the great scheme of things, but I expect the UK Government to utterly condemn this Executive order. I do not expect the Foreign Secretary to tell me, as the Foreign Secretary did, that he has mitigated it as far as UK passport holders are concerned. That is his duty. If this Government think that trade with the US matters more than the human rights of refugees and world citizens, then I feel even more affronted. If this Government want to be a world leader, they should show leadership and they should do it now.
I had the great privilege of helping Dr Ghaith Rukbi, a Syrian refugee resident in Lebanon, into my constituency. He spoke to and worked with local GPs to help to prepare them for more Syrian refugees who will be arriving shortly. If a wee place like Motherwell and Wishaw can take in Syrian refugees, what on earth is the United States doing with this order?
In the meantime, does the Minister agree with the former head of the CIA that this order will have national security implications for the UK and the wider world? It is important that we take this into consideration.
I do not agree that the state visit should take place, and I certainly do not agree that President Trump should be afforded the honour of addressing both Houses of Parliament.
Scotland and the US have a deep friendship based on shared values, and we must all speak up for those values, including tolerance, equality and providing for those in need. The Prime Minister must be clear about our obligations, both as a good global actor and under international law. It is important that we take them forward.
I will mention the contributions of only two hon. Members who have spoken. I was deeply moved by what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, and by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah). That in no way lessens what other Members have said. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe is correct: we sometimes just become an echo chamber, but it is important that the word goes out from here. It is important that people take this to heart, and go out and increase tolerance and understanding right across all our constituencies.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I join other hon. Members in congratulating the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) on securing this important and timely debate. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows).
First, it is important to note that it is entirely for the US Government to determine their immigration policy. During the presidential election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly stated that he would introduce this measure. In fact, he promised a measure that would go far further than what he is currently enacting. We should therefore be under no illusion that it is both within his power and his mandate to follow it through.
As the Executive order affected British citizens, it was right for the Foreign Secretary to intervene. I was pleased that he confirmed, having spoken to his US counterparts, that UK citizens and dual nationals are unaffected. However, I want to be clear: I believe that this is a misguided policy. The simple fact is that terrorist attacks, committed both in the US and in Europe over the past decade and more, have been carried out not by immigrants and refugees, but by radicalised nationals. It is important to note that on average nine people a year have been killed by Islamic extremists in the US since 9/11. Conversely—this point has already been made—on average 12,843 people are killed by guns in the US every year. Some would argue that the priorities are in the wrong order. Not one refugee from the countries included in the President’s travel ban has killed anyone in terrorist attacks on US soil. Further, the decision to ban refugees from war zones such as Syria and Yemen will serve only to force vulnerable men, women and children to remain at risk of persecution and death. It is also remarkable that the US is banning people from Iraq, a country it is supporting militarily against Daesh.
I have to be clear: the steps announced will not keep America safe. I fear it will serve simply to divide communities and give radical extremists yet another propaganda tool with which to turn vulnerable citizens against the United States. To use the words of the President, this will do nothing more than create more “bad dudes”. As I said, this is a decision for the President of the United States, but I strongly appeal for the Executive order to be revoked. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary make the strongest representations to that effect.
I just want to raise one final point. Of course we should speak out and I very much welcome this emergency debate, but if we are to speak with authority and credibility then we must be consistent in our condemnation. As I said to the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, 16 countries forbid admission to Israeli passport holders. In recent years, we have granted state visits to the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, all of whom forbid admission to Israeli passport holders. If we genuinely believe that banning individuals on the basis of their nationality is wrong—I very much hope we do believe it—then let us condemn these policies wherever they raise their ugly heads.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who made an excellent contribution. I, too, want to praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). Both of them do their families very proud. I know that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon spoke on behalf of all those in our country who have ever travelled abroad and felt that sinking feeling as they approached the immigration desk. It is not something we speak a lot about, but I know, sadly, that it is a common phenomenon. There will be people the hon. Gentleman will never meet, but who will feel comforted by the words he has said this evening. I want to make three brief points on Muslims in this country; on the importance of Syria and Iraq in the middle east; and on populism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) made a very moving intervention earlier about Holocaust Memorial Day, and on the poignancy and horror of what we witnessed over the weekend. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) said that her own contribution would matter very little, but I profoundly disagree. What I have observed over this weekend is an outpouring of distress and dismay from all quarters. Of course, British Muslims will feel this most keenly, but all of us in this country—whatever our background, whatever our faith, or of no faith—stand with them whether they are British Iraqis, British Syrians, British Somalians or British people who are descendants from the affected countries. I say this to our friends in America: we are Brits, all equal, and we will not be divided on the basis of our faith or wherever we have come from.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) also spoke very movingly earlier. If anyone is questioning, wondering or thinking about whether these events have an effect on Muslims in this country, I would encourage them to listen to the tone of this debate. It is incumbent on all of us, Muslim or not, to stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity and in the best traditions of my party, and show them our support.
That is particularly true for those who have been working recently on issues connected with Syria. When I heard about these events over the weekend, my first thought was for the brave and brilliant people whom I have had the honour to come to know as part of our campaign to protect human life in Syria. Many of them are Syrian nationals and would have good cause to want to travel to the United States in order to make representations on behalf of that humanitarian cause for vulnerable people in Syria. Where does this order now leave them?
I would like to ask the Minister for Europe and the Americas—I do not feel that the Foreign Secretary gave a very substantial answer to my earlier point—what representations the Foreign Office has made to the Americans about the need for those representing humanitarian causes to be allowed access to America. That applies whether they are Syrian nationals, Iraqi nationals or even US nationals who will now no doubt face equal trouble accessing places in Iraq, Syria and other areas affected by this ban. We should ask ourselves this simple question: does this Executive order help or hinder peace and security efforts in that troubled region? I think that the answer to that question is glaringly obvious and staring us in the face: it is a total disaster for peace and security in that region.
I understand that a gentleman who played a particular role in the referendum campaign has recently gone on the radio to say that this is just the cause of “loony lefties”. To those commentators who say, “Donald Trump is a perfectly fairly elected President of the United States who is entitled to do this”, I say that this issue will affect the security of each and every one of us, including some of the most vulnerable people on our planet, and it cannot stand.
Finally, on populism, the past year has been very difficult. I always believe that we should look to the future and think about what our values tell us about how to approach the modern world as it is, not as it once was, but unfortunately I feel that what we are witnessing in our world is an old, old story—that in times of economic trouble, there are always forces in our world, who I think of as the far right and the hard right, who want to turn up and tell ordinary working people in America, Europe or wherever and say, “No, your troubles and your wages failing to rise are not the fault of the economic system or Governments or companies or anyone else; they are the fault of people who are just like you, but happen to be Polish; they are the fault of people who are just like you, but happen to be Muslim; they are the fault of people who are just like you, but happen to be from another part of the world.”
That tendency and the susceptibility of people to want to believe an easy story when the truth is much more complicated is always exploited by the purveyors of hate. Those of us who stand against that cannot give in to populism. We cannot kow-tow to prejudice; we cannot say, “Yes, you are probably right, so let us try to do what you want.” We have to be very clear with people that we are all, underneath it all, fundamentally the same. We need the same ability to work together, to learn together and to have hospitals for when we are sick; it does not matter where people come from, they need the same things in life. No amount of populist rhetoric designed to divide us and make us fight each other rather than work together will change that.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for bringing this emergency debate before us. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern).
We must stand tall for principles of inclusion and equality, and a ban on individuals linked in a simplistic manner to their religion or country of origin is not evidence based; it is surely discriminatory. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because prior to my time here I was accredited by the Scottish Risk Management Authority to undertake violence risk assessments where the courts were considering the order of lifelong restrictions. As part of that role, I was trained to undertake violence extremist risk assessments. This type of risk assessment involves structured clinical judgments and is grounded in research and an evidence base. Assessment is based on risk factors known to predict violence and extremist violence. It has often been utilised in the United States and in Northern Ireland, and some of our security forces have been trained in its application.
The measure of an individual’s risk to the security of a country requires assessment of intelligence information about that individual’s belief systems, their contact with terrorist organisations, their behaviours and activity, their access to arms and a number of other pertinent risk factors. The people qualified to determine who possesses and poses true risk factors are in the intelligence and security forces. They have access to this information and can analyse it formally, as they have been doing over many years in order to highlight individual risk indicators.
A blanket ban on individuals based on heuristic characteristics of race and religion is therefore misguided. In my opinion, it will unfortunately be unlikely to reduce risk, and it may aggravate extremist beliefs and attitudes, feelings of persecution and the marginalisation of individuals who may already be in the United States and able to pose security risks there. This could strengthen extremist views on the part of a few, because it is radicalised groups, not a countrywide phenomenon, that the world has to deal with. This order will only strengthen feelings against the United States and against the west. If we do not condemn it, it will breed contempt.
In conclusion, I believe this is misguided policy. It lacks a true evidence base, it is not a national response, and it may fuel risk and be counterproductive. It does not protect the United States or the west, and we must do all we can to voice our consternation about this policy and its lack of humanity and validity. Let us call instead for evidence-based security approaches as the United States goes forward—approaches that respect human dignity across the world.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) on securing this incredibly important debate. There is a reason why thousands of people have taken to the streets of Britain tonight to express their concern about this ban and what it says about our world, and particularly to ask what we are going to do about it.
I do not disagree with a word said by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—it is a shame that she is no longer in her place—about sometimes challenging the agreeability of our debates in this place, so in the spirit of what she said, let me bring some discord to our discussions. I feel very strongly that the central question facing us tonight is what people in positions of power will do. We have seen what the leader of the free world in his first week in office has chosen to do with that power. We now have to ask ourselves as elected representatives in the United Kingdom what we will do by return.
I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) about respecting the fact that this man is an elected politician, but just because he won an election does not absolve him of responsibility for the consequences of his behaviour—and nor does it absolve us of responsibility for the consequences of not acting. With that process in mind, I wish to make four quick points. We have to speak up, and we must do so not just because of the impact on people in our communities described in the incredibly eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), but because of what it says about us as a society. When we are indifferent to hatred and intolerance, we are participants in it.
This is about hatred. This is a ban on people on the basis of their religion or their nationality. No form of this ban could be acceptable. There is no way of modifying it to make it plausible. It is simply hatred, and we should be clear about that, because not being clear about it suggests that there are circumstances in which we might seek to ban people and restrict them on the basis of their religion or nationality. It suggests that we would do the same—that we would allow there to be different classes of citizen in our communities, in our country, in our world. We must be very clear about the fact that there is no acceptable form of this ban, and only the need to challenge it.
The question is, how do we challenge that? This is where I disagree with my Conservative colleagues. Absolutely, we must engage; absolutely, we must speak up. That is why I read with despair that our own Prime Minister had the opportunity directly to look the President of the United States in the eye, in a private meeting, and say, “Look, this is not right. This will be counter-productive. This will not achieve what you want, and it will divide our nation.” She clearly has not done that. The opportunity to engage was on the table, and she did not take it. I think that that damages all of us in the United Kingdom who defend the importance of our Government in leading such engagement.
The Minister may disagree with me, but I feel very strongly. [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene and confirm that the Prime Minister raised this issue with the President of the United States directly, I will happily take an intervention, but if he cannot confirm that, what I say stands. I felt ashamed on Saturday night when the Home Office, the Foreign Office and No. 10 refused to make a statement. It was damning for us as a nation when the world was calling out for leadership.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. Did this not feel so abhorrent to so many of us because it came only a few days after Holocaust Memorial Day, a day on which we pledge that when we see prejudice and hatred we will stand up in the face of it, and was not our Prime Minister’s failure to do that deeply shaming to our country?
Stella Creasy
I could not agree more. One of the messages that I want to send from the House tonight is that we do not recognise that as the kind of leadership that we want in our country. Something clearly has to change, even if the Prime Minister did not know about the ban before she walked into that room with Donald Trump. What cannot continue is our saying that it is simply a matter for the United States. What cannot continue is our saying, “Well, if we can be sure that it will not affect our citizens, we will not worry about the implications of the ban elsewhere.” That is not good enough. That is not the British way.
The question for us is how best to express that and how best to engage. There is a world of difference between wanting to debate directly with President Trump whether he has done the right thing, not just for his own country but for our world, and rolling out the red carpet and giving him the same treatment that we gave Nelson Mandela, or, indeed, the Queen Mother when we laid her in state. There is a world of difference between wanting to debate with someone and engage with him, and wanting to indulge him. Let me say this to Conservative Members: to many of us, it looks like indulging and endorsing President Trump if nothing changes now that we know of this ban—now that we know of his intention and his deliberate actions to target Muslims in our world. If nothing changes, that will say more about us as a nation than it says about him.
The question for all of us is whether we should use the power that we have, as elected representatives of people in positions of authority, to send that message. It is whether we should join our citizens who are not just on the streets tonight, and who have not just signed that petition, but who are asking what has become of us as a world. They are people who recognise that diversity is a strength. They are people who recognise the words of a former American President, Franklin Roosevelt, who argued that a nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.
I am proud of my country; I am proud to be a patriot; I respect the rights of other countries; but that does not mean that I must be silent when things go wrong. The silence of our Government, the mitigation, the quibbling, the laziness with which people are approaching this issue and the tardiness of the response do not reflect the best principles of being British.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making many pertinent points, but does she not think that it is good for British politics that we have a Prime Minister who thinks before she speaks, rather that spewing out whatever comes into her mind on Twitter? Is that not a good thing for British politics and, indeed, for the world?
Stella Creasy
As one who often goes on Twitter, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to that.
There are some things that should not take too much thought. Sometimes something is just wrong, and we need to say that it is wrong. We do not need to judge the angles. Of course we need a trade deal with America, but we should not be trading our values to secure it. Indifference to cruelty of this kind damages not just our nation, and not just our nation’s standing, but our world. It makes it harder for us to stand alongside those people in our communities tonight who are fearful of the division that we are seeing as a result of this ban. It makes it harder for us to advocate our values, and to take on other countries that also ban people. It makes it harder for us to do our job. We are people in positions of power. We need to hear the voice of our communities who are saying that this is not the world that they want, and act accordingly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. There are—four, five, six—nine Members wishing to speak. Let me explain to the House that each of the Front-Bench speakers should have an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes or thereabouts, and the Minister should conclude by 8.59 pm, because the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has the right to reply at that point. We must work on that basis. If everyone speaks for three or four minutes, we shall be fine, but if Members speak for longer than that, they will be preventing others from speaking.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
“We should seek to engage with our American friends,” the Foreign Secretary repeated over and over in his statement. He justified that, with no sense of irony, on the grounds that engaging with such powers is the most effective way to influence them—this from the man who led, with great gusto, a campaign to persuade us to turn our backs on our closest and largest economic relationship.
Our actions in this place are inherently passive. As we heard earlier, this is an echo chamber. Passivity is easy. Passivity is amoral. Passivity means risking nothing. However, our passivity will weigh heavily on many others. It will weigh heavily on the people who are trapped, the people who cannot see their families, the people who are stranded, and the people who are fleeing with nowhere to go. This is not even just about the immediate physical ramifications of the policy. The atmosphere of hate, fear and anger that it feeds also stokes the flames of radicalism. It is not a policy that builds peace and security. We are told that this is a relationship that is worth holding on to, but a relationship in which one party stands by and watches with automaton-like levels of dispassion as another wreaks calamitous harm is not a healthy—never mind special—relationship by any stretch of the imagination.
The Government’s approach to the Trump Administration’s draconian policy is, perhaps, a product of their own making. “The only way you're going to make a deal you want is if you are coming from a position of strength”. Those are not my words, but the words of the new leader of the so-called free world. Boxed into a corner by the Government’s self-imposed Brexit boundaries, we are forced to creep, cap in hand, to people whose values now run directly counter to those professed by the House. I will therefore not be compelled by duty to kowtow to Mr Trump and his prejudiced Administration if he is invited to address us. I hope that the Minister will listen to the 1,469,828 signatories of the petition that is lengthening with extraordinary speed even as we speak, and will decide that perhaps this visit should be treated in a different way.
It strikes me that at present the Chamber is, for once, dominated by women, which would be an interesting observation with which to end my speech, but let me end with a question: how many of their great British values can the Government sacrifice in their quest for a new special relationship?
Mr Speaker
That was a splendid example, to be followed. It is not for me to comment on the content of the hon. Lady’s speech, but the length was admirable.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for securing the debate. We have heard some excellent speeches.
I shall keep my own speech short, I promise, but I want to begin with the timely words of the rather exceptional Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust. She said:
“We’ve spent the past week remembering the Holocaust, reminding ourselves where hatred leads, that words matter, that we cannot stand by. As we see injustice and witness prejudice and discrimination, we should not only feel confident to, but a duty to speak out.”
As Ms Pollock would tell us, the holocaust started with words of hatred and built from there. President Trump has a history of Islamophobic rhetoric. In 2010, he implied that Muslims were a threat to the security of his country and had a collective responsibility for the 2001 World Trade Centre attack. In 2012, he said that the world had a “Muslim problem.” In March last year, he said:
“I think Islam hates us.”
He has spoken approvingly of blanket surveillance of all Muslims and the idea of a registry of Muslims in his country. There are chilling similarities here with the Judenkartei: first words, and now actions.
In recent days, we have seen the attempt to put into place the ban on Muslim movement into the US. This is part of an initial package of measures designed to restrict the freedoms of migrants, and—let us face it—to demonise them. There is an escalating pattern of deeply unjust and very worrying behaviour, and it is clear from this debate that many hon. Members share my concern about where it might lead.
Trump’s behaviour does not only affect US residents; it is a matter of justice, security, and basic dignity, for people here at home. Like many of my colleagues in this House, I am sure, I have received lots of messages from constituents worried that their ability to travel to the US will now be curtailed. If only it was only that, because these words and actions have had a much greater effect: they fuel fear, and provide perceived permission to acts of hatred. Global media coverage extends their reach; they simply cannot be contained.
We must stand up, with a clarity of purpose and in solidarity, in condemnation of these actions and the ideas that underlie them. They are already harming innocent people around the world, whether directly or indirectly by encouraging hatred, but I worry that they could do so more. They reflect, in their beginnings, the injustices that so many of us recently remembered and recommitted to prevent.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to express my views on this issue on behalf of the many constituents who have contacted me in the last 48 hours to register their disgust at the actions of President Trump. The petition, which many of my constituents have signed, calling for Donald Trump to be prevented from making a state visit to the UK has to be one of the fastest growing petitions ever, with the number of signatures approaching 1.5 million. The popularity of this petition shows the disdain and horror that the people of the UK feel towards the US President and his hateful and bigoted policies.
When this House previously debated Donald Trump, I called him an idiot. The truth is that he is something far worse; he has in a very short time managed to prove himself an incompetent, unthinking tyrant who in less than two weeks in office has already caused massive disruption to thousands of people, mass demonstrations against his policies and untold damage to the reputation of the United States, a country that I love but whose chosen path is deeply worrying to the rest of the world.
Each and every day, families live in fear because they have had the audacity to flee a war-torn country. Victims of these hateful and poisonous acts look to authority figures and lawmakers to help solve these issues and to protect them, not turn them away from the gates of sanctuary.
Trump’s immigration ban will send a message to bigots, bullies and racists the world over that their views are not only legitimate, but entirely correct. In other words, anyone who may look, speak or act differently is not to be trusted.
We need to be absolutely crystal clear in opposing the imposition of blanket bans on people on the basis of their birthplace, nationality or religion. This ban is divisive, and fails to distinguish between appropriate measures to deal with extremism and terrorism and the millions of people who wish to go about their lives in peace and safety, including refugees who are running away from the terrorists. It will lead to innocent people being detained at airports and, as many Members have said, will play straight into the terrorists’ hands.
The Prime Minister must be clear about our obligations as global actors under international law to oppose a ban based on people’s origin or faith. Securing exemptions for UK citizens is not enough, and if that is the limit of our ambition, I am ashamed.
It is our collective responsibility to speak up for tolerance, equality and providing refuge for those in the greatest need. I strongly believe that it would be wrong for a state visit by President Trump to go ahead while his Administration maintain a blanket ban on refugees and citizens of certain countries travelling to the United States. I commend everyone who has signed this petition and people protesting all over the UK against President Trump tonight.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), I feel the burn of shame at President Trump’s Scottish roots. I would have hoped that, in this Burns season, Trump remembered the words of Robert Burns in his famous verse, “A Man’s A Man for A’That”, which finishes with the refrain:
“That Man to Man, the world o’er
Shall brothers be for a’ that.”
The vast majority of people right across the UK are crying out for their Prime Minister and Government to exhibit a much stronger and more principled position on this Executive order. We have been told time and again from the Dispatch Box by Ministers that it is imperative that strong or special relationships are maintained so we can make direct representations to our friends on issues such as human rights violations. I disagree, but let us see the Government prove their worth. This so-called special relationship has never been so important. The Prime Minister cravenly rushed across the Atlantic at the earliest opportunity to be the first world leader to meet the President, a decision she was warned against, and one that looks worse and worse as each baffling pronouncement is made from the White House. If this relationship is to mean anything, let this House and the protestors both outside this building and right across the country send a strong message to President Trump that we will not stand in silence and bend a knee to hate, wherever, and from whatever building, that hate emanates.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I also want to thank the right hon. and hon. Members who have secured this debate this evening.
Speakers at Hounslow’s civic commemoration of the holocaust this morning reminded us of the importance of compassion and refuge in the face of hate. Council leader Councillor Steve Curran celebrated the diversity of the people in that room—people from all backgrounds from all over the world—and made the link between Hounslow welcoming people in the room and all the people who live in Hounslow now from all over the world. They have included Sir Mo Farah, who arrived and was welcomed in Hounslow aged eight in about 1990.
We also heard from Susie Barnett, who was born in 1938 in Hamburg. She told us of her family’s moving and incredible story, of fleeing the hate and discrimination of Nazi Germany at the end of 1930s and arriving separately in the UK as refugees. That family story of personal relationships and tragedy brought home to us the link between world events and what happens to families and ordinary people in these circumstances.
After the service this morning, I thanked Susie for her moving story and was able to tell her about the petition demanding that the invitation to President Trump be withdrawn. I told her that while she was speaking the tally on that petition tipped over the 1 million mark. She said, “Right, when I get home this afternoon, I am going to sign it.” That petition is still being signed at the rate of 10 signatures every second, and by the end of this evening the figure could hit 1.5 million.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) referred to the rules on movement and the safety of refugees that emerged from the ashes of world war two. The President of the United States is trying to rewrite these rules. He is fuelling fears, and a local Muslim activist phoned me this morning worrying about the implications of the feelings that President Trump is spreading in the US: what will that mean for the Muslim community here in the UK and in Hounslow?
The Executive order was directed at Muslims and at refugees, but the President is also effectively demonising many others—Mexicans, women, refugees from all over the world and now, we hear today, green activists, who among other things are trying to save the American bald eagle, symbol of the United States. We have to stand up against this prejudice, before it leads to mass injustice.
I shall finish with a quote from Martin Luther King, written when he was in jail:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
What an extraordinary few days these have been, and what an unedifying tack this Government have taken. Every Member of this House will no doubt have heard from large numbers of their constituents who are appalled and concerned, and I am sorry that when the Foreign Secretary had the opportunity to respond earlier, he chose to minimise those concerns. The events in America are alarming. Even in the very recent past, it would have been utterly impossible to imagine this happening. The values that this Government tell us they espouse have been utterly lacking in the statements they have made, and where is the global leadership that they speak of?
If the special relationship is worth a jot, the UK Government should be using it to their full advantage. This Executive order is disgraceful. It is racist, inhumane and dangerous, yet the Foreign Secretary told us earlier that it did not discriminate against Muslims and that it did not constitute President Trump’s promised ban on Muslims. That is frankly ridiculous. What on earth will it take to make this Government really speak out, and why has the Prime Minister so failed to do so? We have heard today that the Prime Minister might in fact have known about the Executive order before it was put in place. We have no idea whether the Foreign Secretary knew, because he repeatedly sidestepped that question here today. If the Prime Minister was aware of this disgraceful, racist Executive order before it was published, and her reaction was simply to say that it was a matter for the USA and, astonishingly, to invite President Trump for a state visit, that is utterly shameful.
To add to the many concerns that people already had about President Trump’s thoughts on groups including women, Mexicans and people concerned about climate change, he has now brought this order to bear. We have responded by looking the other way and inviting him for a state visit. It utterly beggars belief that that is the Government’s priority, when the Executive order is clearly so wrong and so illogical and has such horrible implications for the Muslims caught up in it, for those in peril who would have sought sanctuary and for people all over the world who are going to be affected by this order fostering Islamophobia. This is a disgraceful state of affairs.
To conclude, the national security arguments of the Trump Administration are simply wrong; they are nonsense. Rather than keeping America safer, this measure will make us all much less safe. A state visit in these circumstances is just not appropriate. Let us not look away from what is happening. We say that all the time in this place. Now, let us actually have the guts to stand up to this terrible, dangerous policy. We must do this.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) on securing this debate. I agreed with the entirety of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North’s speech and with much of what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, although I disagree with his more fulsome praise for the actions of this Government over the past 48 hours. I would take issue with that, but I was very moved by his personal experiences and his personal reaction to the ban. I commend his speech and his efforts on this matter.
I want to return to a point made when the Foreign Secretary was taking questions earlier, following his statement, about the importance of recognising that this is a Muslim ban. Other Members have made that point as well, but it is so important that we send a clear message and that we call it exactly what it is. We seem to be living in an era when the truth and facts are challenged at every moment. I was struck by a recent film, “Denial”, which is the story of how Professor Deborah Lipstadt had to take the holocaust denier, David Irving, to court in order to prove the truth about the holocaust. It really focuses the mind on the importance of speaking up for the truth at every moment and calling out those who deny it.
Many people are trying to divert us from the truth by saying that this Executive order is about nationality. It is not about nationality. The President of the United States made it very clear in his campaign that he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Rudy Giuliani was on Fox News recently—not one of those organisations that the President likes to accuse of distributing “fake news”—saying that he had been asked by the President of the United States to put together a commission to work out how to enact the Muslim ban legally. These people are not hiding in plain sight; they are telling us in clear words on national television that is broadcast around the world exactly what they believe, exactly what they stand for and exactly who they are.
Sir Simon Burns
Does the hon. Lady also remember that, during the Democratic national convention in late July last year, Trump was tacky enough to attack a Muslim gold star mother whose son had died in the service of the US army protecting his fellow soldiers from certain death?
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that important point and reminding us about Humayun Khan. In normal circumstances, that action would have been enough to ensure that someone lost an election and received the opprobrium of everyone, everywhere. It is a sign of what we have come to that that did not happen.
It is important that we stick to our principles and that we hold the line in relation to the truth, because that is what is at stake here. Everyone in this House must be unashamed and unafraid to do that. We have to hold the line when people scream at us on social media that things are not as they seem and that the President suddenly changed his mind and does not think that it is a Muslim ban. We also have to hold the line when people try to divert us and when the “alt-right” go on the marches they are now so famous for. We have to hold on to the truth.
Shabana Mahmood
I will not, because of the time. I do apologise.
I want to make a point about British values. As a British Muslim parliamentarian, I have spoken a lot in this House about British values. I have also heard a lot from this Government about British values. In fact, I have often felt that the Government feel that the British Muslim community needs to do more to uphold those values. We have heard famous phrases such as “muscular liberalism”, and we have been told that we need to give strong and vocal support to our respect for democracy, the rule of law, equality and tolerance for everyone and every group in this country. We are told that we as a community have to step up to the plate and call out behaviours that do not match with our British values. If we as a community fail to do that, we have the threat of the Prevent strategy hanging over us. As I watched the Prime Minister’s limp, weak and shameful response to this Muslim ban, I hope I can be forgiven for wondering whether the British Government would consider referring themselves to their own Prevent strategy for failing to provide that strong, vocal, muscularly liberal defence of our British values.
I am reminded of the recent Casey review of integration in our communities, one of whose recommendations was held up by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. It stated that we could increase
“standards of leadership and integrity in public office, by…ensuring that British values such as respect for the rule of law, equality and tolerance are enshrined in the principles of public life and developing a new oath for holders of public office.”
I wonder how many members of the Government would feel, if they had taken such an oath, that they had fulfilled that promise by calling out this behaviour on the part of the American President in the way that they should have done. I feel that they have not fulfilled any such promise, and that they have therefore undermined the very case that they make for our own values. That is a real shame.
I have a final point about the personal impact that the ban is having on Muslims around the world, particularly the almost 3 million British Muslim citizens. As a British Muslim, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that people among my family, friends and community feel terrified. They fear that this is a portent of what is to come. We live in an age of supremacists. Whether the Muslim supremacists of ISIL or the white supremacists who think they have achieved their life’s dream with the new Administration in the White House, supremacists are on the rise around the world. In this age of supremacists and their success, we have a duty to call them out, to stand up to them and to say, “Not on our watch.” We have a duty to provide comfort and security to all our minority communities. We will not let them down. We will not stand by. We will stand up and be counted.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for securing this debate. Like so many colleagues, I agree that what President Trump has done is absolutely appalling. It is a prejudiced, xenophobic, Islamophobic policy and a horrible, sad episode in the history of a country with such a strong and proud record of welcoming migrants and refugees.
Remarkably, it has not even been six months since President Obama hosted his international summit aimed at encouraging states to pledge more resettlement places for refugees. The background to that summit was that more than 65 million people have been forced to flee their homes—the highest number since the second world war—more than 21 million of whom have had to flee their countries altogether. Presciently, President Obama warned world leaders that
“if we were to turn refugees away simply because of their background or religion, or, for example, because they are Muslim, then we would be reinforcing terrorist propaganda that nations like my own are somehow opposed to Islam, which is an ugly lie that must be rejected in all of our countries by upholding the values of pluralism and diversity.”
That of course is exactly the disastrous mistake that President Trump has just made.
In 2015, the US accounted for 60% of global refugee resettlement places. With President Trump in office, it is now more imperative than ever that other Governments step up to the plate, reject the narrative that he has capitulated to, and send a message loud and clear that we will stand up for and defend to the hilt the precious international system for the protection of refugees established by the Geneva convention of 1951. The question is whether the Prime Minster and this Government will step up to the plate. It is fair to say that I have some doubts, but I dearly and sincerely hope to be proved wrong.
The Government can start proving me wrong today by putting on the record their unequivocal backing for the refugee convention, by abandoning talk of redefining the convention’s fundamental terms, by emphasising their commitment to resettle 20,000 vulnerable Syrians. If possible, which it is, they should do more and expand the scope of refugee family reunion and provide safe legal routes for those escaping persecution. Most importantly of all, will the Government commit today to ensuring that the Dubs scheme for relocating unaccompanied child refugees from Europe will remain in operation in the long term while the refugee crisis continues to unfold? What could be a stronger and more fitting rebuke for such a terrible and divisive decision?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I begin by saying:
“I am heartbroken that today President Trump is closing the door on children, mothers and fathers fleeing violence and war. I am heartbroken that America is turning its back on a proud history of welcoming refugees and immigrants—the people who helped build your country, ready to work hard in exchange for a fair chance at a new life.”
Those are not my words, but the words of a Nobel prize winner. Her name is Malala. She probably knows more than anyone here the difference between true Islam and the poisonous perversion that we see in the hatred of Daesh and others. It is heartbreaking beyond words that the leader of what was once the free world does not know the difference between them.
Make no mistake, however much his supporters and apologists may want to dress it up, Donald Trump has explicitly made the connection between being a Muslim and being much more likely than anybody else to be a danger to fellow human beings. That is offensive not only to Muslims; as a Christian, I find it an offensive, repugnant way of running a country. I have heard people praise Mr Trump for his Christianity. I am sorry, but I was brought up to see the best in everybody, and I cannot see any Christianity in the early days of his presidency. If the lord and saviour whom we both follow was to turn up today at the American border, he would not be allowed in. He would have a Palestinian passport and no valid birth certificate and would not be able to prove that he was a Christian because he had not invented Christianity yet. That is the extent to which the depraved, racist ideologies of one man have poisoned a once great nation.
I heard Government Members complain about repeated references to the Holocaust, but the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) nailed that point perfectly. There are similarities between how Trump has been talking about Muslims for years and how others talked about Jews in the 1930s. If those similarities are not clear enough for anyone in here to understand, they should not be involved in politics at this or any other level. I found the comments of the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) immensely powerful and I want to say something in response to her quote. They came for the Muslims, and I am not a Muslim. They will come for Jews, and I am not Jew. They will come for the gays, and I am not a gay. They will come for the Mexicans, and I am not a Mexican. But, by God, I will speak up and I will join, hand in hand, with the thousands who are in Whitehall right now and in towns and cities the length and breadth of these islands and across the world.
America is our friend, but Donald Trump will never be my friend unless he mends his ways enormously. Friends sometimes do things that are so abominable that we have to say, “You stop that right now or our friendship is over.” We have to ask the Government what is the price of the continued friendship. If we are not prepared to stop that friendship now, how far down the slippery slope does he have to take us before we say, “No more”? If we go too far, it will be too late to stop. Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, I quoted prose by Robert Burns, but I never thought I would have to quote the same words again. He said that that whatever damages society, or any least part of it, “this is my measure of iniquity.” This is an iniquitous action by an iniquitous President, and I will never cease to speak out against it.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I join the others who have commended the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for the way in which they secured and introduced this debate. Many important points have been made and much has been agreed on, but there is clear disagreement on some points.
My issue with the Prime Minister is not so much that she was holding Donald Trump’s hand when she met him on Friday; it was that she stayed her hand when it came to responding to the Executive order. A clear, unequivocal response should have been given and none was available. That sent a dangerous signal to many people who are worried, fearful and angry, both here and across the world. We have heard hon. Members refer to the fact that the Prime Minister visited the Republican congress before she visited the President. I do not believe that the terms in which she spoke as Head of Government in such a partisan setting were appropriate. She commended them for having swept all before them and for renewing America with strength. Donald Trump’s idea of renewing America with strength was demonstrated the next day by this Executive order. This is the drive-by prejudice, xenophobia and racism that pass for governance in the Trump age, and this President now has the fastest-ever invitation for a state visit, which appals and disgusts many people. None of the excusers here today can answer that point.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if this country goes ahead and welcomes Donald Trump with all the pomp and ceremony of a state visit, that will be seen in the eyes of the world as appeasement of a President whose policies directly discriminate against our constituents? When we come to consider the massive public petition about this visit, we should have the conviction to review and rescind that invitation if circumstances do not change.
Mark Durkan
I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. To those who are saying that we cannot reconsider the invitation, I say that we should. We should not be afraid of offending the narcissism of this man when we are prepared to offend the fear and disgust that we know many, many people feel about this Executive order and other statements and practices of the early Trump presidency. Let us be very clear that it is about the signal that is sent if it goes ahead as a state visit, with all the pomp and ceremony that that allows. It is not just about the message that it sends to Muslims or to the countries that are subject to the ban; it is about the message that it sends to people here and in America. It is also about the signal that it sends to the people in America who have honestly been trying to stand up and be progressive and supportive of refugees. President Trump is almost indicting the sanctuary cities in the States. He is now listing them as almost un-American for the support they are prepared to accord refugees and the stand that they are prepared to take on human rights. He is criticising civic and pastoral leaders in America. What signal do they get if Donald Trump is received and applauded here?
How many of us have stood at different events in this House and said, “We will show racism a red card. We will show sectarianism a red card”? Well, we are not showing them the red card by inviting President Trump here on a state visit. The invitation should be reversed if we want to send a straight and clear message.
Mr Speaker
I call the Front Bench speakers to wind up. If each could take no more than 10 minutes, or thereabouts, that would be excellent.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for securing this debate.
As we stand here this evening, we should remember that, across the country, our fellow citizens have been protesting President Trump’s decisions. It would be remiss of the Government not to take note of the strength of feeling on this issue or of the petition, which now has around 1.5 million signatures.
We heard moans and groans from some Government Members when it has been mentioned that the Executive order was signed on Holocaust Memorial Day, a day when millions join together to remember the Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, disabled and others killed by the barbaric Nazi regime. The Foreign Secretary said earlier that to refer to the events of the 1930s and ’40s in this context was to “trivialise” that tragic period of world history. Well, here is what the Anti-Defamation League, which was set up
“to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all”
said of Trump’s actions this weekend:
“More than most, our community knows what happens when the doors to freedom are shut.”
The holocaust did not begin with mass murder; it began with the demonisation of communities based on their religion and beliefs. It began with “othering” minorities, and it began with institutionalising racism in the laws of the land. To ignore those facts would be a real insult to those who strive so hard today to uphold the values of inclusion, tolerance and freedom in the face of oppression.
Imagine how it feels to be a Muslim on this day, anywhere in the world. Imagine how it feels to be a young Muslim, a Muslim child, in these days, looking at the television wondering about the President, “Is he speaking about me?” Yes, he is. It would give such people great comfort to hear so many of the wonderful speeches that we have heard from both sides of the Chamber today, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who is now in her seat, for her personal perspective of Islamophobia and hijabs. I am pleased to have secured an Adjournment debate this week on World Hijab Day, which should be celebrated, and on the right of women to wear or not to wear a hijab as they please, without fear or favour. In any event, women should be able to wear what they want, regardless. That is how it should be.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who said that he would welcome President Trump as soon as possible and that he hopes for a change in President Trump’s stance. I appreciate those sentiments, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that we had a debate in Westminster hall when Mr Trump was a Republican candidate. At that time, many well-wishing Members on both sides of the House suggested that it would be all right and that he would change his ways: “Let’s get him to the United Kingdom, take him for a curry and take him to the mosques, and his attitude will change.” I fear that I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s sense of optimism.
The Government have an opportunity to demonstrate true leadership. Remember that we are speaking up for what is right. It is President Trump who is wrong, so what are we afraid of? What is the point in any of this if we cannot use this platform to say what we believe is the right thing to do? And standing up against what he has done is the right thing to do.
Scotland has taken in more than 1,200 Syrian refugees through the Syrian resettlement programme, and that is more than a third of the total number taken in by the whole United Kingdom. The response by Scottish national and local government and by our third sector to the refugee crisis has been exemplary. In my constituency, Syrian refugees have been involved in Burns suppers and have attended local football matches. That is what this country should be about.
We should compare the Prime Minister’s lack of immediate reaction with the reaction of Angela Merkel or Justin Trudeau, or with the strong statements by the First Minister of Scotland. As I have said, the Prime Minister has failed the important first challenge that she faced.
Over and above all of that, the Executive order does not make the US or the UK any safer; quite the opposite. To quote John Kerry’s remarks prior to the ban, when Trump announced his policy in 2015:
“It exhibits an attitude by one American who is running for the highest office of our land about a willingness to discriminate against a religion… It says to those in Islam who are trying to exploit people and recruit foreign fighters and otherwise, it says look, look at America. Here they’ve got a guy running for president who is waging war against Islam.”
Of course, President Trump’s words have been picked up by the leader of Daesh, who quite disgustingly is referring to this as a “blessed ban”. How appalling.
That is why the Government need to answer the questions from earlier today. What are the national security implications for the UK of this Executive order? Does it make us safer or, as so many experts have stated, does it make us more likely to be at the other end of terrorists whose ideas will be bolstered by Donald Trump’s remarks?
Lastly, I am hugely concerned about the impact of the order on the work of international organisations like the UN and the work to uphold international treaties like the Geneva convention. As Chancellor Merkel said:
“The…refugee convention requires the international community to take in…refugees on humanitarian grounds. All signatory states are obliged to do so. The German government explained this policy in their call yesterday.”
What action have the Government taken to uphold these vital international treaties?
President Trump’s actions are inhumane, racist and immoral, and let us tell him that they are. I welcome the fact that the House is now treating the threat posed by him with seriousness, which is what it deserves, but without leadership from this Government in standing up to these despicable policies, I fear that we may have some very deep and dark times ahead of us. I hope that the Minister will attempt to change my mind.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
This has been an extraordinary debate, in which we have seen the House at its best. Let me begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) on securing it, and on the immensely powerful and important statements they have both made, not just today, but since this hateful policy was announced on Friday night. Tellingly, they and others, from Chancellor Merkel to Sir Mo Farah, were able to see immediately that this policy is abhorrent and reprehensible, and to condemn it, whereas as far as the British Prime Minister was concerned it was not a matter for comment, and almost three days later she has still not condemned it. She has only told us that it is not a policy she would pursue—that is not condemning it. As my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman both know, this is not a time for cowardice. It is not a time for staying silent or for going for trade deals at almost any cost; it is a time to stand up for what is right. So many Members have talked tonight about the desperation that forces people to flee from war, terror and persecution, and the terrible consequences that befall the world when we bar the door and turn our backs on those most in need.
Many have pointed out that it added grotesque insult to grave injury for President Trump to announce this policy on Holocaust Memorial Day. On that day, we among millions of others remember the 900 Jewish refugees on the MS St Louis who were turned away from the United States and forced to return to Antwerp, plunging them back into the holocaust from which 254 of them would never emerge. It was of course in the aftermath of those horrors that the 1951 Geneva refugee convention was agreed, which was renewed afresh and signed by the United States in 1967. That convention enshrines the principle that all signatories should give shelter to those fleeing war and persecution, regardless of their race, religion and nationality. The Executive order could not be a more calculated demolition of that principle.
We learned on Saturday that Chancellor Merkel had to explain the convention in her phone call with President Trump, but we have to do more than explain it. It is incumbent on every other signatory to that convention to press the United States to live up to its commitments and its obligations, so I support my right hon. Friend’s call for a European Heads of Government meeting to consider a united response to this Executive order and to the breach of the refugee convention. I urge the Minister to respond to those calls when he speaks.
Given the response of the Minister’s boss to my earlier questions—perhaps, more honestly, I should say the lack of response—may I ask him to address urgently the issue of the position of UK residents who are foreign nationals and not passport holders but residents? I am thinking in particular of those with indefinite leave to remain, thousands of whom will now find themselves discriminated against simply because of their country of origin, even though many are here precisely because they have fled the terror and religious extremism that the Executive order purports to prevent. Whether these people are Somali or Sudanese, Syrian or Yemeni, Iraqi, Iranian or Libyan, they are our constituents. They work hard, they pay their taxes, they are raising their families here and they call the UK their home. They are part of our communities and we have a duty to stand up for their rights as well. So may I ask the Minister as a first step to tell us how many UK residents he believes will be affected in this way, and what advice his Department and the Home Office are offering them?
Frankly, this is a debate I never thought we would need to have; the very idea that we would be looking at a new American President, just a few weeks into the job, not just aghast at what he has already done, but debating how much worse things could get from here. How long ago it seems since the Foreign Secretary was telling us to be optimistic about the new presidency and was saying that this President shared our values and we were being premature in judging him. How naive that looks now.
Yet this is the President for whom the Government are preparing to roll out the red carpet and welcome on a state visit. I was checking the figures today and I found that since the first state visit of President Reagan in 1982 the quickest period between inauguration and making a state visit to Britain was 17 months—that was for President Obama. The average has been 25 months, with both President Clinton and President George W. Bush having to wait almost three years. So why the indecent haste for this most indecent of Presidents?
This is a President who has made lewd and vile comments about the Duchess of Cambridge; who has said that he does not want to meet the Prince of Wales, because someone might finally stand up to him about climate change; and who has banned thousands of our residents and millions worldwide from visiting America simply because of their nationality and their religion. And President Trump thinks that we should put on a parade for him while that grotesque ban is still in place! If it goes ahead, it will be a national shame, which is why the Opposition will oppose having a state visit in such circumstances. We will certainly oppose any suggestion that President Trump is given the honour of addressing both Houses of Parliament.
Last week, the Prime Minister promised to speak frankly to President Trump and tell him where she disagreed with him, but we heard nothing of the sort from Washington. We heard nothing about climate change or respect for human rights and women’s rights. We heard nothing about punishing war crimes in Syria, the nuclear deal with Iran, or the illegal settlements in the west bank. We got the same stony silence from the Prime Minister when she was asked about the Executive order. Three times she was asked the question in Ankara, and three times she ignored it. Was she told about it by President Trump? There have been reports on “Channel 4 News” that she was. The Secretary of State ducked the question; perhaps the Minister will enlighten us and answer directly: did the President tell the Prime Minister about the Executive order when they met?
The Prime Minister referred in Washington to a special relationship based on our shared history and interests, but she has to realise, and needs to make President Trump realise, that it is also a relationship based on shared values. If the President is going to discard those values, whether by embracing torture or ignoring climate change, or by demonising people as aliens and terrorists based simply on their religion and nationality on the very day on which we remember the holocaust, the Prime Minister must be willing to tell him frankly: “Mr President, you are wrong. This is not who we are.” The fact that, almost three full days after the announcement, we have yet to hear a word of condemnation from her own mouth is not just shameful, it is cowardly. Some iron lady she has turned out to be.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
First, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this special debate, even though it followed 90 minutes of questions to the Foreign Secretary on the same topic. It is important that we have been able to air our views. It is no part of my comment tonight to find partisan difference or to argue with the fundamental moral arguments that have been put to the House today.
I commend the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for pressing this issue. The House has every right to speak out. We are seen throughout so much of the world as the voice of democracy and as a lighthouse of justice and decency. It is in that vein that we have witnessed a debate of the highest quality that I hope will be noticed and listened to, and I hope that all those who have participated will feel proud of the contribution they have made on a very important issue.
We witnessed the most deeply moving speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). It was clearly a moment of deep personal emotion for him. It illustrated what has fired us up today, along with millions of other people. There is a moral dimension to this issue, as we have been discussing, but perhaps we have not emphasised quite enough the intensely personal dimension for the individuals whose lives are going to be affected. That is what we must understand when we debate this issue.
From my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns), with his encyclopaedic knowledge of US Presidents, we have learned about previous presidential visits to the UK. I acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) for mapping out some of the broader strategic issues within which this very difficult issue has to fit. One of those is, of course, our relationship with the one superpower in the world, our closest historical ally, with which we have very close interests that affect all our constituents. I urge the House to appreciate that the Government have to see it from that perspective.
Perhaps, in addition to the fervent moral arguments we have heard, I can map out some of the practical side. On Friday, after the Prime Minister had left Washington, the President issued his Executive order banning the citizens of seven countries from entering the US for a period of 90 days. We know which countries they are: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Sudan. The order makes clear that no US visas will be issued to citizens of those states, and that anyone who already has a visa will be denied entry. I acknowledge the point made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North that that is a significant extension of and is different from the list drawn up by the Obama Administration when those countries were withdrawn from the US visa waiver programme in 2016. What President Obama did in December 2015 was amend the visa waiver. From January 2016, it did not include individuals or dual nationals who had, in the previous five years, been to Syria, Iraq, Iran or Sudan. In February last year, the new provisions were extended—this is the origin of the list—to people who had travelled in the previous five years to Somalia, Yemen or Libya, but were not dual nationals of those countries. It is true that President Trump’s Executive order is more extensive and sweeping, and it is altogether of a different order.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
The House has yet to debate what Brexit means in practice, but after the events of this weekend can we at least all agree that the last thing that it should mean is biting your tongue in the hope of doing trade deals and thereby abandoning all the values that this country has long held dear?
Sir Alan Duncan
I do not think anyone would disagree with that. This is not just about trade deals, although trade deals matter; it is part of a broader relationship in which many other things matter, too. But let us focus on the one topic of this emergency debate, which is the immigration policy of the United States in what is only the second week of the presidency of President Trump. Obviously, we have very strong views, but we are not empowered to make a decision as such, because the immigration policy of the United States is a matter for the United States.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I grew up listening to my father talk about the dangers of powerful and deeply divisive rhetoric like that of Enoch Powell. Is the Minister not concerned that when the President of the United States is invited on a state visit, there is a real danger that his rhetoric will be deeply divisive and threatening to many Muslims in this country? Will the Minister ensure that if the Government pursue the policy of rolling out the red carpet rather than having some other sort of official visit, there is proper protection against dangerous rhetoric that incites people to violence?
Sir Alan Duncan
I fully appreciate what the hon. Lady says. Indeed, we have debated such issues on many occasions. I have been in the House for nearly 25 years, and I think I am well known as someone who has defended Muslims at home and abroad throughout that period. To turn on a sixpence, when I was Minister of State, Department for International Development, I had to focus more than £1 billion from the growing DFID budget on Syrian refugees; perhaps my one pleasure amid the challenges that we faced was being able to say that that was 25 times more than was provided by the French.
Let me concentrate on what the Government had to do in response to the announcement of the Executive order. It had a serious effect, and there were serious consequences for some British citizens. It is the Government’s duty to protect the interests of British citizens and, where we are able to do so, make sure that we get things changed so that they are not detrimentally affected. That is what we decided we primarily had to do, why the Foreign Secretary spoke to the US Administration, and why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke to General Kelly, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, to seek clarification.
One of the points that I ask the House to understand is that we did not appreciate right from the start all the implications of the Executive order. It was announced as the Prime Minister left Washington to fly overnight to Turkey, and during the next day it was full steam ahead in Turkey, so I think the House ought to row back from the personal attacks on the Prime Minister.
Let me make it clear what has resulted from those contacts: we have successfully protected British citizens. It would have been ill advised to be diplomatically offensive in a way that would have reinforced any detriment to British citizens. Instead, we have achieved something.
Sir Alan Duncan
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what we have achieved. We have achieved an outcome in which all British passport holders remain welcome to travel to the United States, which would not have happened if my colleagues in Government had not made the contacts they did.
Sir Alan Duncan
No, I will not give way. I am going to explain this.
We have received assurances from the US embassy that the Executive order will make no difference to any British passport holder, irrespective of their country of birth or whether they hold another passport—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has asked, “What about residents?” I am holding her back from intervening so that I can answer her question. We are advised that the only material change for the UK is that citizens of any of the seven designated countries who do not hold a British passport but are legally resident in the UK will still be able to apply for visas, but that they may face additional screening at their port of entry into the United States. I apologise for making the right hon. Lady wait to intervene.
Yvette Cooper
The Minister is making a thoughtful speech, and I welcome the work that Ministers have done to safeguard the interests of British citizens. However, may I ask him about the wider points? Has the Foreign Office made representations to the US Administration to lift the refugee ban in the interests of international refugee policy, and to stop the targeting of Muslims in the interests of our shared values and common security?
Sir Alan Duncan
Given that the emergency debate has had me rushing to the Dispatch Box at short notice, I have not been involved in any such discussions so I cannot give the right hon. Lady a categorical answer, but one can speculate on what political events might now unfold. Executive orders are, at least, limited for 90 days. They are a command from the president to instruct Congress to do something, so the order will now move to Congress within the democratic process of the United States. They have their democracy as we have ours, and this will ultimately be their political decision. I have no doubt that there will be strong political voices within the United States, as we have heard today in this House and, indeed, outside it.
I reiterate that the order is not the kind of policy of which this Government approve or would ever introduce. As the Foreign Secretary said in his statement earlier, we have already made very clear our anxiety about measures that discriminate on grounds of nationality in ways that we consider to be divisive and wrong. Indeed, it does not really help—although it is true—to say that, although all the countries listed are Muslim countries, the list does not include all Muslim countries. In fact, the vast majority—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) might just listen to the point I am trying to make. Although the vast majority of the Muslim world is not mentioned in the Executive order, the political language around it is unacceptably anti-Muslim. As such, it is divisive and wrong, and will cause an effect in the entire Muslim community.
As the Prime Minister expressed during her visit to the States last week, the point of having a special relationship is to have frank and honest discussions on all issues, whether we agree or disagree. We do not hesitate to state that, although US immigration policy is ultimately a matter for the US Government, we do not agree with this kind of approach. It would be wrong to think that the relationship means that we agree on every issue. That has never been the case throughout the history of the special relationship. One could cite the example of former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson not joining the US in fighting in Vietnam.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon clearly said—frankly, he has spoken in today’s debate with extraordinarily personal and moral authority—we should not forget the indispensable nature of this country’s alliance with the US. In defence, intelligence and security, we work together more closely than any other two countries in the world. America’s leadership role in NATO, which the Prime Minister was able to reaffirm and reconfirm in her visit, is the ultimate guarantor of security in Europe. The President told the Prime Minister of his 100% commitment to NATO. The trade relationship is of importance; we export more to the US than any other nation. The relationship is overwhelmingly to our benefit. I believe very strongly that the Prime Minister’s visit to the White House last week underlined the strength of that transatlantic alliance. Where we have differences with the United States, we will not shy away from them, and we will express them clearly, as I have done today, but I also echo the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in repeating our resolve to work alongside the Trump Administration in our mutual interest.
Edward Miliband
First, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to this debate. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for making the debate possible, because it showed a wish to make sure that this House was relevant to the issue of the day and the issue of the moment. I particularly commend the speeches—forgive me if I do not mention all the excellent speeches we have heard—by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). My friend, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), spoke incredibly movingly and eloquently. We also heard from the right hon. Members for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). There were many other excellent speeches, including from the Front Benches—my own and others.
The main thing I take out of this is that we achieved our purpose, which is to show that on the merits of this issue there is remarkable unity across this House. There is no division on the Government or Opposition Benches about the fact that this ban is basically a repugnant, abhorrent thing. It is a very good achievement for the House to have set that out.
The second question, though, is what happens next? In a good contribution, the Minister came a bit closer to raising that issue. The question is whether we classify this a kind of normal, run-of-the-mill disagreement—“They do their thing, we do our thing”—or as something much, much more serious. I urge the Minister to take back to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the strong feeling across this House that this is not some run-of-the-mill thing—“They do our policy and we do ours”—but incredibly serious. It is incredibly serious because of the values that it speaks to, which offend this House of Commons, and because it takes us down a slippery slope. Someone pointed out that we are only two weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency. My goodness, it feels like a year, really, and we still have at least three years and a lot of a year to go. There is a real danger of a slippery slope.
Thirdly, this policy is going to make us less safe, not more safe—it is more dangerous for our world. I really hope that the Minister takes back the message that this is not run of the mill but deadly serious, and that we expect a response from the Prime Minister, including speaking to the President, that is proportionate to the feeling of this House of Commons.
I apologise for having briefly gone outside because I was due to speak at the event that was taking place, although I never quite made it to speak. There were tens of thousands of people, I think, or thousands of people. One must not get into crowd size estimates given recent experience; I do not want to do a Trump—[Hon. Members: “Millions!”] There were millions of people outside. I think there is a feeling across this country, from the petition to the people outside, that this ban is not in our name. This House of Commons has said that today and I hope that the Government will reflect that in the weeks and months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the need for repeal of President Trump’s discriminatory, divisive and counterproductive ban on entry to the United States for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the indefinite ban placed on Syrian refugees.
Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]
Monday 30th January 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2017 View all Pension Schemes Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 87(a) Amendment for Third Reading (PDF, 49KB) - (9 Jan 2017)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Let me start by placing the Bill in the context of the Government’s overall record on pensions. This Government have delivered radical and much-needed changes to our pensions system to make savings easier, fairer and safer for all. Since 2010 the pensions landscape has seen a revolution not only in state support, but in the ways in which people can save and access their pension savings.
We have removed the default retirement age, helping people to live fuller working lives. That is good for people’s wellbeing and their retirement income, and it benefits individuals, employers and the economy. We have made it easier for them to understand their state pension, and by setting the full amount at £155.65 a week we will lift more pensioners out of means-testing in the future. Together with the reviews of the state pension age, those changes are creating a sustainable system as a foundation for people’s private retirement saving.
We have increased private long-term savings by introducing automatic enrolment. More than 7 million people have already been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension, and more than 370,000 employers have declared that they have met their automatic enrolment duties. This is the cornerstone of our private pension reforms and it reverses the decade-long decline in pension savings prior to its introduction. It is a programme that works and it helps people achieve a more financially secure later life.
I am grateful to the many independent observers who have commented on the success of the policy. The Work and Pensions Committee has recognised that automatic enrolment has been a “tremendous success”. The National Audit Office, reporting on automatic enrolment in November 2016, found that the
“programme is also on track to deliver value for money in improving retirement incomes in the longer term”.
Findings of a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which was also published in November 2016, suggest that automatic enrolment is having a huge relative impact on those with the lowest participation rates in workplace pensions before its introduction, in particular those aged between 22 and 29—a group that has seen a 52.1 percentage point increase in pensions saving—and those in the lowest incomes quartile, who have seen a 53.9 percentage points increase. Moreover, the institute found that automatic enrolment is having an effect well beyond our target eligible group, in particular those earning under the £10,000 threshold, and that some employers are paying above minimum contribution rates.
Women are benefiting, too. In 2011, only 39% of eligible women employed in the private sector were in a workplace pension; by 2015, the figure had increased to 70%. By 2018, we estimate that 10 million workers will be newly saving or saving more into a workplace pension as a result of this change, generating about £17 billion in additional pension saving each year by 2019-20.
The Government’s introduction of pension freedoms in April 2015 allows those aged 55 and over to access their pension savings with more flexibility. People with defined contribution pension schemes can now choose to use those funds in the way that is most suited to their circumstances, whether by drawing down the income, taking out an annuity, taking a lump sum or using some combination of those options. Since the introduction of pension freedoms, more than 1.5 million payments have been made, with £9.2 billion withdrawn flexibly in the first 21 months.
That is the landscape; let me turn to the Bill. Our focus now is to make sure that the regulatory landscape continues to be effective in protecting members so that everyone can have confidence in their pension scheme. Automatic enrolment requires employers, small and large, to provide pensions for their workers, in many cases for the first time. Automatic enrolment is helping to ensure that tomorrow’s pensioners have greater security and an asset base in later life. Many employers have selected master trust pension schemes because they can offer scale, good governance and value for members.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and for his earlier comments. Although we may have differences on the adequacy of the Department’s responses to some of the Select Committee’s reports, its response to our report on this issue is immensely encouraging. I think that some Members of the Committee will want to endorse the Secretary of State’s proposals, which implement some of our recommendations to defend the hard-earned savings that many people are making, sometimes for the first time, by auto-enrolment. We do not want the cowboys to get hold of those funds.
Damian Green
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words. Throughout his intervention, I was expecting “but” to appear at any moment, and it did not. We can be as one on the matter, and I will seek to improve our responses to future reports of the Committee that he chairs.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but—if I may use that word—would he accept that the Bill is a missed opportunity to put right the severe problems in the plumbing and mechanical services industry pension scheme? For example, my constituent Chris Stuhlfelder wants to pass on his business to his employees after a lifetime of work in the industry, but he risks losing the lifetime rewards of that work just in order to secure the pension scheme for liabilities that are not directly his. Will the Minister table amendments to deal with that?
Damian Green
I acknowledge the problem faced by the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and others in the same scheme. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), has met the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. We are looking, with representatives of the employers and the scheme, to see what we can do about the issues that they have raised, and we are exploring alternative methods to help employers in such schemes to manage their employer debt. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a complex area of legislation, so it is important that we get it right. As I hope he knows, we are on the case.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I really welcome this legislation, but I am not the only one. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware of the comments of Morten Nilsson, the CEO of NOW: Pensions, a huge master trust. He has said:
“When we entered the market we were shocked at how easy it was to set up a master trust. It was simply a case of sending a form off to HMRC and The Pensions Regulator, nothing more.”
I am very glad that the Government are looking to address that serious issue.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is at the heart of the legislation. The strong and quick growth of master trusts in response to the success of automatic enrolment has been in danger of running ahead of the regulatory system. In the Bill, we are catching up and making sure that the regulatory system is adequate to deal with these trusts, which will be hugely important in 20 years’ time. We hope and expect that auto-enrolment will carry on, so the funds under management will increase hugely in the decades to come. It is really important to have the regulation right from the early days of the new system.
Automatic enrolment requires employers to provide a pension for their workers. It is, as I have said, helping to ensure that tomorrow’s pensioners have greater security and an asset base. Many employers have selected master trust pension schemes because they offer scale, good governance and value for members.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
As well as being equitable for employees, will the schemes be equitable for employers? In the past, one of the problems of pooled defined benefit funds was that employers had ongoing liabilities beyond their initial contributions. Will the master trusts include only defined contributions and limit employers’ liability in the longer term, so that it is just an amount that will be put in, rather than an ongoing liability?
Damian Green
The purpose of the regulatory system we are introducing in the Bill is precisely to ensure that there are checks and balances to avoid some of the problems we have seen in traditional schemes. My hon. Friend may be aware that we are about to produce a wider consultation on defined benefit schemes, so some of the problems he rightly identifies will be addressed in that consultation.
There has been very fast growth in the use of master trust schemes. In 2010, there were about 200,000 members in master trust schemes in the UK. By December 2016, there were over 7 million members, and £10 billion of assets in 87 master trusts. The schemes are regulated by the Pensions Regulator in accordance with occupational pensions legislation, but that legislation was developed mainly with single employer pension schemes in mind. The master trust schemes have different structures and dynamics, which give rise to different risks. We have worked closely with the Pensions Regulator and engaged with other stakeholders to see what essential protections are needed. We believe that the measures in the Bill, while proportionate to the risks, will provide those protections.
The Bill introduces a new authorisation regime for master trusts. Under the new regime, the trusts will have to satisfy the regulator that they meet certain criteria before operating, or achieve those criteria if they are already operating. The criteria have been developed in discussion with the industry, and they include the same kind of risks that the Financial Conduct Authority regulation addresses in relation to group personal pensions, with which master trust schemes have some similarities.
Master trusts will now be required to demonstrate five things: that the persons involved in the scheme are fit and proper; that the scheme has financial sustainability; that the scheme funder meets certain requirements; that the systems and processes relating to the governance and administration of the scheme are sufficient to ensure that it is run effectively; and that the scheme has an adequate continuity strategy. The Bill sets out these criteria so that it is clear to master trusts and other stakeholders what the new regime will entail. Schemes will have to continue to meet the criteria to remain authorised. The regulator will also be given new powers to supervise master trusts, enabling it to intervene where schemes are at risk of falling below the required standards.
The Bill also places certain key requirements on master trusts and provides additional powers for the regulator where a master trust experiences key risk events, such as the scheme funder deciding to withdraw from its relationship with the scheme. The Bill requires a scheme that has experienced such an event to resolve the issue or to close. This requirement, along with the regulator’s new powers, supports continuity of savings for members, protects members where a scheme is to wind up or close, and supports employers in continuing to fulfil their automatic enrolment duties.
On the introduction of the Bill in the other place, the Pensions Regulator said:
“We are very pleased that the Pension Schemes Bill will drive up standards and give us tough new supervisory powers…ensuring members are better protected and ultimately receive the benefits they expect.”
In welcoming the Bill, the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association commented that
“tighter regulation of master trusts is essential to protect savers and ensure that only good master trusts operate in the market”.
It went on:
“This is an important Bill that will provide the appropriate safeguards for the millions of people now saving for their retirement through master trusts.”
As I have said, we continue to engage with stakeholders on aspects of the detail to be made in regulations. We anticipate the initial consultation to inform the regulations will take place in the autumn, and it will be followed by a formal consultation on the draft regulations. Our intention is to lay the regulations during the summer of 2018, and the authorisation and supervision regime is likely to be commenced in full that year.
However, the Bill also contains provisions that, on enactment, will have effect back to 20 October 2016, the day on which the Bill was published. These provisions relate to requirements to notify key events to the Pensions Regulator, and constraints on charges levied on or in respect of members in circumstances relating to key risk events or scheme failure. That is vital for protecting members in the short term and will ensure that a backstop is in place until the full regime commences.
The Bill makes a necessary change in relation to the existing legislation on charges. We are keen to remove some of the barriers that might prevent people from accessing pension freedoms.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has come to the section about charges. He will know of the transparency campaign I have been pushing. I am extremely grateful for the efforts that he and the Under-Secretary of State for Pensions, who is sitting to the left of the Secretary of State, have made in introducing more openness into pensions schemes. I should be grateful to hear more on how he will approach that.
Damian Green
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign. Transparency is a key area. Hidden costs and charges often erode savers’ pensions. We are committed to giving members sight of all the costs that affect their pension savings. He asks for more detail. We plan to consult later in the year on the publication and onward disclosure of information about costs and charges to members. In addition to the Bill, other things are clearly required to give greater confidence in the pensions system. Greater transparency is clearly one of the steps forward. I completely agree with him on that.
As I was saying, we are keen to remove some of the barriers that might prevent people from accessing pension freedoms. The Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator indicate that significant numbers of people have pensions to which an early exit charge is applicable. The Bill amends the Pensions Act 2014 to allow us to make regulations to restrict charges or impose governance requirements on pension schemes. We intend to use that power alongside existing powers to make regulations to introduce a cap that will prevent early exit charges from creating a barrier for members of occupational pension schemes who are eligible to access their pension savings. The FCA will introduce a corresponding cap on early exit charges in personal and stakeholder pension schemes in April this year.
The Government intend to use that power together with existing ones to make regulations preventing commission charges from being imposed on members of certain occupational pension schemes when they arise under existing contracts entered into before 6 April 2016. We have already made regulations that prohibit such charges under new or amended contracts agreed on or after that date. That will fulfil our commitment to ensure that certain pension schemes used for automatic enrolment do not contain member-borne commission payments to advisers.
In conclusion, we believe that the Bill is an important and necessary legislative step to ensure that essential protections are in place for those saving in master trust pension schemes. With many millions of members enrolled in such schemes, it is important that we act now to ensure that members are protected equally whatever type of scheme they are in. The measures proposed in the Bill have been developed in constructive consultation with the industry and other stakeholders, so we have confidence that they are proportionate to the specific risks in master trusts and will provide that necessary protection. In turn, that helps to maintain confidence in pension savings, and particularly in automatic enrolment. By making it easier for people to save through a workplace pension, the Government are building a culture of financial independence and long-term saving.
The Bill will also ensure that people are not unnecessarily dissuaded from taking advantage of the pension freedoms by high early exit charges. The Government have given people greater flexibility to take their pension savings, rewarding those who have worked hard and saved for their future. This is a focused Bill that specifically concentrates on the action we must take to cement the reforms we have already made, and I commend it to the House.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for outlining the content of the Bill. In addition, I pay tribute to my colleagues in the other place who have already scrutinised the Bill.
The Opposition recognise and support the need to ensure that there is adequate regulation for master trusts as they have developed since the introduction of auto-enrolment, but the point made about the missed opportunity was right.
As the Secretary of State set out, the Bill focuses on defined contribution occupational pension schemes alone, defining regulation of master trust schemes which provide centralised workplace pension funds for several companies at the same time and have largely emerged as a result of the development of auto-enrolment in pensions. It gives the Pensions Regulator responsibility to authorise those schemes that meet certain criteria. It also provides for a funder of last resort in cases where a master trust fails. Sadly, this is something we hear too much about with too many other pension schemes. Finally, the Bill gives the Pensions Regulator the ability to withdraw authorisation from a master trust and sets out the criteria for triggering such events should a master trust face difficulty.
As I said, the measures in the Bill are slightly overdue. In April 2014, it was estimated that master trusts accounted for two-thirds of people who had been auto-enrolled. Master trusts operate on a scale that is unprecedented in occupational pensions and most are run on a profit basis. Currently, however, they are not subject to the same regulation as contract-based workplace pensions. There is no requirement for a licence to operate and limited barriers to entry. There is also little guidance on who can become a trustee and no infrastructure in place to support the wind-up of a failed trust.
Given that the savings and pensions of millions of employees and their employer contributions are at risk, we cannot allow this to continue. We support the Bill, which is vital to putting the auto-enrolment system on the strongest possible footing, but we will look to strengthen it where we can, for example by building on our amendment on the funder of last resort. By protecting members from suffering financial detriment, while promoting good governance and a level playing field for those in the sector, the Bill should ensure that the system is a secure and trusted means of saving in the future.
Before I come on to specific elements of the Bill, I would like to expand on how disappointed I am, and how millions of others will be, with how limited the Bill is. Perhaps the Secretary of State will surprise us, but I think this is likely to be the only pensions Bill in this Parliament. Significant issues are already arising relating to both state and occupational pension provision. It is therefore disappointing, if we are to see no other Bill, that those issues are not being addressed.
One key issue is that of the WASPI women: the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. These women, and some men, have been left behind by the Government’s poorly managed accelerated equalisation of the state pension age. Over 2.5 million women born in the 1950s made their plans for retirement only to find that their retirement age had been quietly pushed back by the coalition Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I gently remind the hon. Lady that we are discussing what is in the Bill, and not what is not in the Bill. It is quite a narrow Bill.
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful to you for reminding me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was a debating point in the House of Lords. As I said, it is not likely that there will be another pensions Bill in this Parliament, so I hope you will give me some latitude.
Frank Field
There was a hope among some of us on either side of the House that the Bill might be blocked tonight, temporarily, until we got justice for the WASPI women. Unfortunately, as I understand it, Labour was not willing to do that and the Scottish National party in particular was not willing to do that, as they are pleased with the Bill and want it to go through. May I make a plea to my hon. Friend that, should the next pensions Bill come, as it assuredly will, and before all the WASPI women are taken up to the new state retirement age, Labour thinks tactically about trying to get them justice, rather than merely talking about it, as I have to?
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. We recognise the importance of the Bill in tightening the regulation—or lack of it—on master trusts and the vulnerability that that lack places on the millions of people who are being auto-enrolled. It is therefore important that the Bill goes through. My point is that if it is the only pensions Bill in this Parliament, it has serious omissions. Those omissions should be on the record, as should our objection to the fact them. If I could just have a few moments to mention—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady has made the point that she feels those issues have been omitted, but they are not in the Bill. If she could now move on, I would be very grateful.
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although we have made significant improvements in terms of pensioner poverty, I have to say it is a disappointment that there are still outstanding problems. Under our pension system, of which we should be guardians, one in seven pensioners still unfortunately lives in poverty. We are the fifth richest country in the world, so we should be able to ensure that our pension system provides dignity and security in retirement. Currently, it does not. For me, this a significant failure of our pension system and highlights a particular failure in the Bill.
I could also talk about the missed opportunities surrounding the Cridland review of the state pension age, which has not been brought to this place, and there are lost opportunities when it comes to the defined benefit Green Paper. It was due later this year, but it has now been decided that it will not be brought to this place for scrutiny in connection with this Bill.
I will move on, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know I am testing your patience. [Interruption.] That is a bit unkind. Closer to home and in relation to the Bill, it does very little to build—[Interruption.] Do any Conservative Members want to intervene? Okay, I will carry on.
The Bill does very little to build on the success of Labour’s auto-enrolment policy by ensuring that saving into master trusts is accessible and encouraged for a number of groups currently excluded from auto-enrolment provision. I recognise that the Government have announced a review of auto-enrolment, but again, why is this not in the Bill?
Let me speak briefly about the issue of low-income savers’ access to saving in master trusts. Under the policy of auto-enrolment developed by my party, working people would be automatically enrolled in a master trust scheme once their earnings hit the trigger of just over £5,000. The logic of this proposal was that people would begin to save towards an occupational pension at the same earnings level at which they began to pay national insurance contributions. The coalition Government increased this earnings threshold to £10,000, denying millions of low earners the automatic right to save towards a relatively low-cost occupational pension through a master trust. Given the generational crisis developing in our pension system, we believe that more needs to be done to include low earners in savings provision and encourage retirement planning.
That is also true for the self-employed. Self-employed people currently make up to 15% of the workforce, and since 2008 have accounted for over 80% of the increase in employment. There is much evidence to suggest that the self-employed are not saving as much as other sectors of the workforce. Research by the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed found that four in 10 self-employed people did not have a pension. Despite that worrying evidence, there is little obvious means by which a self-employed person could begin to develop a savings pot within a master trust. Once again, this is not sorted out in the Bill. There are other examples, such as people with multiple jobs and carers, of those who do not have access to, and the benefit of, an occupational pension scheme.
The Secretary of State has just announced that there are gaps in the Bill, relating to its failure on a number of different issues. We are shocked by the vast amount of detail missing from the Bill, when that detail is necessary to achieve what the Government have set out to do. The Secretary of State mentioned that secondary regulations will not be laid before the end of the year. Once again, the Government are, in respect of some important protections, presenting a skeleton Bill, with much of the detail left to secondary legislation.
Although we generally support the Bill, despite its narrow scope, there are a few aspects that we will look to strengthen and a few gaps that we believe need to be plugged. These can be considered broadly under three themes: improved governance, strengthened member engagement and greater transparency. The Bill includes a number of clauses that provide a framework for the effective governance of master trusts. We welcome, in particular, the authorisation criteria set out in the Bill. However, it does not address a number of core principles, the first being scheme member representation.
Unlike defined benefit schemes, defined contribution schemes provide for the risk of saving and investment to be borne by the scheme member. On that basis, we believe that scheme members should be represented among the trustees of master trust pension funds. It is, after all, their money, and they have a direct interest in ensuring that a sound and sustainable investment strategy is delivered at good value. That surely stems from the basic democratic principle that those on whose behalf decisions are being made should have a say in those decisions. It would also be a necessary step towards greater transparency in the pensions system, which the Under-Secretary of State for Pensions himself confirmed that the Government would pursue following Labour’s campaign.
Furthermore, providing for a certain number of member-nominated trustees would not be a particularly new or unique arrangement. Mandated member representation already exists in the pensions system: trust-based pension schemes are required to ensure that at least a third of the board of trustees is member-nominated. Why should master trusts not be subject to the same requirement, especially in the light of the increased risk borne by scheme members?
Let me say something about transparency. For too long, people have been encouraged to put their faith—and, perhaps more important, their money—in a distant savings pot, and have been given very little information about where the money is invested, the performance of their savings, and, importantly, how much the investment is costing, in terms of the costs and charges that they will incur. Neither the scheme trustees nor the scheme members have been able to ascertain adequately whether they are getting value for money. I remember that in 2015, the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury promised the Work and Pensions Committee that if there was not openness about costs and charges, the Government would introduce legislation. Well, it has come a little bit late. Why has it taken so long?
In almost any other market, people wishing to purchase goods or services are given basic information about performance and costs before they do so. That basic principle is a necessary requirement to ensure that they receive value for money, but it is not operating in our pensions system. The Financial Conduct Authority has therefore published an interim report, which recognises a number of significant failings in the competitiveness of the asset management market. Its recommendations have important implications for the transparency of pension funds, especially in relation to the costs and charges being extracted from pension savings by investment managers.
We are pleased to see that part 2 of the Bill attempts to prevent excessive fees from being applied should a scheme member wish to take advantage of the Government’s pensions freedom reforms. However, the Bill does not refer to transaction costs, the charges applied by asset managers when they are making new investment decisions. There is a great deal of work to be done to tackle the problem of opaque and excessive costs and charges being extracted from workers’ savings by investment managers. Currently, the Bill merely scratches the surface. It must become a stronger vehicle for change in this regard.
We believe that, alongside member-nominated trustees, a member engagement strategy is required to ensure that master trusts are communicating properly with those whose money they are investing, and that they play their part in driving informed saver choices on a bedrock of transparent information. The Pensions Regulator’s voluntary code of practice for defined contribution schemes asks trustees to provide “accurate, clear and relevant” communications for scheme members as good practice. We believe that proper member engagement should not merely be a voluntary requirement placed upon trustees, but should form part of the regulatory framework. That would help to ensure that scheme members can make rational and informed choices about their pension savings, creating a more sustainable system.
There are other elements in the Bill whose purposes we want to strengthen or clarify: for instance, the definition of the scope of a master trust, what happens to non-money purchase benefits under this Bill, a number of issues relating to the pause clause, and the status of the scheme funder as a separate entity.
We welcome the Bill, but we see it as a wasted opportunity. So much is being introduced after the event. There will be no opportunity for another pensions Bill; the provisions will be delegated to statutory instruments.
Debbie Abrahams
That is what we have been told. That is what we have been led to believe by the Government. Given how long overdue this Bill is, this is likely to be the only opportunity that we have to raise this, and it should have been brought to this House.
We need to develop a sustainable and secure pension system that drives down pensioner poverty and delivers dignity in retirement for all, and I am afraid that this Bill falls well short of that.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). It is probably a fair sum-up to say that we might have liked the Bill to address most of the things that she complained about and most of the things that I might not like, rather than the measures actually in it, which I think get a broad and generous welcome. None the less, this is a necessary Bill that contains the right measures, and we hope it will have a speedy passage through this House.
I want to start by saying that the master trusts, or the more extensive use of them, are a welcome development in the pension landscape. It is hard to see how auto-enrolment would have worked if we had not had the extensive use of master trusts, because what we would not have got is especially small employers setting up their own pension scheme and trying to manage and administer it, or at least act as trustees of it. What we had to see in this situation was much larger trusts in the market that employers could effectively sign up to but not incur the ongoing costs and complexity of trying to be involved in their day-to-day running. So these things are attractive, but it is right that we make sure they are well regulated and we do not create situations where savers are disadvantaged by them.
It is probably quite brave in the pension world to have tried voluntary regulation or self-regulation, but that is effectively what we have had since 2014 with the master trust assurance framework. I perhaps should declare a sort of interest. The framework was drawn up by the Pensions Regulator with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member. It is disappointing that, having had that assurance framework in place, so few of the master trusts in the market signed up to it and followed all the requirements. Indeed, very few of them went through the full audit process required. So it was clear that we had to move to full and proper regulation set out in statute for these master trusts.
This is particularly important in a situation where effectively we in Parliament and the Government are perhaps not quite forcing people to save into these trusts, but strongly encouraging that, and two thirds of those who have been auto-enrolled have ended up in one of these trusts. It is therefore key that we make sure they are in high-quality schemes that look after their interests and we do not let them either be ripped off or just be a victim of a poor-quality trust that delivers poor returns. While there has perhaps been no sign of that from the major master trusts, anyone who has experience of the pensions industry will know that if we do nothing they will eventually become a problem. So it is absolutely right that the measures in this Bill ensure that trusts are set up and operated by people who have the skills and expertise to do that, and that there is a process for managing trusts, checking their performance, and making sure no issues arise as the years go on. That is because it is not realistic to think that either the employers that have signed up their employees for these schemes or the members themselves will have the skills, the ability, the time or the inclination to be doing that ongoing monitoring. That needs to be done by qualified people. That again is an advantage that master trusts have over insurance-based products. There are some skilled people here whose job is to represent the members. The advantage of having a trust is that there is at least that protection: when decisions need to be taken, there are some people who should have the right skills to act in the savers’ interests.
It is timely to be moving forward with these proposals as we suspect that by the time we get them fully in place we will have completed the first phase of auto-enrolment. We might find in the industry that people have set them up but do not have the number of members they thought and therefore not the level of income they thought. Perhaps the charge cap means that they do not have the income to be sustainable, or perhaps the changes that give people choice when they retire mean that they will not hit retirement date and then move their money into an annuity—that they will just leave the pot and not draw it down for a while. That would still be a cost on those schemes which needs to be addressed.
Julian Knight
My hon. Friend is making the important point that we have to avoid zombie funds being created as a result of the master trusts, and one way of doing that is through the role of the Pensions Regulator. Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that a master trust will have to prove that its business model is sustainable is key to that interaction with the Pensions Regulator?
Nigel Mills
Yes, that is the point I was trying to make. Even master trusts that have been set up entirely properly and with the best of intentions could find, by the end of auto-enrolment, that they were not going to be viable in the long run. We need to ensure that there is a clear, well managed route so that, rather than having zombie funds sitting around delivering a poor return, we can get them moved into the higher quality, better performing ones. We need to ensure that this market works for everyone.
One element that people might not have considered is that we have not yet found a solution for people who end up with multiple very small pots spread across the landscape. I suspect that that could present a cost to the system that we will want to manage our way out of in order to create a sustainable situation. Overall, master trusts are a good thing, but they will need to be well regulated if they are to create confidence in the system and ensure that savers do not get a bad deal.
There are a few other things that I think I can just about sneak in as being within the scope of the Bill. We have ended up with slightly different arrangements for master trusts and insurance-based products, and I wonder whether it is sensible to have so many different regulators in the industry trying to do the same thing. Should the Pensions Regulator really be responsible for regulating all pension schemes, however they are structured, rather than letting the Financial Conduct Authority do some? Should we try to get equivalence between schemes that are trying to do the same thing but end up having subtle differences? Perhaps it would be better to say to all savers and all members of pension schemes, “Your scheme is regulated by the Pensions Regulator. Yes, there will be a cut-off with the FCA at some point.” That would be better than having uncertainty about who is responsible for which scheme.
Looking at master trusts more generally, there is a need to think through the position in the decumulation phase. The market might already be seeing that master trusts can be used for decumulation as well as accumulation. Decumulation is a very different model, and it is perhaps harder to see the business case for that than for the accumulation phase, with its ever-growing pots and more income. With decumulation, we have ever-dwindling pots and seemingly less income from the fees. We need to think through whether master trusts are intentionally aimed at the decumulation phase where members treat them as a kind of bank account from which they can draw money when they want to. The secret will be to ensure that savers have access to the right advice, and it is a pity that the Bill does not address the future of the various advice schemes, but I am sure that we will get to that at some point. In summary, this is a welcome and necessary Bill, and I am sure that it will be very effective. I look forward to its making progress in the House.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who has made some good points about the importance of advice and about the decumulation phase. I hope that we will have an opportunity to come back to those matters at a later stage.
I welcome the Government’s initiative in bringing forward the Bill. A desire to create trust in pensions savings should unite us across the House. We want all workers to be able to attain a standard of living that will be consistent in allowing them to save while in work in order to have dignity in retirement, secure in the knowledge that a regular income from a state pension and a workplace pension will allow them to enjoy their retirement without financial worry and without living in pensioner poverty. In our view, pensions savings are the best way for most workers to achieve that dignity in retirement. We need to deliver the appropriate level of protection for savers, and the Bill is an important step forward in that regard, albeit one that could be enhanced through constructive amendments in Committee.
Given the growth in master trusts and the desire to ensure that we protect savers’ interests, the Bill is overdue in some regards. Auto-enrolment has led to a significant increase in the use of master trusts. The impact assessment published this month informs us that some 200,000 savers were in master trusts in 2010, increasing to 4 million by 2015. According to estimates from the Pensions Regulator, that may now have risen to 4.3 million savers with around £8.1 billion of assets in master trusts. When we take into account the Government estimate that 10 million workers will be in auto-enrolment schemes by 2018 and that they will be saving as much as £17 billion by 2019-20, with the vast bulk of them in master trusts, the need for robust, effective protection is clear.
The master trust market has grown rapidly, with as many as 84 such trusts in operation today. While there are a small number of larger trusts, it is clearly a fragmented market, with risk of failure in certain cases. Indeed, the Work and Pensions Committee called for stronger regulation in March 2016 when it concluded that:
“Gaps in pension law and regulation have allowed potentially unstable trusts onto the market. Should one of these trusts collapse, there is a real danger that ordinary scheme members could lose retirement savings. There is a risk that faith in auto-enrolment as a whole will be undermined.”
That is a stark warning and underscores the requirement to take this Bill forward. We need to regulate to remove the prospect of inadequately resourced schemes collapsing and to offer protection against scammers entering the marketplace. The warning signs are already there. Two small schemes have already collapsed, affecting 7,500 members. It is currently extremely easy for anyone to set up a master trust and accept savers’ funds, and there is no established mechanism for responding to the collapse of a master trust.
The rules of many schemes currently allow the use of members’ funds to wind up a scheme should it collapse. That is simply not acceptable. As a consequence of the Bill, there will be a requirement for master trusts to be approved, requiring minimum standards of trustees and obliging schemes to prove access to capital that can be used in case of wind-up. There has been widespread support for the need for such a Bill. The Pensions Regulator welcomed the announcement of new powers to regulate master trusts and said:
“We have been calling for a significantly higher bar regarding authorisation and supervision, and we are pleased that today’s announcement proposes to give us the power to implement these safeguards.”
The ABI has said:
“We have previously called for tighter regulation of Master Trusts, and are supportive of the proposed direction set out in the Bill.”
The Pension and Lifetime Savings Association welcomed the Bill as
“essential to protect savers and ensure that only good Master Trusts operate in the market.”
I concur with all those remarks.
Some of the Bill’s requirements may have unintended consequences and require further attention. As the Bill represents a significant change in the role of the Pensions Regulator, the Government must ensure that the regulator is adequately resourced to deliver accordingly. Addressing some of the following concerns could go some way to getting the Bill watertight and satisfying the concerns of many stakeholders. My first point relates to clause 8. If a scheme funder is an FCA and PRA-authorised insurer, the ABI contends that it will already have to comply with solvency II and therefore the regulations under clause 8 should not apply as they would be onerous and costly. The Government should clarify whether they have assessed that potential impact and whether the additional regulation adds a further safeguard, making the provision necessary.
Clause 9 requires the Pensions Regulator to be satisfied that a master trust has sufficient financial resources to meet the costs of setting up and running the scheme and to protect members in the event of wind up. A master trust must therefore hold capital equivalent to six to 24 months’ worth of running costs. However, it is argued that there is little clarity over how that provision would be applied. The TUC argues that there is an assumption that other master trusts would have an appetite to absorb a collapsed rival’s book of business, but that may not always be the case, particularly if costs are involved. Some savers are more attractive to providers than others. In the absence of greater clarity over the robustness of the proposed capital regime, the TUC contends that clause 9 should be retained. It was accepted in the Lords and provides that the Secretary of State can
“make provision for a funder of last resort, to manage any cases where the Master Trust has insufficient resources to meet the cost of complying with subsection (3)(b)”
after a triggering event. I would support that as a principle.
On clause 10, concerns have been expressed about the additional costs that master trusts could face, such as those offered by insurers due to duplicated regulation enforced by the Pensions Regulator. The ABI has said that that would be to the detriment of existing scheme members, as these schemes already operate under stringent FCA and PRA regulation.
The key issue raised by the ABI is the definition of a “scheme funder” in clause 10. Concerns centre on the fact that the Government state that the clause is intended better to enable the Pensions Regulator to assess the financial sustainability of the scheme by increasing transparency on the assets, liabilities, costs and income of the master trust. The ABI is concerned that the clause does not meet the policy intent of providing transparency because, as a separate legal entity, master trusts can still transfer risk to other entities.
That issue was raised in the Lords, and the ABI continues to ask that, in order to protect the benefits to scheme members and minimise costs, the requirements under clause 10 should not apply where the scheme funder is an FCA and PRA-authorised insurer. There is also a need for greater transparency on fee charging, which needs to encompass transaction costs as well as any ongoing administration fees.
It is welcome that the Government are placing a 1% cap on exit fees for current members and no exit fee for new members. We know that large fees have been charged on exit in the past, and it is clear that we need to protect savers, although if new members are to be excluded from exit fees why should it be permissible for exit fees to remain in place for existing plan holders?
Under clause 12, at least one third of trustees of single-employer workplace pension schemes have to be member-nominated. There is no such obligation on master trusts. The Bill presents an opportunity to explore member involvement, and I hope we can pick up that topic in Committee.
Clause 32 creates a new power enabling the Pensions Regulator to make a pause order requiring certain activities to be paused once a master trust has experienced a triggering event. That includes accepting new members, making payments, accepting contributions and discharging benefits. There is concern about the impact of a pause order on a member’s savings, as there are no mechanisms in place to allow ongoing contributions to be collected and held on behalf of a saver. It is unacceptable that a member should be penalised and, in effect, lose wages in the form of employer contributions due to events out of their control. The Government should clarify whether they intend to take action to protect savers in that area.
We look forward to clarification from the Government on those issues, and we will work in the next stages, where necessary, to improve the Bill. This is therefore a pressing matter and, on behalf of the Scottish National party, I signal our intent to work with the Government to deliver a Bill of which we can all be proud.
The Bill, however, is a missed opportunity to undertake much-needed major reform of the pensions system, rather than patchwork attempts to plug holes in the system. We need a fundamental overhaul of the pensions system, and the UK Government need to introduce more ambitious plans on pension reform. We are disappointed not to have a Bill that looks at the issues with the state pension, particularly the need to address state pension age inequality for the WASPI women.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I take your comments about the WASPI women but, given that the SNP was traduced by the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I make the point that the SNP has raised the issue of the WASPI women at least 44 times in this House and has commissioned independent research. It is completely disingenuous for anyone to suggest that the SNP has refused to support the campaign. A reasoned amendment to kill the Bill was suggested. However, that would help no one and would only remove the Bill’s helpful regulation provisions relating to master trusts.
Frank Field
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The plan was not to kill the Bill but just to hold it up for a bit so that we could hopefully highlight the position of WASPI pensioners, for soon they will all be retired and the horror will have been completed. We have no other weapon against the Government, because they have made it plain that they are going to sit out this issue. The Scottish nationalists were not prepared to form an alliance with those of us who want to block the Bill in order to actually raise this issue and perhaps implement the recommendation of a previous Select Committee report.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee—
Madam Deputy Speaker
I also appreciate that he is not going to be speaking in tonight’s debate, but I just want to say that it is a very narrow Bill about something very specific and this is not the forum for discussing all that. People might be very disappointed that we are not debating transport policy, but we are not; we are debating master trusts, so I ask the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) to keep just to that. I know he is trying to skim over things, but if he could skim away from other issues and get back to the main point, we would all be very grateful to him.
Ian Blackford
I will endeavour to skim away, Madam Deputy Speaker. You made the point that this is a narrow Bill, which is exactly why it would have been impossible to amend it to take account of the WASPI case. The right hon. Gentleman should know that an attempt to kill the Bill would have done exactly that, and we do not solve the problem faced by WASPI women by defeating this Bill, which is so necessary to protect pension savers. Frankly, he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself; he does no justice for the WASPI women with his campaign and the remarks he is making.
Let me conclude the remarks I was making. The sheer fact that the Cridland review is currently looking at the state pension age, without looking at the existing problems, limits the ability to learn and develop a more progressive outlook, which could safeguard dignity in retirement for pensioners. Generally, the threat of pensions scams and transfers from pensions to high-risk schemes needs to be urgently addressed. [Interruption.] I have got to the bits I am not allowed to say any more. [Laughter.]
We reiterate our call for the establishment of an independent pension and savings commission to look holistically at pension reform, focusing on existing inequalities and paving the way for a fair, universal pensions system. The entire pensions landscape is in need of fundamental reform, particularly with a pressing need now to review and enhance auto-enrolment. The Government are set to review auto-enrolment this year, but reports seem to suggest there may not be substantial changes from the review, and with many missing out on auto-enrolment we need to ensure that this policy is moved forward. Although 7 million workers have been auto-enrolled, a further 6 million workers have missed out. The Pensions Policy Institute revealed that 3.3 million of the people excluded from auto-enrolment had been excluded because they earned less than £10,000 a year. It also found that three quarters of the employees earning less than the auto-enrolment trigger were women.
We believe that lowering or removing the auto-enrolment trigger would significantly increase the number of people saving through auto-enrolment and in master trusts. It would also go some way to alleviating some of the historical inequalities women face, whereby their occupational pension savings are already well below those of men. There are clear disadvantages here, particularly for part-time and the low-paid workers. For example, somebody earning £10,000 per annum will not benefit from the 8% contribution; they will benefit by only 3.4% because over half the earnings are excluded. Although self-employed workers are growing vastly in number, they have fewer incentives to save. If the Government were to review auto-enrolment sufficiently, they could consider moving to a flat rate of pension tax relief and allowing self-employed people to deduct pension contributions from profits to end the disparity.
Looking at the age at which auto-enrolment is triggered could also be more progressive. Just on 26 January, Zurich Insurance called on the Government to take
“a steady approach to increasing minimum auto-enrolment contributions above 8%”.
While there is an acceptance that the levels need to rise, it must be done in a way whereby workers do not opt out.
In conclusion, I welcome this Bill. It contains much we can support and we will work constructively with the Government to enhance it further. I hope that when the Minister winds up he will join with us in that spirit of consensus.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
I hope that Members will forgive me for not going into as much detail as the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). My comments will be considerably shorter, which will give people some comfort tonight.
If we are able to have the financial resources in the future to spend on things our constituents rightly take for granted, such as our NHS and our children’s education, one challenge for the Government is to rebalance the economy away from an over-reliance on the state. Where it is possible and appropriate to do so, the individual and their employers should take more responsibility for their future financial security. The national living wage, which was introduced by this Government—and at a far higher rate than that proposed by the Labour party—has helped to shift the burden back on to employers and away from the state, which had found itself topping up wages through in-work benefits. Many in-work benefits did nothing more than subsidise hugely wealthy businesses at the expense of the British taxpayer. With the introduction of the national living wage, employers will now be required to take more responsibility for paying their employees properly.
I see automatic enrolment in a pension scheme in the same way as I see the national living wage. It is a way of helping working people to save for their future and a dignified, funded retirement. Auto-enrolment requires employers to pay into a pension scheme along with their employees, and the Government do their bit by giving tax relief on employee contributions. I expected employers to be less than enthusiastic about auto-enrolment and the additional costs it would mean for their business, but if anything I have found that businesses in my Southampton, Itchen constituency are very supportive. In fact, one business even suggested making auto-enrolment compulsory to ensure that its staff are saving for their future and not choosing to opt out, as up to 50% of them currently do.
As with all legislation, it is sensible to review how auto-enrolment operates in practice and to improve it where possible. The Bill does that. It contains particular provisions on the role of master trusts and those who operate them. Master trusts are the favoured financial product for investing employees’ pension contributions for the majority of small businesses in the UK. Many of them, including the National Employment Savings Trust, operate within the Pensions Regulator’s guidelines and have the quality assurance mark. However, there is widespread agreement that regulation for trust-based pension schemes in general is inadequate. The Bill aims to address that and, in so doing, give comfort to savers and protect their retirement savings.
There seems little in the Bill that anyone can disagree with, although some Members have said that it does not go far enough. We insist that our taxi drivers pass a fit and proper person test so that they can carry passengers, but until now there has been no such requirement on all those who operate master trusts and are potentially responsible for a worker’s entire retirement savings. The Bill will ensure that those responsible for running master trusts have to demonstrate their suitability to do so—not before time, in my humble opinion.
The Bill also requires schemes to prove their financial sustainability—something that most investors would assume was already a requirement—and will give the regulator new powers to supervise master trusts and intervene if a scheme is at risk of falling below the required standards. With more than 10 million workers estimated to be saving in auto-enrolment schemes by 2018 and more than £17 billion of extra workplace pension saving per year by 2020, it is imperative that master trusts, which will be responsible for much of that investment, are more tightly regulated than is currently the case.
Once the Bill is passed, a consultation process will begin. When he responds to the debate, will the Minister inform the House of any specific regulations that will be presented in the consultation document? How frequently will those regulations be reviewed by the Secretary of State?
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I can beat the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) on length of speech, because, not wishing to draw the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker, I have crossed out 95% of my speech.
As the newly elected chair of the all-party group on state pension inequality for women, I feel obliged to say to the Government that they have missed the opportunity to make provision for that women group of women we have come to know fondly as WASPI, although many other pressure groups with different names are also lobbying for the same cause. I have promised those women that I intend to work with every group to fight this injustice and give them a voice. I will come to the Chamber at every given opportunity to speak up for them until they get justice. All they ask for is a simple transitional payment to support them financially until they reach state pension age. I say to the Government that the problem is not going away. The Bill does not do what it should have done, which was look after the WASPI women, and I fear the Government will regret that.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
The House will be rather pleased that I will focus purely on the Bill, which I very much welcome and have no hesitation in supporting.
It may be helpful briefly to explain the framework and history of master trusts. Such pension plans were historically designed primarily for single employers, or a group of related sponsoring employers with an in-built paternalistic and altruistic nature of management. However, the world of workplace pensions has changed rapidly and for the good, with the introduction of workplace pensions under auto-enrolment following the Pensions Act 2008. As we have heard from the Secretary of State, the latest figures suggest that more than 7 million employees are now enrolled across 370,000 employers. As we reach the final phase of the staging dates roll-out across smaller employers over the coming year, the number will expand massively, approaching 10 million people across possibly 1 million employers. The figure for current assets under management is at more than £10 billion a year and will grow rapidly. It could easily be the case that, over the next 30 years, master trusts contain assets exceeding £1 trillion.
The larger employer may already have had an employer scheme in place, but those are likely to have been contract based, whereby a pension provider—often an insurance company—is appointed to run an individual scheme. It is the smaller employer, under auto-enrolment obligations, that will be using the other possible course of action, which is the trust-based defined contribution scheme, whereby a number of employers—perhaps tens of thousands of smaller individual employers—will take part in an individual scheme. The new legislation will apply to those new trust-based schemes, ensuring that they are well run, financially sound and subject to appropriate oversight by the Pensions Regulator. It is essential that employees have confidence that schemes will protect their assets. After all, it is perfectly likely that an employee’s pension fund, after their house, will be the primary life asset upon which so much will depend.
The Select Committee on Work and Pensions, in its report of 15 May last year, devoted some time to highlighting the risks under the current limited regulatory arrangements for master trusts, amounting to little more than Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs registration that practically anybody could overcome—loose arrangements that suited the original purpose of trust-based schemes, but which are wholly insufficient in the new auto-enrolment world. I pay tribute to the work of former Pensions Minister, Baroness Altmann, who similarly highlighted the lack of regulation of master trusts.
Following investigations, including one by the BBC, there were reports of unregulated applicants to the master trust market—notably, a promotion by MWP Pension Ltd, a company owned by former sports fashionwear traders that formerly traded as Wide-Boys R Us. With that type of background, new legislation is urgently needed, otherwise this area could easily become the financial scandal of the future.
Far from being overdue, it is a tribute to the ability of our legislative framework that risks have been recognised and the Government have acted quickly. The market itself has recognised the risks of the current lightweight regime. The Pensions Regulator, working with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), a chartered accountant like myself, mentioned—created the master trust assurance framework, with a list available to all on the Pensions Regulator’s website. The list now includes 13 institutions that are complying with good practice. Before the Bill becomes law, I urge smaller employers considering their options as their staging dates approach to use any of those recognised schemes; do not use any other.
I welcome other aspects of the Bill, as it proposes triggering events, pause orders and an appropriately draconian penalty fine of up to £10,000 a day for non-compliance. I welcome the proposals and, with others, will examine their extent in Committee. Finally, and to the delight of all, the Bill gives authority to the Secretary of State to restrict charges, mirroring in part the provisions applying to the charges structure introduced within personal plans under the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016, and extending the Pensions Act 2014. As all Members will know, it is purely due to the effect of compounding that, over 40 years, a fund can grow by 50% or more with a simple fee-charging difference of just 0.75%. I certainly hope that the Secretary of State will use these powers to reduce charges as appropriate.
This Bill comes at the right time before contributions under auto-enrolment escalate over the years come, and I will support it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I have recently taken an interest in the issue of pensions in this House, but I had already had a fair amount of interest in it for a fair amount of time. Despite being a fair distance off the state pension age, or general pension age, I would quite like to have a pension, and so would most people of my age. It is really important that younger people do take an interest in this and think about it going forward. That is one of the reasons this provision is really important. We need to ensure that young people—millennials like me—will have access to decent pensions. The Government did a study that produced results in 2013 suggesting that only just over half of people who are currently of working age will have a pension that will be able to keep up their living standards. That is not an acceptable situation. I appreciate that the Government have undertaken reforms such as auto-enrolment to ensure that those numbers can be increased. We do not want everybody to be hitting state pension age and realising that in fact they cannot afford to do all the things that they intended to do. It is therefore really important to make changes to this.
In order for people to continue not to opt out of auto-enrolment and for it to continue to be as successful as it has been so far, we need to ensure that there is trust in the scheme. People must know that their money will grow at a reasonable rate and that they will get the right amount of money that they expect to get when they hit pension age. In order for that to happen, the Government need to have appropriate regulation in place, because, in the main, people are not by themselves going to read all the clauses and schedules of the regulations that come with the scheme that they are enrolled into. They need to trust that the Government have appropriately regulated these schemes so that if they fail, for example, there is security for them. Otherwise, auto-enrolment will not continue to work at the rate that it has done. It is really important that we have things like the new regulation that is coming through, and that we have recognised the rise of master trusts and how important they are for people who are involved in auto-enrolment.
I am pretty supportive of a lot of this, but I want to raise a couple of things. At the tail end of last year, I held a couple of public meetings in Aberdeen to ask people about pensions, and I was really surprised at the strength of feeling about pension regulation. I was expecting them to talk mainly about some of the well-known issues such WASPI, the frozen pension, and the lifetime ISA, which is not a scheme that I am particularly supportive of because it has far too many shortcomings. I think we are going to see a lot of negative ramifications in future with the change to pension schemes that encourages people to draw down. There is also the fact that people who enrolled in pension schemes before 1997 are not entitled to an inflationary uplift in those schemes. That was brought up a couple of weeks ago in a debate in Westminster Hall. I was also expecting the ever-increasing rise in the state pension age to come up, because I know that people are worried about that. I will not be getting my state pension until I am at least 68, under the current projection.
I was expecting all those things to come up, but in fact the biggest issue raised was the lack of appropriate regulation around some of the private pension schemes that exist. I was really surprised about that, but this is a real issue for people of all ages. People are really worried as a result of high-profile issues relating to schemes not paying out the expected amount. It is important that the Government are increasing trust in pension schemes, so that people of my age know that they will pay out.
For all of auto-enrolment’s many benefits, it has a number of shortcomings. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) mentioned how it disadvantages women, purely because they tend to be on part-time contracts. There is also an impact on people with multiple jobs, who tend to be on lower incomes; they earn a small amount in each job, so they do not get auto-enrolled. Self-employed people cannot be involved in auto-enrolment, and only 14% of self-employed people pay into a pension scheme. That is not enough. If we expect those people to be able to support themselves when they hit retirement age, more of them need to be paying into a pension scheme and the Government need to make changes to ensure that they are more likely to do so.
Age is another big issue that has not been raised today. People are not auto-enrolled until they are 22 years old, but a number of people are leaving school, starting work and hitting full-time employment earlier than that. If they are enrolled in a pension scheme when they hit 22, they will get a shock and think, “Hang on a second.” If we enrolled them earlier, I think they would be more likely to continue with the scheme. The Government need to look at that big issue.
I appreciate that the Government are continuing to make moves. This year’s Green Paper on defined-benefit schemes will be really important and the review of auto-enrolment will be fundamental. We need to look at how the scheme has worked, because it has been more successful than intended when the Government conceived it. It needs to be looked at with fresh eyes in the light of that.
At present, 24% of people have no pension scheme when they hit retirement age, but as a result of the changes that figure will be only 12% by 2050. That is much better and it shows that there have been positive developments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), have referred to clause 9, which provides a fall-back position in the event of a master trust failing. The issue relates to master trusts that may not be attractive enough to be taken on by other master trusts. The Government could have avoided the situation that that creates. It would have been easier for us to support the clause if, rather than saying that they will introduce the provision through secondary legislation, the Government had outlined their position and given themselves the flexibility to amend it with secondary legislation. As it stands, schemes have to have between six and 24 months’ worth of cash in the bank in order to cover themselves, but there is no clarity on how that would work and it is left to the Government to introduce secondary legislation. If the Government had provided more clarity, this would have been a better Bill and they could have amended it as circumstances changed.
I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak and I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet us last week to give us a briefing, which helped my understanding of the Bill.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I am conscious that some Members may be worried that they will be collecting their pension before we have finished debating the Pension Schemes Bill, but I promise that I will not detain the House long. That is a light-hearted start to a speech on a serious issue. It is a great pleasure and honour to speak in this debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who made the important point that for many years there has been a lack of saving and pension provision in society at large. Members of the public turn to pension saving later than perhaps they ought to have done, and—dare I suggest it?—some Members of Parliament may have done the same. That is what the Bill is designed to address.
This is an important and often neglected policy area, and the Government’s strides towards automatic enrolment have gone a great way towards putting wrong that right. There is a need for further work, however, which the Bill is designed to address. We have heard about the types of master trust available, and I will not take the House through them all again. They are important, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am made aware of that every time I go around my constituency and meet those in charge of small businesses, of which we have a great many in Witney. Their main concerns are regulation and the steps that they have to go through. Master trusts give them a way to deal with those matters very quickly, because administration costs are pooled and one group of trustees manages a scheme. Not all employers will wish to set up their own scheme, so master trusts help them greatly. As has been said in the other place, master trusts are a neat solution for smaller employers, for whom setting up an individual scheme would be a burden.
We need the Bill, because the previous reforms have led to the master trusts being a great success. So far, more than 7 million people have been enrolled in a workplace pension by more than 370,000 employers, and total assets of £10 billion are being managed. As the programme rolls out to smaller employers during 2018, we expect that to increase so that an estimated 10 million workers will be newly saving, or saving more, in those workplace pensions. That will have generated £17 million per annum in additional pension savings by 2019-2020.
Action must be taken now, because the increased saving is taking place against a legislative and regulatory framework that was designed for 2010, when some 200,000 members were taking part in master trust schemes; now the figure is some 7 million. The regulatory framework was designed with single-employer schemes in mind, but master trusts operate on a different scale and with very different dynamics. The first part of the Bill, which I support, will help to deal with that.
The second part of the Bill deals with early exit charges. In 2014, the Government brought in major changes to pensions, which have allowed 232,000 people to access flexible payments and exercise their right to use their money in the way they see fit. More than 1.5 million payments have been made, with £9.2 billion withdrawn in the first 21 months. Some schemes impose costs on people when they withdraw their money to use as they see fit, and the Bill is designed to address that.
In conclusion, I support the Bill. It will, I submit, increase confidence in saving and confidence in pensions. It will protect savers, and it will enable them to take full advantage of the new pension freedoms that they have been granted by the Government. It is a reforming Bill that amends the existing framework, and it will be of benefit to all. I urge the House to support it.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to join in the debate. May I say how nice it was to have two such constructive contributions from the SNP? My friend the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) spoke from the perspectives of considerable industry knowledge and the view of a younger generation, which were extremely valuable in tonight’s debate.
I rise to congratulate the Government on introducing a Bill with the simple and absolutely correct objectives of providing essential protections for people saving in master trusts and giving those people the same security as members of single-employer schemes. That is the key thing. Many people listening to this debate will wonder what on earth a master trust is. The simple way to explain it is that it is a multi-employer occupational pension scheme. The question that many people will be asking is: why do these things exist in the first place? The answer is of course that they have advantages of scale. That means that small employers do not have to create their own trust; they can join an existing master trust, which can reduce their costs, administration and overall hassle, and that is incredibly important for a small employer.
The downside, unfortunately, is that master trusts do not, as a mandatory requirement, have to pursue the best interests of the scheme members. They can take a purely commercial approach to generating profit. Their trustees do not have to pass the fit and proper persons test, the master trust does not have to be authorised, and there is a question mark over what would happen to the assets in the case of the master trust failing.
For all those reasons, the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my distinguished colleague the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), looked at this issue in some detail last year. In effect, it made three key recommendations: first, that a pensions Bill should establish minimum finance and governance standards; secondly, that there would be ongoing requirements for master trust schemes and for compliance; and thirdly, that there should be measures to protect member assets in the event of a master trust winding up.
The report, which was written last May, was accompanied by a letter from the Chairman of the Select Committee to the Chancellor at the time, asking him to make sure that there would be a pensions Bill in the Queen’s Speech. To be fair, the Government have delivered precisely that. In fact, the previous Pensions Minister said she wanted a pensions Bill to provide stronger regulation of master trusts, and the current Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions is now taking that forward and delivering the promised Bill.
I felt that the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) was a little curmudgeonly to say that the Bill was long overdue. In fact, it is being delivered surprisingly fast. As other Members have pointed out, although there have been a couple of cases of small master trusts failing, they have been taken over very swiftly and easily, and as far as we are aware, nobody has lost any money so far. The Bill is therefore slightly ahead of the curve in dealing, we hope, with the problem ahead and providing the necessary framework and structures.
The industry has responded constructively to the changes. If we look at the three main bodies that have responded—the Association of British Insurers, the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association and NOW: Pensions, which is the snappily named pensions provider of Danish origin—we can see that all three have made constructive comments. Some of the comments will need to be taken up in the Public Bill Committee, but they have broadly supported the ideas that the Bill is putting forward.
In essence, the Government have focused on three separate items. First, there are the master trusts, which will have to be authorised. Secondly, there are the people—the trustees—who will have to pass the fit and proper persons test. Thirdly, there are the assets, which will have to be ring-fenced and protected. Those are all good things, although they raise one major question to which I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will respond in his winding-up speech. They require the Pensions Regulator to do a lot of important work, and there is a question mark over whether that body has the right resources. He will no doubt be able to tell us more about his discussions with the regulator and what they have agreed on resources. Without the right resources, these important changes will clearly not be implemented effectively.
There we have it: it is a simple and important Bill that everyone should support. The tone of this debate has been constructive. There will, however, be details to go through at the next stage of the Bill’s progress. For example, the PLSA has raised questions about whether the requirement for the scheme funder to be an independent entity is too onerous. NOW: Pensions has noted that only four master trusts have actually passed the master trust assurance framework full audit, which is disappointing. The ABI has questioned whether master trusts attracting members not connected to an employer—in other words, those in what is known as the decumulation phase—should be regulated by the FCA. Those three issues can be considered at the Bill’s next stage.
In closing, I just want to say that the Bill is important, and I am grateful to the Government for bringing it forward. Some good issues have been raised, and I will support the Bill.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—what a speech! The speech of the night, I would say. Pensions are an issue of vital importance to my constituents in Brecon and Radnorshire, and to all, young and old, throughout the country. As we live longer and grow older as a nation, it is imperative that everyone in the UK can support themselves in retirement. That is something on which we have all agreed, and that is why I am pleased that the Bill is before the House.
There are three key parts to the Bill, which emphasise the need for it: the protection of consumers, the incentives for responsibility, and the ending of anti-competitive practices. There are several points in the Bill with which I take issue, but slight tweaks will make it totally perfect. I was going to go through those points, but time is against us, and I have the wonderful pleasure of having been invited on to the Bill Committee, so I look forward to bringing those matters to the Minister’s attention over the next few weeks.
Overall, the Bill seems much needed. We must ensure that our constituents have confidence in our pension system, and the Bill seeks to do that. As we have heard too often, and throughout the debate, we need to ensure that responsible master trusts that work in the interests of their members are supported, and again the Bill seeks to ensure that. We need to ensure that our constituents have security for their retirement nest eggs, and the principles in the Bill seek to do just that. I therefore support its Second Reading and encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to do the same.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
We have had a good, almost conciliatory debate, but we have also rightly focused on the opportunity that the Government have missed to bring forward an appropriate Bill that addresses the issues surrounding pensions. The Chamber again heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on the plight of the thousands of WASPI women left stranded by this Tory Government, who selfishly and needlessly accelerated the state pension age, leaving many women no time to make alternative provision for themselves in their 60s. If one line was added to the Bill to extend pension credit to the WASPI women—that is our policy—it would have gone a long way to pacifying us this evening.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The hon. Gentleman has got his mention in; let’s stick to the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
So I suppose, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you do not want me to mention the fact that we do not have clarity on the state pension age, either. The Government have already said that they do not have a long-term commitment to the triple lock; we would like to know what their plans are, both on that and, more importantly, for many of our people who work in the most demanding physical jobs, and suffer ill health much earlier in life than those who spend their life behind a desk.
I will not test your patience any further, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we have drifted away from the principles of an effective pension scheme to a muddled view of saving for retirement. Indeed, such is the political hostility towards pensions that they do not get a mention in the latest leaflet produced by the Treasury, “Ways to save in 2017”. There are lots of mentions of different types of individual savings account—cash, junior, help to buy, lifetime and stocks and shares—but not one mention of the word “pension”, or of auto-enrolment.
Although this narrow Bill needs improvement, it is much needed, and we will work with the Government in Committee to help make it fully fit for purpose. Labour is proud of its achievements with auto-enrolment, but we are a long way from finishing the job. The sluggish response of this Government and the last to the development of a regulatory framework for auto-enrolment has left people’s savings at risk for too long. Given what the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), said, our priorities for improving the Bill should be fairly obvious. There should be transparency: members must know what choices they are making, and how much those choices cost—and I mean all the costs in the investment chain. There seem to be conciliatory thoughts on that on both sides of the Chamber.
We also need improved governance and a pension system in which members are more engaged. I am glad to read in the media and published reports that in many cases the regulators and the Government agree with the Opposition. As I said on 9 January, I welcome the one-word commitment from the Under-Secretary of State for Pensions to implement the FCA recommendations to improve transparency in the pensions industry. We will hold them to account for that.
I repeat that members must know how much things cost—they must know how much each investment costs and how much transactions cost. It is not good enough simply to say that a default fund is capped at 0.75% and that people should be content. The industry tells us that it is moving towards greater transparency across all its platforms. We will be pleased to see what it comes up with. I have no doubt that we need to help the industry with appropriate legislation.
In the past, pension fund providers and others involved in fund management have often tried to dodge the issues when asked direct questions about costs, including by saying, “You should be happy to reward performance,” when we know that lower costs give a better net performance. Other hon. Members have spoken about that in the debate. They also say, “We are incentivised to manage costs, so when your funds do well, we get a bigger pay-off,” but we know that 80% of asset manager fees are based on just holding members’ money rather than making it perform well. When people realise that the average compensation of an asset manager, from the most junior to the most senior employee, is £225,000, people have the right to know how they are using the scheme’s money.
The Opposition favour a change in reporting to ensure that pension schemes must report to members on the three headings: administration, investment costs and transaction costs.
I know that the Minister values the cost-collection template, which has been negotiated with the Investment Association by the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board. We must encourage its use by all pension providers. I hope the Minister will confirm his support for such an approach for master trusts.
On member governance, all the investment risk lies with the member and not with the sponsor or the provider. There is an argument to be made that, since the pot belongs to the member and the scheme-sponsoring employer bears no investment risk, governance by scheme members should prevail in number over employers. Some companies choose to operate a trust-based defined-contribution scheme, but most newer auto-enrolled members will not find themselves saving into one. Instead, the vast majority of people will find themselves saving into a master trust or a group personal pension arrangement. In such schemes, member representation on governance boards is far more rare.
We are in a new landscape—we have lost member-nominated trustees, which we had believed to be a clear fiduciary principle. A member perspective adds diversity, which prevents the risk of group-think within boards. Ian Pittaway, chair of the Association of Professional Pension Trustees, has said:
“They’re brilliant in so many areas, they ask difficult questions that other people might be frightened to ask, they’re great on member issues, whether it’s changing benefits of a death-in-service case or something like that.”
In the defined-benefit world, as long as the scheme was well governed and well administered, the member would end up with a reasonable replacement ratio, but in the defined-contribution world, a member’s outcome depends on a host of factors that are currently beyond their control.
There may be resistance to member representation from master trusts, with tens of thousands of schemes and hundreds of thousands or even millions of members, but the industry has proved that it is possible. We will address that more in Committee. Whatever the route to better representation, most in the sector agree that it can only be beneficial for the defined-contribution landscape. There is a clear argument and there are clear demands that the Bill is the best place to start. We look forward to working with the Minister to make it happen.
Yes, we could have debated equally if not more important measures in the Bill, but sadly we are not. It could be many years before we get a chance to pass legislation in those areas. The Bill can both protect and empower the people whose money is being invested on their behalf. The Opposition are therefore happy to see the Bill progress to Committee, where we hope the Minister will be open to the improvements I am sure we can make to the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
I should point out to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that your predecessor in the Chair, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), was very robust in her attempts to reduce the content of Members’ speeches to that which is relevant to the Bill. I will do my best to continue with that tradition.
I was expecting some excellent contributions to this debate and I have not been disappointed. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the general spirit of consensus on the basics of the Bill. A number of hon. Members raised issues that go beyond the authorisation of master trust pension schemes and administration charges, the two issues covered in the Bill, and I am itching to rebut them. However, I realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I would be deemed to be out of order as they are out of the scope of the Bill, so I shall not do that. The Government were criticised by Opposition Members on the grounds that the Bill’s scope was not wide enough. I will address two points in particular.
On the scope of auto-enrolment, we will announce shortly a statutory review in 2017. It is my intention to make that review wider than the limited definition within the Bill. That will report by the end of the year. It is not in the Bill, which regulates master trusts, but it has not been ignored by the Government and it will not be.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I think I do need to help you, Mr Harrington. We all said Members would get one hit and then they would have to get to the Bill. Both Front Benchers have had one hit. Now we can really get into the meat of the Bill.
Richard Harrington
I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on continuing so well the leadership and robustness started by your predecessor in the Chair. I apologise for any offence caused to the Chair. I actually thought I was speaking within the scope of the Bill, but I will of course be led by the Chair and move on to the substance of the Bill.
As I said, the points raised in the debate by Members on both sides of the House have been broadly complimentary. The whole purpose of the Bill is for the Government to be able to respond very quickly to the phenomenal and exponential growth in master trusts over the past two years. That growth was not predicted by the Opposition, who take credit for auto-enrolment—in fact, there was cross-party consensus—and it was not predicted by either the coalition Government or this Government. It happened very quickly and I believe the Government are doing the right thing by responding quickly. I do not accept that the Government have acted too slowly.
I was very glad to receive the support of the shadow Secretary of State, and she made a very relevant point when she explained her view about the expansion of master trusts. We are not allowed to mention the “w” word, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) calls it from a sedentary position, because that would be outside the scope of the Bill. The regulation has been very considered. Both Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and the SNP spokesman commented on the large amount of secondary legislation. The reason is very clear: we want to consult very quickly with industry and responsible parties on the detail, but this process will not take a long time. We have to get the detail absolutely right, because this is a one-off chance to regulate. There will be a chance for scrutiny by both Houses, because in the first instance the regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure.
Many Government Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), spoke about transparency. We take this very seriously and we are consulting on it. It is not in the Bill, but it is in the spirit of the Bill, because the regulator will be provided with many powers that will help to enforce transparency and members’ rights, which have been discussed.
Alex Cunningham
On the specific point of transparency, why is it necessary to start consulting people when we should simply be saying, “We want to know what all the costs are in the entire investment chain”?
Richard Harrington
I must explain to the shadow spokesman that we believe in democracy, and part of that is consulting to get it right. We believe this is very important; it has gone on long enough; it needs to be done right. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean that the Government should just decide what to do without consulting on this hugely complex area within the industry. When it comes to the regulations, let me repeat that we will consult on all of them. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if consulting is not correct, but we have to get this absolutely right.
Alex Cunningham
I certainly agree with consulting, but will the consultation extend to the members of the master trusts and not just the people who manage the members’ money?
Richard Harrington
I believe in full transparency and disclosure, but this is a very complex issue. Brevity of disclosure is sometimes clearer to people, helping them to understand all the costs and charges within their pension, rather than giving them 10, 12 or 14 pages. I would like to move on.
One point was made eloquently by both the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on the question of whether the Pensions Regulator will be properly resourced to carry out the new duty. I can confirm that we have already had extensive talks with the Pensions Regulator, and that it is the Government’s fundamental view that we cannot enact a Bill such as this which deals with improving and expanding on the response without giving the regulator the proper resources that it needs.
I am pleased to say that many Members of all parties have explained that master trusts are an important part of the pensions industry. The Government are filling a gap between personal pensions and insurance-based pensions that are regulated on the one side, and on the other side the evolution of the trust system, for which there is ample pensions law and regulations. There is a significant gap in the market. We are pleased that master trusts have expanded in the way they have, but they need some regulation and attention because companies have been moving into this area simply because there is that gap in regulation. That does not mean that such trusts are a bad thing, and I am delighted to report that we are carrying out this Bill from a position of little failure. This is not a Government responding to catastrophe or calamity when people have lost money; what has happened has been successful, but we need to provide the correct regulatory framework for it.
I can do no better than conclude my speech by citing my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who said that the Bill was simple and important and that everybody should support it. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House and support its Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 21 February 2017.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mark Spencer.)
Question agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Spencer.)
Question agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Ways And Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the levying of charges under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 for the purpose of meeting expenditure arising under any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] or any other Act; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mark Spencer.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Doncaster and Bassetlaw NHS Trust STP
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
At this late hour, I rise to talk about the South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw sustainability and transformation plan. Sustainability and transformation plans are a huge part of the direction of travel in the NHS, but I find that the general public know nothing about them and that consultation is not reaching people—unlike their implications, including the cuts that they are disguising, which are reaching more and more people.
When I heard about the plans and met people to discuss them, it struck me that this was a chance for people in our area to have a vision of an NHS fit for today. I thought that it would enable us to move beyond the clapped-out buildings and outdated technologies into a new era, perhaps without all the funding in place, but with a vision of what would be there in 10 or 20 years’ time if that money became available. I find myself dismally disappointed.
I expected a vision across South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw of what a new surgical hospital of the future would look like. I recalled that, 25 years ago, my own company was working at Addenbrooke’s hospital. During a “live time” operation, we connected with consultants from Japan so that they could give their precise view on what should be done to a patient many thousands of miles away. I expected that—the best expertise and the most modern technologies—to be part of the vision. I expected tomorrow’s technology, but what I see is yesterday’s technology.
I expected to see, beyond smartphones, smart health. I expected that if someone of our age, Mr Deputy Speaker, should require paramedics, today’s smart technology would enable his medical records to be accessible to them immediately on their arrival. I expected screening, testing and all the real “before and afters” of any operation, and any highly specialised input, to become increasingly localised. I expected both our brilliant universities in Sheffield to be in the middle of the new future of the NHS. I expected an area that had been blighted by the impact of the coal and steel industries on the health of people and families to be able to look to the future, with a clear vision of how health services would be configured and how they would be linked to the super new health provision. That is what I expected from the plan.
I expected to be able to challenge my local communities to become engaged in prevention—in education, sport, recreation and healthy living—and to use the NHS less because they were fully involved in a modern plan for a modern health service. I expected to see mental health services that were a support, not a stigma, in the community. I expected to see the integration of social care and the NHS. Let me say to the Minister—I have said it before, but I will say it again now—that I am happy for Bassetlaw to be the first area to hand over the entire social care budget to the clinical commissioning group to put the two together. Working together but delivering from a single budget, they can be much more effective. I hope that the Minister will oblige by making our area the pathfinder for change of that kind.
This dismal plan is a smokescreen for cuts. But there is an opportunity, because of those cuts, to engage the population. The population does not know about the STP, but it certainly knows about the breast care unit that, behind the smokescreen of these changes, is being cut at Bassetlaw hospital, possibly never to be returned. It is a state-of-the-art system as good as that anywhere in the country, brilliantly put together by Mr Kolar and his team, but it is being dismantled at this moment. Women who, previously, from first appointment to consultant were seen, diagnosed and in treatment in 24 hours are now waiting weeks. It is a system that even in the olden days of the last two decades has been prompt and to the point, but it has now shifted back 30 years in its thinking. I hope the Minister will look at precisely how this dangerous cut is being done, because the people of Bassetlaw are not happy about it.
The management of the hospital—the chief executive went on Friday and is still to be replaced, and a new chair was appointed at the turn of the year—has decided to pick on the children’s ward of Bassetlaw hospital, which is perhaps not the smartest of moves. The STP gets nobody other than me and one or two officials to participate in its consultation, but then there is the parents’ Facebook campaign against the overnight closure and the video blog—fancy words—that I did to expose it. Some 9,000 people watched my video blog within the first 24 hours, and 7,000 have joined the Facebook group in the first 24 hours. So there is some consultation feedback for the NHS. The people of Bassetlaw, particularly the mothers and grandmothers, are saying, “We do not want this children’s ward shifting or closing, as it has been; we want that reversed.”
What is their vision, and my vision, of an NHS? Let me give the Minister the views of some of the real people—not the theory, not the stats, but the views of humans. Let me tell the Minister about the twins Leon and William, with autism spectrum disorder, milk allergies and other food intolerances, and learning difficulties, poor eyesight and sensory processing disorders. William has had eight chest infections since birth, with each one becoming more serious. What does his mother Kelli say? Her twins
“thrive on continuity of care and are routine driven and to take an unwell child who has no communication (non verbal) and understanding could be devastating.”
These twins are
“not critically ill but suffer from an acute neurological condition so severe that they attend St Giles”
special school in Retford.
Kelli says:
“My boys know Bassetlaw Hospital and it is all they have ever known, if they have to go elsewhere this will have a detrimental effect on their mood and stress levels. This also may mask a real problem and when a child is non verbal you rely on the subtle hints they give. Even I”—
the mother—
“struggle to understand what their main cause of upset is when they are panicked.”
They need “continuity of care”, but what does this modern, new NHS offer us—this year, brought in two weeks ago? It does not offer continuity of care. If those twins go in in the daytime, they will go into Bassetlaw children’s ward, but if they go in overnight they are automatically transferred to another hospital, and asked to go back to Bassetlaw the next morning. I have already got mothers who are told to go to Sheffield or to Doncaster and arrive there and, after an hour or two—having spent the night getting there, waiting at Bassetlaw for an ambulance, going in an ambulance, getting transferred—are then told, “You need to get back to Bassetlaw.” What a farcical, 1960s health system we are now having imposed on my local hospital.
That is not good enough for the twins Leon and William, and it is not good enough for the six-year-old asthmatic who is admitted to the children’s ward two or three times a year when he is struggling to breathe and requires nebulisers, oxygen and steroids. His parents say:
“The service has…been efficient and relatively quick, which as you can imagine is paramount when you have a child who is fighting for breath…My son gets the treatment he needs without us having to bother the ambulance service. However if we have to travel to Doncaster, which is over 30 miles away and have the nightmare of parking there too it fills me with complete dread. It stops us being able to access home as easily when he has to stay in sometimes for 3 days but also takes the security and familiarity out of the stay for my son, who is already quite poorly”.
Distance is a crucial factor, and it is total nonsense that the distance their son has to travel should be determined by whether he is ill at night or in the daytime.
A four-year-old from Beckingham was treated three times in the children’s ward at Bassetlaw last year. Her mother says:
“The care was absolutely fantastic. I was really scared that she was so poorly, but all the staff were so kind and couldn’t do enough to help. Other mums I spoke to said exactly the same. The thought of having to drive to Doncaster with a sick small child, particularly my own, fills me with dread…I couldn’t have driven her to hospital on my own with her as she was at that age and I asked if we could have an ambulance but it was going to be well over an hour before one could be sent.”
We struggle to get ambulances at any time, never mind in the middle of the night. Ambulances cost money, yet in my area parents will be expected to get into ambulances and travel vast distances—in some cases 40 miles there and 40 miles back. That is not sensible planning in the modern national health service.
Another parent told me:
“My daughter was born 3 months premature in 2012. Due to this she has several health issues, in particular problems with her lungs which has caused her to be admitted on to the children’s ward at Bassetlaw hospital on many occasions.”
Her parents described an occasion when they were told that
“her organs were shutting down as her lungs were not getting enough oxygen. The children’s ward staff were amazing and gave her high dependency care on the ward as she was too unstable to move her to Doncaster hospital. If it had not been for them our daughter would have died.”
She was too unstable to be moved, yet now she would automatically be moved after 8 o’clock at night. That is an abomination, and there are many more.
Another example is 16-month-old Isla, who went to A&E twice in November. Her parents said that
“with her already being distressed with feeling so poorly we felt that the added ordeal of waiting for an overnight transfer by ambulance was added distress and unfair on our daughter. We had been warned we could wait up to three hours for an ambulance to be available and this was on top of the time we had already spent there. For such a young child to be subjected to a seven hour wait and an ambulance transfer in the middle of the night is grossly unfair and doesn’t fit with the ethics and duty of care we believe the NHS should stand for.”
This is not theoretical; it is actually happening.
Mylor, aged 10, was also born prematurely at Bassetlaw hospital. He suffered a brain injury, periventricular leukomalacia. He has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and is unable to sit or stand independently. He has had major hip surgery and has complex health needs. Rarely a week goes by without his needing an associated appointment related to his health needs. His parents say:
“It is of great comfort and reassurance to have a children’s hospital 8 miles from our home with staff who know Mylor and his medical background, a hospital he is familiar with. The decision to cut back admissions on the ward will greatly impact on disabled children and their families—families who already face enough challenges and worry caring for their loved ones.”
The impact on those young disabled children is enormous. They know the children’s ward. They know the staff.
Courtney has autism and learning difficulties. The family said
“we have always been allowed an open door policy if Courtney has ever been very ill. It has been of great comfort to our family to have the reassurance of the excellent medical staff at Bassetlaw. The staff have got to know Courtney and her condition, and her illness has quickly been addressed and this—“
the open-door policy—
“has often prevented her condition from getting worse.”
Dr Leonard Williams, a paediatrician at Bassetlaw for 30 years, pioneered this open-door policy. Most parents do not even go through A&E; they go straight into the children’s ward, technically through the back door, with their children and their conditions known. All of that has been thrown out of the window in the last two weeks. Charlotte has many issues and
“contracted pneumococcal meningitis at 4 weeks of age which left her severely disabled, profoundly deaf and epileptic to name some of her conditions. She has spent many days/weeks on the Children’s Ward at Bassetlaw and the care has always been fantastic. We have always been allowed an open door policy if Charlotte has ever been very ill. It has been of great comfort to our family to have the reassurance of the excellent medical staff at Bassetlaw.”
There is a lot of repetition, but each of these is a different case.
Ollie is six. He has Hirschsprung’s disease and has had a colostomy. He has multiple problems and has had multiple surgeries. His family said
“you never know when you may need the hospital and it’s absolutely vital we have a local one accessible 24/7. It also is very distressing for families and children to be far away from loved ones when members of the family are poorly. Having a local hospital is very important”
to them. I can go on and on with example after example.
Chloe is a 13 year old with a huge number of issues. She has been to Sheffield children’s hospital because she has so many conditions, but she also regularly attends Bassetlaw, where she has grown to trust the staff. Being in hospital for her is not a one-off. Chloe has been treated in the children’s ward for more than a decade, and her mother says it is
“how we live our lives.”
Emily has an extremely rare condition. She has seizures and
“often stops breathing while having them.”
She frequently stays at the children’s ward for one or two nights. Her mother said:
“We moved into this area to be close to the hospital for this reason and Emily’s illness has always been quickly addressed at Bassetlaw and this has often prevented her condition from getting worse.”
There is a three-year-old with chronic asthma who is severely disabled, profoundly deaf and epileptic. There is a 10-month-old, born prematurely, whose father’s employment means that he will not be able to be there if she does not go to Bassetlaw. Zac was the one for whom we launched the campaign. He is three years old. He is blind. He is permanently in a wheelchair and cannot speak. Zac’s father is an industrial worker who works nights. How is he meant to get in with his son if he does not even know which hospital he is going to on his regular admissions to the children’s ward? Those are just some of the children. There are many, many more.
The staff say that seven hours for a non-blue light ambulance is the norm. We have seen cases already of kids waiting six or seven hours at night for a transfer after already waiting all day. There was case in which a blue-light ambulance arrived at Bassetlaw at 8 pm, just missing the deadline, which means a blue-light transfer and the child still going through A&E in Doncaster at midnight—four hours later. In Bassetlaw that would have been minutes, not hours.
We know about the financial black hole across South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw. We are aware of the massive black holes in some of the health trusts and that not enough money is being put in. We are also aware of the additional cuts, with the latest one being the cutting of health visitors in Bassetlaw. Mothers have been told in the last week that they have to weigh their own baby. There have been eye tests in schools since the inception of the NHS—stopped in the last week. Height tests in school—stopped in the last week. Those are major and significant cuts, and they are going to have to be reversed. “Weigh your own baby in the current national health service because we haven’t got any health visitors, and when they’re ill you can’t go into the children’s ward.” “There is no ambulance waiting for you. Drive your own kid to another hospital.” That is what families in my area are being told.
The STP states:
“Improving our population’s health and wellbeing…means re-imagining, re-designing and re-forming our public services and public budgets to improve the health and wellbeing of our population.”
Those changes and this plan are not forward-looking, they are old-fashioned, unimaginative and consultant-focused. It is a 1960s solution to the health service, not critical interventions in the right place, not key operations by specialist surgeons and not decentralised local services. For the young, the old and the seriously ill, it is already traumatic.
The support of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for the children’s ward and breast care unit is on the record, in the traditions of his predecessor, and I thank him for his cross-party work in Bassetlaw and in this place to save our NHS, but there are a few local politicians who seem to think that they are cleverer than the rest of the world. Well, their ignorance is no excuse, and my message to each and every one of them is: “Will you hold your head up high and proud by joining us in fighting these appalling changes and this appalling plan?”
This month and this year, these children have been given a third-class ticket. My constituents and I demand that the children are given a first-class ticket and an equal chance to all other children in this country. They are being denied that chance. Every child in Bassetlaw will benefit from keeping the children’s ward fully functional and fully operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The kids in Bassetlaw are united, and if the kids are united, they will not be defeated.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
I start by paying tribute to the passion with which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) laid his case before us this evening, and I share his welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who joins him here.
The hon. Gentleman’s remarks are clearly timely, and he started his contribution by laying out his vision for innovative technology to be brought to bear for the people of South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw through the emerging sustainability and transformation plan. He drew on his experience from across the world in his previous life to try to bring innovation to bear, and I will touch on the STP towards the end of my remarks.
The hon. Gentleman spent most of his contribution talking about the more immediate issue of the challenge of maintaining a 24-hour children’s ward in Bassetlaw hospital. He has given us many examples of the impact of the current closure—or the fear of the impact of the closure—on families in his constituency and their children who have had experience in the ward. He did so with considerable empathy and conviction, and I am sure his constituents will be grateful for that.
I wish to start my remarks by setting out the facts as they have been presented to me in preparing for this debate. It is the case that Bassetlaw hospital stopped providing an overnight children’s service today. Children who would have been treated at Bassetlaw overnight will now be treated at the Doncaster royal infirmary or Sheffield children’s hospital. The closure is being undertaken by the trust on safety grounds, as there are workforce shortages for both paediatric medical and nursing staff, despite attempts to fill the gaps with locum staff. This is a patient safety issue; the current situation does not offer a safe and sustainable service, which the hon. Gentleman would expect for his constituents. That is the fundamental premise on which this decision has been taken. The replacement service will be monitored to ensure it is safe and effective prior to any decision in October about the long-term future of the service.
In December 2016, the trust identified an emerging issue with safely staffing children’s nursing, as there were gaps of six whole-time-equivalent registered children’s nurses. The trust has attempted to source children’s nurses through locum agencies but has been unsuccessful. Additionally, there is currently a three-person gap on the junior doctor rotation at the trust. I am advised that the trust has undertaken an overseas recruitment drive for medical staffing through an agency, but this has also, unfortunately, not been successful.
The situation with the workforce and the unpredictability of the locum doctor cover has resulted in the ward being temporarily closed at night to new admissions on many occasions in recent months, but children admitted earlier in the day who are stable have remained on the ward overnight. To put this into context, between 1 November and last Friday the trust had transferred 23 children out of the ward, averaging two per week. The total number of children remaining in the ward overnight from 1 September was 452, an average of three per night. I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that the trust appreciates that some children are admitted to the ward regularly—he gave us such examples from constituents’ emails—but due to the nature of their illness it is impossible to predict when this will be. The trust is contacting regular users of the children’s ward individually to discuss their particular care needs and how these can be best delivered under the new system. The trust will continue to provide a seven-day “hot clinic” service for ill children who need to be seen quickly for clinical diagnosis but are unlikely to need an admission for assessment. I understand that this clinic will also invite children discharged from the assessment unit on the previous day for a consultant review, if clinically necessary. This will offer parents confidence about their child’s progress if they have been in the assessment unit the day before.
The service that has become operational as of today is a consultant-led paediatric assessment unit, providing services seven days a week. The intention is that this will run from 8 am to 10 pm, with a cut-off time for the last admitted child for assessment of 8 pm each day. At the moment, the cut-off time for assessment is 7 pm, and that will move to 8 pm following a review after the new model has been operational for two months. As ever, the paramount consideration is the safety of the children.
Children admitted during the day who have been assessed by a consultant as “acutely unwell” will be rapidly transferred to a centre such as the Doncaster royal infirmary or Sheffield’s children’s hospital. I understand that the new model of care for the trust is consistent with Royal College of Paediatric and Child Health guidance, and represents the latest and safest national guidance.
The hon. Gentleman referred to long waits for non-urgent patient transport, and I can provide some reassurance on that. The trust and the CCG have, from today, jointly commissioned a dedicated urgent transport facility to be available from 4 o’clock in the afternoon to 2 o’clock in the morning, seven days a week, specifically to cater for any necessary children’s transfers. The trust is committed to providing the highest-quality care for children, as recently demonstrated when it invested around £250,000 to build the assessment unit and new children’s out-patient area.
We should remember that the decisions on how to provide safe care for children, which come into force today, are a matter for the local NHS. It is right for these issues to be addressed at a local level, where the local healthcare needs and demands are thoroughly understood and considered. The local NHS makes decisions to ensure the safety and welfare of patients. Although the decision may cause upset and disruption for patients and families, it is for the local NHS to ensure that the services provided are of the highest quality possible and are safe and sustainable. Above all, parents with sick children need to have confidence that their child will be treated at the safest level and by the most appropriately qualified staff. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is paramount.
Nottinghamshire County Council’s scrutiny committee has been informed of the service changes, and I understand that no decision was made to refer the changes to the Secretary of State.
John Mann
Part of the weakness of the structure is that not a single person from Bassetlaw sits on Nottinghamshire County Council’s scrutiny panel. Not a single person from Bassetlaw has been consulted, including none of the staff who work at the trust. Is it not time that the people of Bassetlaw, including the staff, were listened to? At my public meetings on Saturday, there will be an opportunity for the trust to come along and hear precisely what parents, staff and others have to say.
Mr Dunne
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already held a meeting for the public to discuss this matter. I am also aware that, as would be expected, he has been in touch with the trust and the CCG to make his representations directly. I am sure that if he has not yet had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the scrutiny committee at the local authority, he will have every opportunity to do so.
The South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw sustainability and transformation plan covers an area that has funding in the current year of £2.7 billion. Under the current plans, funding will rise over the remainder of this Parliament by £400 million to 2021—a cash increase of just under 14%. The plan is one of 44 STPs that are being developed by local NHS leaders and local authorities, with providers, commissioners and other health and care services coming together to propose how, at local level, they can improve the way that health and care is planned and delivered in a more person-centred and co-ordinated way. That is the ambition, and one that I think the hon. Gentleman shared in his hope that the STP will generate an NHS fit for the future.
For all STPs, there will be no changes to the services that people currently receive without local engagement. If plans propose service changes, formal consultation will follow in due course, in line with legislative requirements and procedures. The Government are clear that all service changes should be based on clear evidence that they will deliver better outcomes for patients. Any changes proposed should meet four tests: they should have support from GP commissioners; they should be based on clinical evidence; they should demonstrate public and patient engagement; and they should consider patient choice. I am also aware of a consultation that is currently under way on children’s surgery and anaesthesia services in South Yorkshire, Mid Yorkshire, Bassetlaw and North Derbyshire.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the changes happening in the children’s ward at Bassetlaw hospital are unrelated to the STP or to the current consultation on changes to children’s surgery and anaesthetic services, which are not currently conducted at Bassetlaw. The decision was taken as a result of insufficient staffing to maintain patient safety.
In conclusion, I fully appreciate the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses on behalf of his constituents, particularly the families of the young children who have been used to the service being provided 24 hours a day in Bassetlaw. I encourage him and his constituents—he has told us he is doing this—to maintain a proper, open dialogue over the coming weeks and months with Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the Bassetlaw clinical commissioning group to ensure that there continues to be a safe and sustainable service for the children of Bassetlaw. That service should be provided in the hospital during the day and, for those who are stable, overnight. However, children who have an urgent problem that needs attention overnight must go somewhere safe for that service.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft West of England Combined Authority Order 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft West of England Combined Authority Order 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. The draft order, which was laid before the House on 16 January 2017, brings to life the devolution deal that the Government negotiated with the West of England in March last year. We are proceeding with this deal with three councils, Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, and South Gloucestershire. North Somerset Council, which was initially a party to the deal, decided that it did not wish to go ahead as a deal partner.
If approved, the order will put in place three essential elements of the deal. First, it will establish a Mayor for the West of England, to be elected by the people of the three constituent council areas. Secondly, it will establish a combined authority, to be chaired by the elected Mayor and with a membership drawn from the three constituent councils. Thirdly, the order will confer important new powers on the Mayor and the combined authority, as agreed in the devolution deal. Those powers will be focused on planning, housing, land acquisition and transport. The overall result will be to create West of England arrangements that are to contribute to the promotion of economic growth across the area, improve productivity and facilitate investment and the development of the area’s infrastructure to the benefit of all.
Under the deal, the West of England will receive a devolved transport budget to help to provide a more modern, better-connected network. The deal will allow the West of England to choose how to spend that money in its area. The West of England will also receive new planning and housing powers, and control an urban investment fund of £30 million a year for 30 years, with the aim of boosting growth and prosperity throughout the area.
The draft order is made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. The statutory origin of the order is in the governance review and the scheme that was preferred by the West of England councils, in accordance with the requirements of the 2009 Act. That scheme set out the proposals for the powers to be conferred on the West of England and for the combined authority’s governance and funding arrangements.
As required under the legislation, and as with other orders laid before the House, the councils consulted on their proposed scheme. Last September the councils provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the responses to the consultation. Before laying the draft order before Parliament, the Secretary of State had to consider the statutory requirements of the 2009 Act. The Secretary of State is satisfied that those requirements have been met.
Those requirements are that the Secretary of State considers that the West of England mayoral combined authority, on establishing that body and conferring functions on it, will likely lead to an improvement in the exercise of statutory functions across the West of England area. The Secretary of State also had to have regard to the impact on local government and communities. As required by statute, all three constituent councils have had to consent to the draft order.
The draft order provides for the establishment of the combined authority on the day following the day on which the order, if approved by the Committee, is made. Most significantly, it provides for a directly elected Mayor to be elected on 4 May this year. The Mayor will take office on 8 May for a four-year term. The second election will be held on 2 May 2021.
The new powers conferred under the draft order include a duty on the Mayor to prepare a West of England combined authority spatial development strategy, which must be approved unanimously by all three constituent councils before it can come into being, as well as land acquisition and disposal powers and housing powers, including a compulsory purchase power for the Mayor—the same powers that the Homes and Communities Agency has at present. The order will also require the Mayor to work with the combined authority to draw up a local transport plan. The order provides powers on road improvement and maintenance, and for the Mayor to pay grants to bus operators, ahead of the franchising that we hope to bring into being through the Bus Services Bill.
The powers will enable the West of England to take a strategic approach to driving development and regeneration and stimulating economic growth through the £900 million devolved budget. The order also provides for the necessary constitutional and funding arrangements to support the Mayor and the combined authority. In particular, provision has been made for the three constituent councils to contribute to the funding of the Mayor and the combined authority’s activities in an arrangement where councils are in the driving seat of any decision about the level of the contribution. That was done at the request of the three constituent councils.
In conclusion, the order devolves brand-new, far-ranging powers to the West of England and puts decision making into the hands of local people. It also makes good on the Government’s manifesto commitment. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Wilson.
Here we are again, seeing the machinery of devolution making progress. Our local leaders are by and large supportive. The quotes that have been published from council and group leaders of different parties are broadly supportive, but they are heavily caveated as well. Although there has been agreement for a devolution deal here, there is still a lot of cynicism about the requirement to have a directly elected Mayor as part of the package. We know that for some people that is a big issue that still needs to be resolved. Indeed, it has been a barrier for a lot of other devolution deals that have not made it through—a barrier that some simply cannot get over.
I would repeat a statement that I have made several times in Committee and on the Floor of the House: we still demand more from our local areas for devolution than we demand from our own Parliament. We do not expect the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be directly elected, but, for a fraction of the power that they hold, we demand that direct elections take place in our areas. If we believe in devolution and in power being distributed closer to the communities that we are there to serve, we need to learn to let go. Part of that is about not putting unnecessary requirements on local areas.
As it happens, there has been consent from the component councils in this case, so it is not for us to block the order, but we want to see progress made on areas where, for whatever reason, a Mayor is not acceptable to those areas. It is wrong that some communities are not being given devolved powers or the investment in housing and infrastructure that we see in devolved areas because of that position.
It is good to see investment in the housing fund. The £30 million is in line with the funding allocated in different areas, although it is over a longer period. It is welcome that the Government are taking a longer-term view on funding and ensuring stability, so that areas can genuinely develop a recyclable fund to ensure housing sustainability in the long term. Will the Minister say whether areas that have already signed up to devolution deals, but which have only a 10-year housing investment fund in place, will have the deal extended in the way that it has been extended in this order?
We need to get the public on side, but there is a long way to go. We might think it is hard to get council leaders to sign up to the deals—we know how painful that can be in some areas—but the public are still not a part of the debate in any meaningful way. The reason why only 1,800 people responded to the public consultation is that they do not feel connected to this flavour of devolution that is taking place. I have a concern—I suspect the Government have the same concern—that because the public have not been brought on this journey, turnout in a lot of areas could be very low. Before the positions can grow and develop, they could be undermined from day one by low voter turnout, affecting the legitimacy of that position.
Finally, we talk about devolved powers, but real power is about the ability to effect change and having the levers of power and control. What we tend to see in a number of the devolution deals agreed so far is not powers being devolved, but local areas almost co-commissioning central Government responsibilities. For example, when we talk about Department for Work and Pensions responsibilities, we are not giving local or combined authorities the power to make changes at a local level; rather, we are effectively asking them to co-commission things such as the Work programme. We talk about health devolution in other areas, but actually it is very narrow devolution and the levers of real change are simply not provided. A lot of the powers that are being devolved are existing powers that are already available to local authorities, whether for policing, fire and civil defence or for transport, in the way that is being packaged in this order.
It is absolutely right that we continue the devolution journey, but we need to accept that we are very early into it. If the principle behind the order and the requirement for a Mayor is about getting the machine going and showing proof of concept, then at some point we will have to come forward with a devolution framework for the whole of England that does not pick areas off against one another, but has an answer from the Government—the Opposition will do our bit too—to ensure that every area gets the type of devolution that is currently available only in some areas.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton, speaking from the Labour Front Bench, about how the process has been handled and the lack of buy-in from the general public. I do not think that it is an overstatement to say that this has been rather forced on councils in the West of England. When we chose to have a directly elected Mayor in Bristol, we did so in a referendum—I think we were the only city to do so, out of the 10 that had referendums; the others all said no. That has paid off to the extent that, although it was an uphill struggle to educate people about the Mayor’s powers, Marvin Rees as Mayor of Bristol now has direct accountability to the local people. They look to Marvin for leadership—they think he is responsible for everything that goes wrong, from a bin not being emptied to a hole in the road. That is what a mayoral system ought to be about: knowing who to point the finger at.
I worry that there will be an incredibly low turnout at the election on 4 May, because we will not have that buy-in. One thing that we always hear people say in Bristol—my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West will echo this, I am sure—is that we do not want a return to the days of Avon, when there were four local authorities. We know that North Somerset is not coming in on it, but people do not think of those days fondly.
I say that this policy was forced on us because, yes, we are getting something out of it, but it was the only game in town. We are being offered £30 million a year for 30 years, which I think it is somewhat misleading to describe as a £900 million budget, because it is stretched over a very long period. At the moment, the Mayor of Bristol is having to find £100 million of cuts over the next five years, so £30 million a year spread over a much wider area smacks of giving with one hand and taking with the other. I have my doubts about that, and I place on record my concerns.
For this devolution settlement to work, it has to mean real powers for the local area. It has to mean that the role of the current Mayor of Bristol is not diminished—it is about working with the metro mayor. It has to be properly resourced, because there is no point in having these powers without the finances to use them. We are about to put through a budget in Bristol that will have to cut services almost to breaking point. This is not where I would be if we had been given more choice in the matter.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I echo and add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said. The Minister speaks of growth, housing, powers and funding—I believe the figure was £900 million—for transport and local road improvements. Those are all great things, but why do we need a metro mayor tagged on to the end of it?
People do not want this. There has not been a clamouring for it in the same way that there was for a Bristol Mayor. The connection between the Mayor and the city is quite straightforward in Bristol—it is a whole city and it has its own Mayor—whereas there is no real identity of the West of England, other than for those of us who are involved in politics. People on the ground in North Somerset, Bristol or South Gloucestershire do not think of themselves as being part of the West of England local enterprise partnership. People on the ground have MPs, city councillors and an elected Mayor of Bristol. Our councils already work together and talk to each other—they are very responsible people. What is more, we can unelect them if we do not think they are doing a good job of spending the £900 million that is to be allocated in the West of England devolution deal.
Adding a metro mayor to the deal adds another layer that people do not want. They do not want to return to CUBA—the county that used to be Avon. It is an acronym with a fun side to it, but we do not want it. We got rid of it. We actually turned the Avon County Council house into a hotel. We do not want to go back there, but we have been held to ransom. Councillor colleagues who voted to accept this deal told me that they did so reluctantly and resignedly. They had to accept yet another election that local people do not want, do not understand and probably will not turn out for. There simply will not be the accountability that the Minister probably hopes that having an elected metro mayor will generate. We already have accountability through our elected councillors and our elected Mayor.
I am glad that we are getting the money. I am not going to stand in the way of us getting it, so I am not going to vote against the order, but I want to put on the record the fact that the concerns of the people of Bristol do not appear to have been answered. Will the Minister explain to us why we have to have a metro mayor to make this work? We have got competent councillors who can do it.
Andrew Percy
I think what we have heard this afternoon is mild enthusiasm from the Opposition for this devolution deal. I will try to respond to all the points raised. We have discussed many orders on the issue of elected Mayors. I will rehearse the arguments once again in a moment, but first I want to deal with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton.
On the housing fund under the deal, it is for each individual deal to negotiate what it wishes with the Government, although of course we are open to further discussions in the future. Each arrangement is bespoke; they are all very different. Almost every order that I bring before Committee is different from the previous one precisely because we have negotiated very bespoke deals.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned public engagement, which we have discussed before. As I have said before, no matter how much effort we put in here, devolution simply is not going to be the talk of the Dog and Duck this Friday evening. Once the deals are in place, it will be for the people who have been elected and for the bodies, when they are in existence, to go out there and prove to the public that they are delivering what the public expect of them. My Department has committed a budget to publicise the elections, the Mayor of Bristol has been out doing drop-ins and there has been a whole range of other consultations on the deal. Once the bodies are in place and the Mayors are in existence, they will be able to prove to their local communities what they are delivering.
Thangam Debbonaire
While devolution may not be the talk of the Dog and Duck, potholes in roads certainly are. When people see a pothole in their road, they tend to blame the council. When we have this metro mayor layer of accountability, or non-accountability, people will still blame the council even though it might be the responsibility of some other part of local government that they do not understand.
Andrew Percy
The councils will still be responsible for filling potholes under the devolution deal, so we can be clear about that.
We have discussed the issue of elected Mayors many times before when considering various of these orders, but the problem that we always get to is that nobody is able to propose a better alternative. The hon. Member for Bristol West said, “Oh well, we can leave it to the combined authority leaders,” but their accountability and legitimacy comes from being elected on a turnout of about 30% of the electorate in each of their constituent councils, so I am not sure that would necessarily deliver more legitimacy.
The problem is that not one of the local authority leaders who sits on the combined authority is elected across the geography over which these powers will be exercised. The public have to be able to hold somebody to account across the entire geography for what is being exercised in their name. The truth is that, although there may be good relationships now among the various local authority leaders, it is not unknown for neighbouring councils sometimes to come into conflict. Now, I am sure that will never happen in the West of England—I am sure the councillors and leaders there have a different approach—but I have seen it happen in other parts of the country, including my own area. That is why having somebody who sits above them and is elected directly by the people would give the public direct accountability.
I want to make it clear to the hon. Members for Bristol East and for Bristol West that this is not at all about bringing back Avon. As someone who represents an area that used to be in Humberside, I understand those sensitivities. When we talk about a devolution deal for the Humber, the first question that comes back is, “Is this the return of Humberside?” I understand that concern, and I want to make it absolutely clear that this is not about Avon. The local authorities and the ceremonial counties will all remain unchanged by this deal.
Nor is it the case that we have forced Mayors on to every devolution deal. We have negotiated a deal with Cornwall, for example, that does not have a Mayor. As part of the negotiations, the local council leaders ask for things and central Government require things. We have said, “If you wish to have the maximum powers and this gain-share funding”—the extra £30 million a year, £900 million over the period—“we expect a direct line of accountability to the public for that money.” As I have said, not a single member of the combined authority is directly elected by the whole geography over which that cash and those powers will be exercised. That is why we made having Mayors a requirement of the process to obtain the maximum devolution deal in terms of powers and funding.
I think I have dealt with most of the points that have been made, other than that made by the hon. Member for Bristol East about resourcing. The order states that the resourcing of the Mayor’s office is something that the three local authorities will agree between them. She also mentioned the role of the current Mayor. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Mayor of Bristol’s powers are in no way affected by the order. The Mayor will continue to exercise those powers in the same way, subject of course to the elements of the devolution deal regarding the spatial strategy sitting above the local plan and all the rest of it. The Mayor’s responsibilities will not be altered.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft West of England Combined Authority Order 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft West of England Combined Authority Order 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. The draft order, which was laid before the House on 16 January 2017, brings to life the devolution deal that the Government negotiated with the West of England in March last year. We are proceeding with this deal with three councils, Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, and South Gloucestershire. North Somerset Council, which was initially a party to the deal, decided that it did not wish to go ahead as a deal partner.
If approved, the order will put in place three essential elements of the deal. First, it will establish a Mayor for the West of England, to be elected by the people of the three constituent council areas. Secondly, it will establish a combined authority, to be chaired by the elected Mayor and with a membership drawn from the three constituent councils. Thirdly, the order will confer important new powers on the Mayor and the combined authority, as agreed in the devolution deal. Those powers will be focused on planning, housing, land acquisition and transport. The overall result will be to create West of England arrangements that are to contribute to the promotion of economic growth across the area, improve productivity and facilitate investment and the development of the area’s infrastructure to the benefit of all.
Under the deal, the West of England will receive a devolved transport budget to help to provide a more modern, better-connected network. The deal will allow the West of England to choose how to spend that money in its area. The West of England will also receive new planning and housing powers, and control an urban investment fund of £30 million a year for 30 years, with the aim of boosting growth and prosperity throughout the area.
The draft order is made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. The statutory origin of the order is in the governance review and the scheme that was preferred by the West of England councils, in accordance with the requirements of the 2009 Act. That scheme set out the proposals for the powers to be conferred on the West of England and for the combined authority’s governance and funding arrangements.
As required under the legislation, and as with other orders laid before the House, the councils consulted on their proposed scheme. Last September the councils provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the responses to the consultation. Before laying the draft order before Parliament, the Secretary of State had to consider the statutory requirements of the 2009 Act. The Secretary of State is satisfied that those requirements have been met.
Those requirements are that the Secretary of State considers that the West of England mayoral combined authority, on establishing that body and conferring functions on it, will likely lead to an improvement in the exercise of statutory functions across the West of England area. The Secretary of State also had to have regard to the impact on local government and communities. As required by statute, all three constituent councils have had to consent to the draft order.
The draft order provides for the establishment of the combined authority on the day following the day on which the order, if approved by the Committee, is made. Most significantly, it provides for a directly elected Mayor to be elected on 4 May this year. The Mayor will take office on 8 May for a four-year term. The second election will be held on 2 May 2021.
The new powers conferred under the draft order include a duty on the Mayor to prepare a West of England combined authority spatial development strategy, which must be approved unanimously by all three constituent councils before it can come into being, as well as land acquisition and disposal powers and housing powers, including a compulsory purchase power for the Mayor—the same powers that the Homes and Communities Agency has at present. The order will also require the Mayor to work with the combined authority to draw up a local transport plan. The order provides powers on road improvement and maintenance, and for the Mayor to pay grants to bus operators, ahead of the franchising that we hope to bring into being through the Bus Services Bill.
The powers will enable the West of England to take a strategic approach to driving development and regeneration and stimulating economic growth through the £900 million devolved budget. The order also provides for the necessary constitutional and funding arrangements to support the Mayor and the combined authority. In particular, provision has been made for the three constituent councils to contribute to the funding of the Mayor and the combined authority’s activities in an arrangement where councils are in the driving seat of any decision about the level of the contribution. That was done at the request of the three constituent councils.
In conclusion, the order devolves brand-new, far-ranging powers to the West of England and puts decision making into the hands of local people. It also makes good on the Government’s manifesto commitment. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Wilson.
Here we are again, seeing the machinery of devolution making progress. Our local leaders are by and large supportive. The quotes that have been published from council and group leaders of different parties are broadly supportive, but they are heavily caveated as well. Although there has been agreement for a devolution deal here, there is still a lot of cynicism about the requirement to have a directly elected Mayor as part of the package. We know that for some people that is a big issue that still needs to be resolved. Indeed, it has been a barrier for a lot of other devolution deals that have not made it through—a barrier that some simply cannot get over.
I would repeat a statement that I have made several times in Committee and on the Floor of the House: we still demand more from our local areas for devolution than we demand from our own Parliament. We do not expect the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be directly elected, but, for a fraction of the power that they hold, we demand that direct elections take place in our areas. If we believe in devolution and in power being distributed closer to the communities that we are there to serve, we need to learn to let go. Part of that is about not putting unnecessary requirements on local areas.
As it happens, there has been consent from the component councils in this case, so it is not for us to block the order, but we want to see progress made on areas where, for whatever reason, a Mayor is not acceptable to those areas. It is wrong that some communities are not being given devolved powers or the investment in housing and infrastructure that we see in devolved areas because of that position.
It is good to see investment in the housing fund. The £30 million is in line with the funding allocated in different areas, although it is over a longer period. It is welcome that the Government are taking a longer-term view on funding and ensuring stability, so that areas can genuinely develop a recyclable fund to ensure housing sustainability in the long term. Will the Minister say whether areas that have already signed up to devolution deals, but which have only a 10-year housing investment fund in place, will have the deal extended in the way that it has been extended in this order?
We need to get the public on side, but there is a long way to go. We might think it is hard to get council leaders to sign up to the deals—we know how painful that can be in some areas—but the public are still not a part of the debate in any meaningful way. The reason why only 1,800 people responded to the public consultation is that they do not feel connected to this flavour of devolution that is taking place. I have a concern—I suspect the Government have the same concern—that because the public have not been brought on this journey, turnout in a lot of areas could be very low. Before the positions can grow and develop, they could be undermined from day one by low voter turnout, affecting the legitimacy of that position.
Finally, we talk about devolved powers, but real power is about the ability to effect change and having the levers of power and control. What we tend to see in a number of the devolution deals agreed so far is not powers being devolved, but local areas almost co-commissioning central Government responsibilities. For example, when we talk about Department for Work and Pensions responsibilities, we are not giving local or combined authorities the power to make changes at a local level; rather, we are effectively asking them to co-commission things such as the Work programme. We talk about health devolution in other areas, but actually it is very narrow devolution and the levers of real change are simply not provided. A lot of the powers that are being devolved are existing powers that are already available to local authorities, whether for policing, fire and civil defence or for transport, in the way that is being packaged in this order.
It is absolutely right that we continue the devolution journey, but we need to accept that we are very early into it. If the principle behind the order and the requirement for a Mayor is about getting the machine going and showing proof of concept, then at some point we will have to come forward with a devolution framework for the whole of England that does not pick areas off against one another, but has an answer from the Government—the Opposition will do our bit too—to ensure that every area gets the type of devolution that is currently available only in some areas.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton, speaking from the Labour Front Bench, about how the process has been handled and the lack of buy-in from the general public. I do not think that it is an overstatement to say that this has been rather forced on councils in the West of England. When we chose to have a directly elected Mayor in Bristol, we did so in a referendum—I think we were the only city to do so, out of the 10 that had referendums; the others all said no. That has paid off to the extent that, although it was an uphill struggle to educate people about the Mayor’s powers, Marvin Rees as Mayor of Bristol now has direct accountability to the local people. They look to Marvin for leadership—they think he is responsible for everything that goes wrong, from a bin not being emptied to a hole in the road. That is what a mayoral system ought to be about: knowing who to point the finger at.
I worry that there will be an incredibly low turnout at the election on 4 May, because we will not have that buy-in. One thing that we always hear people say in Bristol—my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West will echo this, I am sure—is that we do not want a return to the days of Avon, when there were four local authorities. We know that North Somerset is not coming in on it, but people do not think of those days fondly.
I say that this policy was forced on us because, yes, we are getting something out of it, but it was the only game in town. We are being offered £30 million a year for 30 years, which I think it is somewhat misleading to describe as a £900 million budget, because it is stretched over a very long period. At the moment, the Mayor of Bristol is having to find £100 million of cuts over the next five years, so £30 million a year spread over a much wider area smacks of giving with one hand and taking with the other. I have my doubts about that, and I place on record my concerns.
For this devolution settlement to work, it has to mean real powers for the local area. It has to mean that the role of the current Mayor of Bristol is not diminished—it is about working with the metro mayor. It has to be properly resourced, because there is no point in having these powers without the finances to use them. We are about to put through a budget in Bristol that will have to cut services almost to breaking point. This is not where I would be if we had been given more choice in the matter.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I echo and add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said. The Minister speaks of growth, housing, powers and funding—I believe the figure was £900 million—for transport and local road improvements. Those are all great things, but why do we need a metro mayor tagged on to the end of it?
People do not want this. There has not been a clamouring for it in the same way that there was for a Bristol Mayor. The connection between the Mayor and the city is quite straightforward in Bristol—it is a whole city and it has its own Mayor—whereas there is no real identity of the West of England, other than for those of us who are involved in politics. People on the ground in North Somerset, Bristol or South Gloucestershire do not think of themselves as being part of the West of England local enterprise partnership. People on the ground have MPs, city councillors and an elected Mayor of Bristol. Our councils already work together and talk to each other—they are very responsible people. What is more, we can unelect them if we do not think they are doing a good job of spending the £900 million that is to be allocated in the West of England devolution deal.
Adding a metro mayor to the deal adds another layer that people do not want. They do not want to return to CUBA—the county that used to be Avon. It is an acronym with a fun side to it, but we do not want it. We got rid of it. We actually turned the Avon County Council house into a hotel. We do not want to go back there, but we have been held to ransom. Councillor colleagues who voted to accept this deal told me that they did so reluctantly and resignedly. They had to accept yet another election that local people do not want, do not understand and probably will not turn out for. There simply will not be the accountability that the Minister probably hopes that having an elected metro mayor will generate. We already have accountability through our elected councillors and our elected Mayor.
I am glad that we are getting the money. I am not going to stand in the way of our getting it, so I am not going to vote against the order, but I want to put on the record the fact that the concerns of the people of Bristol do not appear to have been answered. Will the Minister explain to us why we have to have a metro mayor to make this work? We have got competent councillors who can do it.
Andrew Percy
I think what we have heard this afternoon is mild enthusiasm from the Opposition for this devolution deal. I will try to respond to all the points raised. We have discussed many orders on the issue of elected Mayors. I will rehearse the arguments once again in a moment, but first I want to deal with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton.
On the housing fund under the deal, it is for each individual deal to negotiate what it wishes with the Government, although of course we are open to further discussions in the future. Each arrangement is bespoke; they are all very different. Almost every order that I bring before Committee is different from the previous one precisely because we have negotiated very bespoke deals.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned public engagement, which we have discussed before. As I have said before, no matter how much effort we put in here, devolution simply is not going to be the talk of the Dog and Duck this Friday evening. Once the deals are in place, it will be for the people who have been elected and for the bodies, when they are in existence, to go out there and prove to the public that they are delivering what the public expect of them. My Department has committed a budget to publicise the elections, the Mayor of Bristol has been out doing drop-ins and there has been a whole range of other consultations on the deal. Once the bodies are in place and the Mayors are in existence, they will be able to prove to their local communities what they are delivering.
Thangam Debbonaire
While devolution may not be the talk of the Dog and Duck, potholes in roads certainly are. When people see a pothole in their road, they tend to blame the council. When we have this metro mayor layer of accountability, or non-accountability, people will still blame the council even though it might be the responsibility of some other part of local government that they do not understand.
Andrew Percy
The councils will still be responsible for filling potholes under the devolution deal, so we can be clear about that.
We have discussed the issue of elected Mayors many times before when considering various of these orders, but the problem that we always get to is that nobody is able to propose a better alternative. The hon. Member for Bristol West said, “Oh well, we can leave it to the combined authority leaders,” but their accountability and legitimacy comes from being elected on a turnout of about 30% of the electorate in each of their constituent councils, so I am not sure that would necessarily deliver more legitimacy.
The problem is that not one of the local authority leaders who sits on the combined authority is elected across the geography over which these powers will be exercised. The public have to be able to hold somebody to account across the entire geography for what is being exercised in their name. The truth is that, although there may be good relationships now among the various local authority leaders, it is not unknown for neighbouring councils sometimes to come into conflict. Now, I am sure that will never happen in the West of England—I am sure the councillors and leaders there have a different approach—but I have seen it happen in other parts of the country, including my own area. That is why having somebody who sits above them and is elected directly by the people would give the public direct accountability.
I want to make it clear to the hon. Members for Bristol East and for Bristol West that this is not at all about bringing back Avon. As someone who represents an area that used to be in Humberside, I understand those sensitivities. When we talk about a devolution deal for the Humber, the first question that comes back is, “Is this the return of Humberside?” I understand that concern, and I want to make it absolutely clear that this is not about Avon. The local authorities and the ceremonial counties will all remain unchanged by this deal.
Nor is it the case that we have forced Mayors on to every devolution deal. We have negotiated a deal with Cornwall, for example, that does not have a Mayor. As part of the negotiations, the local council leaders ask for things and central Government require things. We have said, “If you wish to have the maximum powers and this gain-share funding”—the extra £30 million a year, £900 million over the period—“we expect a direct line of accountability to the public for that money.” As I have said, not a single member of the combined authority is directly elected by the whole geography over which that cash and those powers will be exercised. That is why we made having Mayors a requirement of the process to obtain the maximum devolution deal in terms of powers and funding.
I think I have dealt with most of the points that have been made, other than that made by the hon. Member for Bristol East about resourcing. The order states that the resourcing of the Mayor’s office is something that the three local authorities will agree between them. She also mentioned the role of the current Mayor. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Mayor of Bristol’s powers are in no way affected by the order. The Mayor will continue to exercise those powers in the same way, subject of course to the elements of the devolution deal regarding the spatial strategy sitting above the local plan and all the rest of it. The Mayor’s responsibilities will not be altered.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Climate Change
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 10 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
Agenda for Change: NHS Pay Restraint
(7 years, 10 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
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 168127 relating to pay restraint for Agenda for Change NHS staff.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. At a time when the number of deeply concerning and time-consuming issues on the international political agenda is increasing, it is important that we and, most importantly, the Government do not lose focus on our domestic priorities and the challenges affecting our constituents’ day-to-day lives. The national health service is at the very top of that list, so I am pleased to introduce this debate. The way we treat our NHS staff is surely one of the most decisive factors in whether we have the functioning health service that we all need.
The petition is titled:
“Demand an end to the pay restraint imposed on agenda for change NHS staff.”
It has been signed by more than 104,000 people across the country, including 4,500 from my region, the north-east. It reads:
“Agenda for change staff including nursing, midwifery, healthcare assistants and associated healthcare professionals have suffered a pay restraint since 2010. Losing approximately 14% in real terms of their pay, staff are struggling nationwide and many have been pushed into poverty.
The impact of the pay restraint is harsh. Many are sadly leaving the professions they love. There is an NHS staff crisis. In London we lack 10,000 nurses. Yet two fifths of nurses living in the capital plan to leave as they are unable to pay their rent. Staff reporting using food banks and hardship funds is increasing. The pay restraint must end.”
The petition’s creator, Danielle Tiplady, a nurse and supporter of the Royal College of Nursing’s “Nursing Counts” campaign, said:
“Nursing staff deserve a pay award that reflects our knowledge, skill and dedication.”
She added that the interest in her petition
“is a huge achievement, but colleagues are struggling to pay bills and even turning away from the profession, and it’s time Parliament debated why.”
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Danielle Tiplady is one of my constituents, and I am proud that she started the petition. The Royal College of Nursing’s most recent employment survey of its members found that 30% had struggled to pay gas and electricity bills, 14% had missed meals because of financial difficulties, and more than half had been compelled to work extra hours to increase their earnings. Given the demands of the type of work that nurses do, does my hon. Friend agree that our nursing profession is in a terrible place and that the Government surely must act?
Catherine McKinnell
I absolutely agree. It is hard to emphasise enough my support for people working across the NHS in increasingly challenging circumstances, without whom our health service would, quite frankly, cease to exist.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The way to show respect for our nurses and other NHS staff is to act now to remove the cap, as has been described, and listen to the independent pay review body.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not enough for us to state our support for our NHS workers; we must show it through real action.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I agree with the points that the hon. Lady has made. Does she agree that, given the shortage of about 24,000 nurses, the fact that about one in three are due to retire in the next 10 years, and the challenge of Brexit, which might make recruitment more difficult, one potential consequence of pay restraint, along with the sense of injustice for nurses, is that we will face a real recruitment crisis? People will just vote with their feet and not work in the NHS. That presents us with a real challenge.
Catherine McKinnell
I very much share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. He anticipates some of the points that I would really like to get across.
My view of the importance of those who work in our NHS is shared not only by Opposition Members. The Department of Health stated in its response to the e-petition:
“Agenda for Change staff are vital. They work incredibly hard for patients and deserve to be fairly rewarded. We are committed to ensuring trusts can afford to employ the staff the NHS needs.
NHS staff are our greatest asset. Despite the pressures on the NHS driven by an increasingly aged and frail population, nurses, and all our hard working NHS staff continue to put patients first, keeping them safe whilst providing the high quality care patients and their families expect.”
How have we found ourselves in a situation in which hard-working, dedicated, exhausted nurses, midwives and other healthcare professionals are genuinely struggling to make ends meet?
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Are we not in danger of getting into a downward spiral? Staff feel stretched, undervalued and underpaid, and many are looking to move abroad, or possibly even into other professions— I have had emails to that effect. Many are also going to agencies, and we know how much money agencies make. That costs extra, especially at a time when the retail prices index is moving inexorably up as a result of currency effects.
Catherine McKinnell
My right hon. Friend puts his point very succinctly and absolutely correctly.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, because she is making such a good case, but does she agree, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said, that agency working, which is very expensive, is really a false economy? If nurses leave full-time employment in the NHS to work for agencies, they cost the NHS two or perhaps three times more, so there are no savings whatsoever.
Catherine McKinnell
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is also a false economy to lose professionals, given all the money that has been invested to make them a well-trained, well-performing workforce.
As hon. Members will be aware, Agenda for Change was introduced in 2004 as a system of pay, terms and conditions, and it applies to more than 1 million directly employed clinical and non-clinical NHS staff, with the exception of doctors, dentists and some very senior managers. It was designed with the intention of delivering fair, transparent pay that is better linked to career progression, skills and competencies. Agenda for Change is based on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. According to NHS Employers, the system allows NHS organisations to
“design jobs around the needs of patients rather than around grading definitions”
and individual NHS employers are better able to define the skills and knowledge that they want the staff in those jobs to develop.
Importantly, in relation to this debate, Agenda for Change was also designed to enable employers to address more local recruitment and retention difficulties. However, as with hundreds of thousands of people who work in the public sector, all Agenda for Change staff have been affected by the previous and current Governments’ imposition of pay restraint.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is it not perverse that the Conservative party seems to favour the introduction of all sorts of markets in the NHS apart from a labour market? The devolution of responsibility to trusts that it often heralds is completely inconsistent with a centralised, state-imposed pay freeze.
Catherine McKinnell
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. There was a two-year pay freeze from 2011-12 and a 1% increase in 2013-14 and 2014-15, followed by confirmation in the Budget of summer 2015 that the Government would fund an average public sector pay award of only 1% for the four years from 2016-17. As has been pointed out, the Government decided to reject the independent NHS Pay Review Body’s recommendation of a further 1% uplift to all pay scales from 2014-15, stating that there would be an annual increase of at least 1% for Agenda for Change staff in England through either contractual incremental pay or a non-consolidated payment.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her excellent speech, which I am following closely. Is there not very thin moral justification for the Government rejecting the review of an independent pay body when each of us as MPs has our pay independently assessed and awarded? I can see no justification for saying to hard-working nurses in Kettering, “You can’t have the pay rise that an independent pay body said you should have” when I, as an MP, automatically get a pay rise awarded by our independent body.
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly powerful point, which I hope the Minister has heard.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on leading this debate, despite the other debates going on elsewhere. I rarely find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), but I fully agree with him. Hundreds of nurses across Northern Ireland feel desperately demoralised by the pay freeze, which has gone on for such a long time. When we got a new Prime Minister, on 13 July last year, who talked about a fresh beginning and new opportunity, they were encouraged, as many of us were, and thought that this would be an ideal opportunity for her Government to show that they mean what they say and that they care about removing pay restraint.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention—I think that many of us are surprised that we agree so entirely with the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). She raises an important point about the concern that many people up and down the country feel about some of the Prime Minister’s early actions in her time in office.
There are real concerns that the continuation of pay restraint in the NHS threatens to undermine the very benefits that Agenda for Change was supposed to bring to employers and staff. A centrally imposed cap on pay rises limits employers’ ability to respond to recruitment and retention problems while compromising the extent to which skills and competencies acquired by staff throughout their careers can be properly recognised and rewarded.
The extended nature of the pay restraint imposed first by the coalition Government and now by the Conservative Government also throws up this question: what is the point of having an independent NHS Pay Review Body, given that the Minister is clearly content to impose a figure on NHS Employers and staff each year? Indeed, the Royal College of Midwives has warned that the policy
“undermines the integrity of the system; and will cause lasting damage to the morale and motivation of staff, worsening the staffing crisis in the NHS.”
Despite the widely promised but yet to materialise extra £350 million a week for the NHS, we all know that our health service faces real and significant challenges in financial terms, both now and in the years ahead.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She has somewhat moved on to the topic of Brexit. In Bedford hospital, to fill vacancies in our nursing staff we have relied on bringing in staff from the European Union. Does she not agree that the Government have a choice: they can continue with pay restraint if they wish, but if so we must retain that ability to attract people from within the European Union and secure the rights of those already here?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman raises some important points. I would never admit to having strayed into the subject of Brexit in this important debate on the NHS, but his comments are on the record and should be noted by the Minister. As NHS Employers stated in its 2017-18 submissions to the NHS Pay Review Body:
“The NHS continues to face unprecedented financial and service challenges. The majority of trusts fell into deficit during 2015-16 and the overall shortfall has now reached over £2.5 billion… The financial settlement for the NHS up to 2020 is extremely challenging, with employers set ambitious targets to deliver efficiency savings. At the same time, demand for services continues to rise. Performance indicators show the service is under great pressure as demands for care increase and other public services reduce provision.”
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the physical demands of nursing, as a family member who worked as a healthcare assistant over the summer reflected to me, mean that sometimes conscientious nurses might be tempted to lift patients on their own, such are the demands of the job, and seriously strain their backs? That is something we should have regard to.
Catherine McKinnell
I very much agree. That is a factor right across the NHS and the social care sector, and it is an issue we see arising increasingly as staff come under increasing pressure, with the increased pressure to make efficiency savings, which ultimately compromises the health and safety of staff who find themselves in such situations.
Just last week the National Audit Office published its report into NHS ambulance services, which concluded, among other things, that:
“Increased funding for urgent and emergency activity has not matched rising demand, and future settlements are likely to be tougher”.
Crucially, in the context of this debate, it also concluded that:
“Ambulance trusts face resourcing challenges that are limiting their ability to meet rising demand. Most trusts are struggling to recruit the staff they need and then retain them. The reasons people cite for leaving are varied and include pay and reward, and the stressful nature of the job.”
That very much ties in with the concerns the hon. Gentleman raised.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech; I agree with a number of the points she has made. On ambulance trusts and the point about very senior managers, we need good managers and senior managers in the NHS. However, ambulance trusts are a particular example—my trust, East of England, is an example—of where managers have sometimes received huge pay rises at the expense of frontline staff, who have received pay rises of nought or 1%. That is unacceptable. Does she agree that that further lowers the morale of frontline staff in a difficult period of pay restraint?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is why it is important that staff under Agenda for Change have the opportunity to have their voices heard today. When the Government look at how the NHS’s limited resources are distributed among the workforce, they need to approach the matter very much in the round.
I have no doubt that the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will be tempted to repeat the Prime Minister’s mantra that the Government are putting an additional £10 billion into the NHS by the end of this Parliament. However, as we all know, that figure has been comprehensively debunked by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and her fellow members of the Health Committee, and more recently by the chief executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens, when he appeared before that Committee. Indeed, Ministers confirmed only last week that NHS England will face a 0.6% real-terms fall in per capita funding in 2018.
How would an end to pay restraint for Agenda for Change staff help address the enormous difficulties the NHS faces? As the Royal College of Nursing has highlighted, chronic staff shortages have led to an “over-reliance” on “expensive agency staffing” to the extent that spending on agency nurses equates to about one tenth of the NHS’s total nursing pay bill. Indeed, the Royal College goes on to state that
“the over-reliance on agency staffing is a reflection of a nursing shortage and a direct consequence”
of the limit on pay for nurses working in the NHS.
We therefore have the nonsensical situation whereby nurses are leaving the NHS because of increasing workloads, stress and feeling undervalued following years of pay restraint, so the NHS has to turn to expensive agency nurses to fill the gaps left behind. Those concerns are mirrored by the Royal College of Midwives, which, following a freedom of information request, uncovered that NHS trusts in England spent almost £72.7 million on agency, overtime and bank midwives in 2015—enough to pay for 2,063 full-time experienced midwives or 3,318 full-time, newly qualified midwives.
The Minister might also refer to an increase in the number of nursing and other NHS staff since 2010. Again, that addresses neither the fact that there is currently a shortage of about 24,000 nurses in England and Wales, nor the shortage of nearly 3,500 midwives across the UK. Nor indeed does it address Health Education England’s worrying confirmation that last year some 8.8% of nurses left the NHS—the highest number since 2011. All that surely shows that the NHS is facing a perfect storm, not least in the light of the Minister’s ludicrous decision to axe bursaries for new nursing, midwifery and allied health students—I should perhaps say “Ministers’ decision”, rather than directing that comment at the Minister of State—the Government’s continued disgraceful failure to confirm the long-term future of 33,000 nurses from other EU countries working in the NHS, and the fact that one third of nurses are due to retire in the next 10 years. I look forward to hearing him explain how continued pay restraint for Agenda for Change staff will help resolve the staffing crisis.
Dr Poulter
The hon. Lady makes a good point about bursaries. Most nurses enter the profession in their late 20s—at about 28 or 29. We are talking about a recruitment challenge in nursing and the fact that the number of applicants for nursing courses dropped by 25% this year. Surely that demographic group needs the bursary as an enticement into nursing.
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman makes another valid point. I hope that the Minister is listening, because although we are focusing specifically today on pay restraint for Agenda for Change staff, there is a much wider issue for the Government to take on board. A variety of factors is affecting recruitment and retention of NHS staff. The axing of bursaries is just one significant factor that the Government should seriously examine, and reverse.
What has the pay restraint for Agenda for Change staff meant to individual nurses, midwives, paramedics, cleaners and other healthcare professionals since 2011? Depending on the measure of inflation used, it has resulted in a drop in real-terms earnings of up to 14%. To put that in context, the trade union Unison has calculated that it is equivalent to annual pay cuts of £2,288 for a cleaner, £4,846 for a nurse, £6,134 for a midwife and £8,364 for a clinical psychologist. Indeed, ahead of the 2017-18 NHS pay review process, Unison surveyed its members working in the NHS and received the following responses, which are a matter of deep concern: nearly two thirds felt worse off than they did 12 months ago; 49% had asked for financial support from family or a friend; 13% had used a debt advice service; 11% had pawned possessions; 11% had used a payday loan company; 15% had moved to a less expensive home or remortgaged their house; and just under one fifth took on paid work in addition to their main NHS job, 64% of whom did so because their NHS salary was not enough to meet their basic living costs. More than 80% said they had considered leaving the NHS in the past year.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she share the concerns of the London nurses at the lunchtime lobby today, who said that punitive London housing costs are making the situation even more acute? They feel that they are being forced out of the capital, which needs nurses, and that what is happening is almost social cleansing by the back door, pricing nurses out of our city.
Catherine McKinnell
Yes, I share those concerns, particularly about the significant shortage of nurses in London. The issue affects places throughout the country, but I fully appreciate the acuteness of the situation in London.
The findings that I have set out are mirrored in the most recent Royal College of Nursing employment survey of its members. It found that 30% had struggled to pay gas and electricity Bills, 14% had missed meals because of financial difficulties, 53% had been compelled to work extra hours to increase earnings, and 32% were working extra night and weekend shifts to help pay bills and meet everyday living expenses. The RCN stated:
“This corresponds with our year on year increase of 30%, over the past five years, on the number of our members seeking specialist money advice from our RCN Welfare Service. This contact from our members focuses predominantly on dealing with unmanageable consumer debt.”
It is shocking and depressing stuff. It is bad enough that the Government continually expect NHS staff, many of whom are at breaking point, to do more with less and treat more patients with fewer resources in what are usually physically and psychologically demanding roles, but to expect them to do so while they face such anxiety and stress over their own financial situation is completely unacceptable.
We do not need to take Unison or the RCN’s word for what is happening. I have received emails containing powerful testimony from NHS staff in my constituency. One explained:
“I have been qualified as a children’s staff nurse for 12 years and I reached the top of my pay scale four years ago. I have not had a pay rise since. 4-5 years ago I was in a comfortable position, I could afford the basics and if I wanted extras like holidays or treats I would just do overtime or extra shifts to afford these luxuries. However, due to the fact my pay against my cost of living has reduced by 14%, I now struggle to afford the basics and am having to do extra shifts just to be able to provide food and pay my bills… I am missing out on valuable time with my family as I have to work nearly every weekend in order to be able to get a wage that can cover our costs. It is now becoming such a stretch each month that I may have to leave nursing and find a job that pays me better... Working as a children’s nurse in a busy A&E unit is amazing and worthwhile, but it is very stressful. On a daily basis we deal with and see things that are devastating and can be difficult to switch off from. Our pay should reflect this.”
Another constituent challenged the claim made in the Government’s response to the e-petition:
“Average earnings for qualified nurses were £31,214 in the 12 months to June 2016”.
She described herself as an average nurse in her 40s with a partner and a child:
“I have been qualified and working in the NHS for 11 years. I don’t earn £31,214. The top of my band (band 5) is £28,464. So, I am paid about £14.50 an hour to clean up faeces, vomit, blood and other bodily fluids. To hold the hands of patients who are dying. To comfort the relatives of patients who are dying. To maintain complicated machinery/equipment that is keeping a person alive whilst watching the newly-qualified staff nurse who doesn’t feel confident and make sure they don’t do anything dangerous.”
Another constituent painted a very concerning picture about her financial situation. She recently qualified as a nurse—a year and four months ago. She is a single parent of three children, and commented:
“After studying hard for 3 years mixing university, placements and guided learning, I gained my degree only to find myself in more dire financial circumstances than I was as a student.
I live to a tight budget, I drive a car that is 16 years old, I don’t smoke or drink, and I rarely socialise with my friends unless it’s a special occasion. This month I was paid £1,450 after tax—from that £300 is childcare; £400 is rent; leaving £750 for the month covering gas, water, phone, food, insurance etc. I also receive £35 tax credits a week which covers my daughter’s bus fare to college and her lunch money.
I am a qualified professional and yet I would class myself as being on the breadline. I know there are others in greater need than I am; however I feel like I work hard and sacrifice my family time for nothing.”
Finally, a senior sister with 30 years’ experience in an acute trauma unit explained:
“After six years of pay restraint, I now see nurses struggling day to day to make ends meet. Those who have stayed are now planning to leave the NHS early and newly qualified nurses are unable to stay without reasonable remuneration.
I feel like I grieve every day for my profession now. We have an NHS workforce currently willing to work as hard as the service asks them, but this goodwill is now eroding faster than I have ever seen in all my years’ service.
I am retiring within a couple of years. This request comes not for me, but for those who come after me and who will be caring for me and my family in the future.”
It is clear that our NHS is facing a crisis, yet the people the Government entirely rely on to make the NHS work are being badly let down. Nobody would suggest for a minute that those working in the health service do it for the money. However, we have reached a situation in which nurses, midwives and other invaluable NHS staff are struggling to pay their bills or put food on the table, or are pawning their possessions or taking out high-interest loans just to get from one month to the next.
How can we expect people to continue to provide high-quality care to us and our loved ones in what are already increasingly challenging circumstances when they are also facing this level of stress and anxiety at home? I strongly urge the Government to look at this situation again and to take on board the concerns being raised not only by organisations such as Unison, the RCN and the RCM, but by NHS frontline staff who are saying loud and clear that this pay restraint simply cannot continue.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. It is a particular pleasure to follow the excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She set out the compelling case for why the pay regime for nurses, midwives and associated health service professionals across our health services is becoming increasingly exploitative.
The hon. Lady spoke of the particular experience in England; I obviously speak from the experience of Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Administration in Northern Ireland have chosen to void the clear recommendations from an independent pay review body, as in England, and have not taken the more constructive approach followed in Scotland to pay recommendations and to meeting the proper pay needs and aspirations of hardworking professional staff. As other hon. Members have said, those staff provide such a valuable service day in, day out. They work long hours with huge responsibilities, but with less and less of a sense of reward and with ever more inadequate remuneration.
We now have the situation in which many things have been brought forward. People were promised that Agenda for Change would ensure greater equity and transparency on pay, that they would see salary paths improving naturally—with more than just token increments—and that it would reward people’s sense of vocation. Of course, it does nothing of the sort, because people have found themselves locked into highly contested bands. Certainly in Northern Ireland, people doing the exact same work in different trusts are paid differently, which is causing huge frustration and a grave sense of grievance and injustice for many people.
The health and social care system in Northern Ireland is supposed to be operating increasingly as a single employer, with the commissioning role of Health and Social Care Board moving to the Department and the Minister. However, we have the bizarre situation in which people who are doing the same job and delivering on the same targets set by Ministers and the Executive are supposedly employed by different trusts and are paid differently—not because their working terms are different, but because the terminology on their contracts might be different here or there. The slightest difference in terminology in job descriptions is being used to keep people in lower pay bands than their counterparts in a neighbouring trust who are doing the exact same job. Of course, not being able to address those issues absolutely suffocates people with frustration.
This has happened in the context of those staff being locked into the 1% pay rise cap that has endured for a number of years. It is one thing to ask people to take a pay freeze in the name of austerity and managing public financial pressures for a year or two, but it is another to be locked into such a pay freeze while seeing other people, including on the public sector payroll, being able to escape those constraints. Again, it adds to the sense of injustice.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
On the pay freeze, over the past five or six years it has worked out to roughly the equivalent of between a 6% and 8% wage cut. That is the reality that those people face. The Government say they value people in the health service, but the only way to demonstrate that is through their wage packets at the end of the day. The other issue, which will certainly affect mature students who want to be either a nurse or a midwife, is that the education maintenance grant has also been cut. So much for valuing people who work in the national health service.
Mark Durkan
I agree with all of the hon. Gentleman’s points; they touch on points made in interventions by other hon. Members. Let us be clear: the long-standing freeze is, in essence, a long-term pay cut in real terms. People are left feeling frustrated and aggrieved by that. People are leaving the profession; they feel they are being driven out—we heard references to the number of people who are switching to agency roles, but many people do not want to do that, and their sense of vocation is being exploited in a way that now probably more than borders on the cynical. A better response is needed.
I have made points particularly on Northern Ireland. On Agenda for Change, we know, as other hon. Members have mentioned, that pay in the lower bands actually falls below living wage standards. One appalling vista—which will bite this year in Northern Ireland, where these adjustments are being made—is that the money for that 1% pay rise will be used to bring people in the lower wage bands up to the living wage. In other words, if the 1% envelope is to be used to cover that, other people will lose out; there will be a trade-off between nurses and health service professionals in different grades, with that 1% being prioritised towards bringing people up to the living wage. Nobody should be asked to endure inadequacy as the price of affording a micro-concession to equality for those who are locked into the lower bands that pay below the living wage. That is going to bite in Northern Ireland this year.
It should not, because as part of the Stormont House agreement and other things, Northern Ireland has a voluntary exit scheme that was meant to reduce the cost of the public service payroll. If that overall voluntary exit scheme saves money on the public service payroll, my party made the point that, rather than those savings being used to pay for a cut in corporation tax in future years, they should be used for restorative pay measures—starting first in the national health service for those staff who have suffered as a result of freezes and who are stuck on inadequate and unfair pay bands under Agenda for Change. Their case could be met because public sector payroll savings are on the way.
Health service staff in Northern Ireland will be asked to manage yet more change. People already work long hours in heavy-demand services, but more structural changes will be made to health services following the Bengoa review and others. If people are being asked to manage all of those changes and keep those services going during those transitions, the one thing they are entitled to is some long overdue consideration of the inadequate pay they have been asked to endure.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I thought I would be called to speak at the end.
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
No Members indicated that they wished to speak by standing in their place, but I can be flexible, with your permission.
Dr Whitford
Yes; I would expect to speak at the end, if other Members wish to speak.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Evans. I also thank the SNP spokesperson. I had not intended to speak but will grab this opportunity because it is an incredibly important debate.
First, I pay tribute to the Royal College of Nursing and the Nursing Times, which have captured the voices of nurses all over the country. We heard some of those voices in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), and I think they speak for the vast majority of those in the nursing profession.
We meet at a time when the NHS is under unprecedented strain—certainly in recent times. Workforce morale is at the heart of the quality and sustainability of NHS services. What is often forgotten and missed when we debate this subject is that the vast majority of nurses in the NHS—nearly all, actually—work beyond their contracted hours.
I will never forget being at a meeting in Bristol with a nurse from the Bristol Royal infirmary. It was when the Government were looking at introducing regional pay, which the RCN led a campaign against. At the time, the nurse was being presented with a contract and asked whether she was prepared to vary her Agenda for Change conditions by moving from a 37-hour working week to a 39-hour one—it may have been 39 to 41 hours, but it was an increase. I asked her, “What did you do?”, and she said, “Well, I signed it straight away.” I asked why, and she said, “Because I’m currently doing a 45-hour working week, but they don’t know that.” In many ways, that illustrates the point: management do not know the value of what they get from the nursing profession.
That anecdote tells the story about the job. It is more than a job to people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, people give all of themselves to this job, but they have limits. When they feel as though those above them do not understand the commitment and the huge contribution they make to the NHS, and when they feel taken for granted, the good will and morale start to dry up. That is when the Government are in danger of achieving a false economy. The price of holding down nurses’ pay in the way that has been done over the past six years is, in the end, nurses not feeling able to go above and beyond as they normally willingly do.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I agree with the points that my right hon. Friend is making. The RCN has told us that the pay of a significant group of nurses has fallen in real terms by 14% over the period he refers to. Does he agree that that is a pretty startling statistic?
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said that this is a pay cut. We should not call it a pay freeze because it is, in fact, a pay cut. The Government have manipulated the figures in this area. Let us call it what it is: a pay cut that has now been sustained over a number of years.
People are at their limits. They cannot carry on having their pay cut every single year while they face other pressures and rising costs, such as accommodation costs, without there being a consequence. The consequences will be for their own sense of wellbeing, their own mental health or, indeed, their children’s quality of life. Nurses are now saying, in large numbers, that enough is enough.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Further to what my right hon. Friend just said, does he agree that there is a culture under this Government and the previous coalition Government of devaluing the whole of the public sector? This is one stark example of what is happening across the public sector.
Andy Burnham
That is how it begins to appear. The Government are pushing people beyond their limits. There was the attempt to introduce regional pay, and there was the attempt to cut what is called the unsocial hours payment—there has been a whole series of initiatives that try to strip away support for the profession. It begins to feel like an attack on the profession. That is certainly how junior doctors felt, and I think GPs feel the same. The nursing profession is making clear today that it feels the same too.
As I said, this is a false economy. As well as damaging the good will and the extra hours that people were willing to offer before, it has also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle indicated, pushed people into the arms of private staffing agencies. That, in the end, is another false economy for the national health service. Over recent years, we have seen the bill for private staffing agencies in the NHS increase year on year, to the point where it is now in the region of several billion pounds every year. Many trusts are in the grip of the private staffing agencies. That, of course, is also a factor in the cuts to nurse training that we have seen in recent years.
Dr Poulter
The right hon. Gentleman is making some very fair points. I hope he recognises that one of the first things I did in ministerial office was to reverse what was happening on regional pay and stick to the national pay contracts. He makes an important point about temporary staffing. If we look at the approach with the junior doctors’ contract, many junior doctors will now see a huge reduction in in-house locum pay for the work they are doing; it is sometimes a reduction of £10 an hour. That will feed locum agencies and drive up the temporary staffing bill. We need to see nurses and other Agenda for Change staff paid properly, to stop them needing to do agency work. That is one of the main drivers of the agency business.
Andy Burnham
I am glad to hear the intervention of the former Minister, whom I worked well with in the previous Parliament. I want to take this opportunity to say that he did listen on regional pay. We made an argument about that issue, backed up by the RCN and others, and, to be fair, it did not go any further than the experiment in the south-west. I give credit to him for that. I also give credit to him for consistently showing a real regard for the pressures faced on the frontline.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that the Minister would do well to reflect on. There is a huge false economy here. It makes sense to have fairness in terms of headline pay for staff, to maintain good will, but on top of that, it makes sense to provide them with incentives to give any additional shifts or time to the in-house bank, rather than private staffing agencies. The Government have lost sight of that in recent times.
Mr Jim Cunningham
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It can be a false economy to rely on agencies to staff hospitals, whether it be nurses or doctors. At the end of the day, training suffers. That makes it difficult for the NHS to recruit, so it is a false economy in a number of ways.
Andy Burnham
It is not only a false economy; it directly damages the quality of patient care. When people arrive on the ward who do not know the team or the environment and have to be told everything, it builds in confusion and delays because staff have to take them through things. It does not make sense to use private staffing agencies to the extent that they are being used in the NHS. The cost is exorbitant—that is No. 1—but it also damages morale, because it leads to staff in the permanent employ of the trust working on the ward alongside people who are being paid significantly more than them for the same shift, despite having just arrived on that ward. That does not build a sense of team on the ward; it builds a sense of resentment.
Dr Huq
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the lack of continuity with agency staff coming in. He talks about recruitment and retention. The NHS traditionally has had a large overseas workforce. Does he agree that the £35,000 salary required to settle in the UK has not helped matters? Nurses normally start at £23,000. Our NHS would crumble without overseas workers. We have also heard that in the post-Brexit climate, people from overseas feel less welcomed by this nation. Does he have any comment on that?
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend makes two important points. The first was on the effect that Home Office immigration rules could have had on the nursing profession. I think the former Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, made some changes in that regard.
My hon. Friend is right that there is a much bigger context here: the post-referendum climate. The Government have been absolutely wrong not to guarantee the status of EU nationals currently working in our national health service. I have an example from my constituency of a Polish community nurse, who every day gets up early to go on her local round delivering insulin to vulnerable patients who are diabetic and housebound. One morning she heard a cry of, “Go home!”, out of one of the bedroom windows opposite. What does that make that nurse feel like, and is she likely to stay when we are in this prolonged period of uncertainty in which this growing hostility is felt to be around? There is a real risk here. We cannot simultaneously refuse to give clarity to those tens of thousands of nurses from other parts of Europe who are currently working in our NHS and run down the good will of nurses who are UK nationals. In the end, something will give, and it will be patient care, if we operate policies of that kind.
Alongside that, there is the attack on nurse training. We have seen cuts to nurse training places over a number of years, so there is a shortage of nurses coming through. Many places are being and have been forced to recruit from overseas. In those circumstances, with everything else that I have described, including the downward pressure on headline pay, how can it possibly make sense to scrap the nursing bursary? Will that not just be another factor that adds to the growing sense of crisis in the profession? Every single piece of support that is there to develop the nursing profession is systematically being stripped away.
We have seen years of that approach and are beginning to see the consequences in the national health service. Labour, of course, did not get everything perfect—I am not saying that—but I can say with some pride that when I was a Minister in the Department of Health, we brought through a major programme of investment in the nursing workforce, through Agenda for Change. It was the subject of hard discussions, but in the end it was agreed between the trade unions and the Government of the day. We did have in the Department of Health a social partnership forum, which brought together NHS Employers, trade unions and the Government to iron out problems relating to the nursing workforce. We did massively increase the numbers in the nursing profession. We did ensure that they were properly rewarded and had proper access to training. My worry is that we are seeing some of that break down.
In the immediate aftermath of the financial crash, it was acceptable, it seems to me, to ask the nursing profession to make a contribution to deficit reduction, but here we are, six years on, expecting people who are out there today, working flat out to keep an NHS in crisis going, to take pay cuts for the privilege of doing so. At some point, that strategy begins just to fall apart, and the NHS falls apart with it. I say to the Minister that we are not far from that point now.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Is there not a wider economic point that if we keep pay freezes in place for so long—six years—that ends up harming the private sector economy, because if 70p in every pound of public sector money ends up in the private sector economy, some of that is wages, including nurses’ pay?
Andy Burnham
Of course, and the point is very well made, but I will also say again that it does not help deficit reduction if nurses are being pushed into the grip of private staffing agencies as a consequence of pay policies. That is another way in which the Government’s short-sighted approach has not in the end produced benefits for the economy, as the hon. Gentleman says, nor helped us meet the target of deficit reduction, because so much money is being wasted every year.
I will conclude on that point. The voices that have been mobilised in support of the lobby of Parliament today are real voices, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North. These people are the backbone of the national health service, the backbone of our communities and the backbone of our country. They have limits, though. Their limits are higher, but they do have limits, like everyone else. They feel taken for granted. Right now, the NHS cannot afford to lose the good will of the nursing profession. The Minister needs to listen carefully to what is being said today and he needs to make urgent representations, through the Secretary of State, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in advance of the spring statement. A signal needs to be given to the nursing profession that the Government are listening and will take action, within the bounds of what is possible, to treat the nursing profession properly. I hope that, if nothing else, the Minister takes that message away from today.
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
There being no one else standing in their place, we will move to the winding-up speeches.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is an honour to serve under you, Mr Evans.
We seem to have been in this place before. We had a lot of debate about the nursing bursary, and these things are connected, because it comes down to how we are treating people and valuing them, as has been said. In Scotland, we also have a pay cap of 1%, but one difference is that that is being paid each year, whereas for three of the last six years, nurses in England have faced a freeze—an award of 0%. What they are told is, “Well, your increment gives you a rise.” The increment is how people move through the Agenda for Change structure, so if they are not getting any cost of living rise, the increment structure of Agenda for Change is being undermined.
The Scottish Government are a real living-wage employer and are recognised and registered as such, so people earning less than £22,000 get £400 to keep them above the real living wage. Starting in the next financial year, 2018-19, those in the lower bands in England will fall below the national minimum wage; they do not come anywhere close to a proper living wage. We know the Government’s living wage as “the pretendy living wage”, because people cannot actually live on it. That term should not be used because it is confusing. The result is that at band 1 or 2, a nurse or healthcare assistant in Scotland will earn £881 more than their equivalent in England. The common band for a nurse graduate is band 5, and at the top of that band, the nurse in Scotland will earn £284 more than the nurse in England.
Scotland has had no compulsory redundancies since the crash. In England, there have been 20,000. That seems bizarre when we are short of nurses. The vacancy rate in England is 9.5%; in Scotland it is 3.5%. We get what we pay for. If we treat people badly, eventually they go away, or, if they are approaching retiral, they do not go on working; they finish, because frankly they are burnt out. Nursing is a hard, heavy and stressful job. Nurses in Scotland feel stressed because of the gap caused by vacancies, the increased demand, the ageing population and the complexity of the cases they look after, so we can only imagine what it must be like in hospitals in England, with almost 10% of places not being filled and having to be covered by agency staff, which, as we have heard, is just a circular, self-defeating argument.
Lady Hermon
On the hon. Lady’s point about how difficult and wearisome the work of a nurse is—it is hard work—those nurses born in the 1950s who are affected negatively by the Government’s pension policy cannot now retire until they are 65, 66 or, indeed, 67. Has there not been a double whammy for those nurses who want, for the love of the job, for the love of the patients and for the love of service of the community, to stay in post? The Government have an opportunity to recognise that contribution. If they will not do something on pensions—I hope that they will change their mind on that—they could at least remove the pay freeze.
Dr Whitford
The whole message that is sent by nurses, particularly those who are in their late 50s and approaching 60, is that they are burnt out; they do not feel valued. When they have to work hours and hours beyond their shifts, doing what is frankly heavy labour—coming from that background, I can vouch for its being heavy physical work—they will of course leave as soon as they can manage to do so. The problem is that that exacerbates the pressure on all their colleagues, and that is what we are seeing with the huge shortage of thousands of nursing posts across England.
We have to recognise that we will face more increased demand and more complexity as our population ages. When patients in their early 70s were coming to me with breast cancer, they had multiple morbidities. By that stage, they had had a heart attack, were type 2 diabetic, had a bit of kidney failure and were severely immobile from arthritis, obesity or one of the many other conditions that people are getting. The nurses were trying to deal with all those things. Going forward, we will face more cases of dementia and Alzheimer’s, which is a particularly challenging morbidity for patients and the staff looking after them. Working in that environment, where everyone around them is having a bad day at the same time that they are having a bad day, means that people do not enjoy going to work. If there is any chance to get out, they are going to take it.
We need to attract more nurses to deal with demand. As was mentioned earlier, approximately a third of nurses are due to retire within the next 10 years, and we need to prepare for that. Some of that relates to the expansion that we had under Labour; when there is a big expansion in a profession, a whole lot will tend to retire at the same time. Unless succession planning is ongoing and established, we will reach an absolute crisis.
That brings us to the other difference: the nursing bursary. In Scotland, we still pay a nursing bursary of more than £6,500. We also have free tuition, which is equivalent to £27,000. We have additional funding for nurse trainees with additional support needs. They tend to be older—they are around their late 20s and early 30s —so they get more than £2,000 for childcare, a dependency allowance if they have either an adult or children dependent on them and a single-parent allowance.
The Scottish Government know that we have a challenge to recruit and retain nurses to grow the nursing profession, and they are putting that money in. They are not putting it in by giving high pay awards each year, but they are the only Government that actually accepted the independent review body’s recommendation of 1% on top of any steps within Agenda for Change. What is the point in doing all the work around a review body, if the Government do not bother listening to it?
I suggest that the Government need to show nurses that they are valued. They need to look at the decision to get rid of the nursing bursary, because we already know from NHS England that there has been a decrease of 20% to 25% in applications, so it is having exactly the opposite effect than the Government talked about. We know from the Nursing & Midwifery Council that registrations from the EU have dropped by 90% since last July. That means that whole source is drying up, regardless of rules, because people do not want to take the risk of moving here. We cannot shut down every possible source for having enough nurses. A lot of this is about calling on the Government to change their attitude and realise that this is a difficult job. We need to attract people into it and we need to retain people for as long as we can. Nurses are worth every penny they are not being paid.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on the eloquent and knowledgeable way that she introduced this debate on behalf of not only the Petitions Committee but the more than 100,000 people around the country who signed this petition.
When she introduced the debate, my hon. Friend said that it is not enough for us simply to state our support for NHS staff—it has to be shown. The excellent attendance that we have had today, despite the important international business taking place in the main Chamber, has shown the huge support for our NHS staff and it is high time that the Government matched that support with action. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) put the proposition that it is incredibly hard for the Government to justify ignoring the recommendations of an independent pay review body when we as Members of Parliament have our own pay agreed and implemented by an independent body. Can the Minister not see how repeatedly ignoring independent pay reviews strikes at the very heart of the bond of trust that exists in an employment relationship? Can he not see how it makes us look like we are uncaring and wrong? It is self-defeating and the approach needs to change.
My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the particular problems in ambulance trusts and the issues with the recruitment and retention of paramedics. She described the expenditure on agency staff as “nonsensical”. Certainly, no business would consider this a sustainable model. The personal testimonies that she gave from her constituents were compelling. None of us could fail to appreciate how difficult the situation is for some of our nurses. One said that she grieves for her profession, and that highlights just how dire the current situation is.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about his perspective in Northern Ireland. He told us how the use of terminology appears to lead to people in different jobs being paid lower rates of pay for effectively the same job. That is certainly not how Agenda for Change should work in practice, and the pay freeze only exacerbates the sense of injustice that individuals feel. He summed up the situation perfectly when he said that the long-term pay freeze is in fact a pay cut. He said their sense of vocation “is being exploited”. He was right about that, but is it not incredibly sad that a Member of this place can say that without fear of contradiction? Just how low have we sunk?
We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who has great experience in the health service. He rightly said that nursing is “more than a job” and it is clear that he appreciates that, but he is right that when nurses feel that those above them do not appreciate what they are doing, it becomes a false economy and drives people into the arms of staffing agencies.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend has just mentioned people feeling a sense of fairness, particularly in the pay of those above them. Does he share my concern that in this current climate, while nurses’ pay is being cut, we are seeing large pay increases self-awarded to members of clinical commissioning groups and senior management? Does that not completely demoralise the whole local profession?
Justin Madders
I agree entirely. We all know—it is well documented—the financial pressures that the health service is under. It defies belief or explanation that those in senior positions can still fly in the face of that. I can only sympathise profusely with how nurses must feel when they see those headlines.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Important as nurses are as the backbone of our health service, many other NHS staff are affected by the Agenda for Change pay freeze. Does my hon. Friend share my particular concern for the many staff who work in support services? Given the financial pressure that trusts are under, they have been forced to privatise parts of the service, and support services staff have moved off Agenda for Change terms and conditions altogether, which is what has happened at my local trust. The private sector tries to recruit new members of staff for less than Agenda for Change, because it is implementing the funding cuts that it faces.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend has encapsulated the challenge we always face when a service is privatised. Most often the only way in which the savings promised by the private company can be delivered is by changes to staff terms and conditions. I also agree that the pay freeze affects not only nurses, but the whole of the Agenda for Change workforce. Today we are focusing in particular on some of the effects on nurses, because there are clear reasons why that position is unsustainable.
To return to some of the contributions we have heard today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh described clearly the impact on a ward of having agency staff, and how that creates uncertainty and is not the most efficient way of working. There is also the manifest unfairness of having someone on the same ward, who is only there for that particular shift, earning significantly more than permanent members of staff. How demoralising must that be for those involved? He was right to say in conclusion that we cannot afford to lose the good will of the nursing profession further.
In common with many hon. Members who have spoken today, I pay tribute to everyone who works in the NHS and the health and social care sector, not only to doctors and nurses, but to other allied health professionals such as porters, healthcare assistants, cleaners, receptionists, care workers, paramedics and countless others. It is important to remember that behind every story about the crisis that our NHS has faced this winter are patients waiting too long for treatment, and hard-working public servants doing everything that they can to prevent a very difficult situation from getting worse.
The NHS is the biggest employer in the country—and one of the biggest in the world—and it depends on the tireless efforts of its staff to keep going and meet the challenges of rising demand and insufficient funding. Let us be clear: we cannot indefinitely keep asking them to do more for less. I would argue, as other hon. Members have, that only the good will of NHS workers has stopped the current crisis from turning into a catastrophe. I recently heard the staff who work in our NHS described as “shock absorbers”. That seemed to be a pretty good description of how they are taking and absorbing the relentless pressure and stress of being on the frontline of an underfunded health service. They can take that for only so long before something snaps, which is why it is so important that we fully explore these issues today.
The incredible determination, professionalism and compassion that we see from staff comes against the backdrop of six years of pay restraint. Salary increases for NHS staff have either been frozen or capped at a level far below the rate of inflation. According to Unison, between 2010 and 2016 that represented a cut of more than £4.3 billion from NHS staff salaries, or a loss of between 12% and 19% in actual value since 2010. The Royal College of Nursing believes that since 2011 there has been a real-terms drop in earnings of 14% for its members. With Treasury forecasts indicating that the cost of living will go up by more than 3% every year between 2018 and 2020, it is not difficult to see how the current policy on pay restraint is unsustainable.
The policy is already beginning to have a huge personal impact on some of those affected. Registration fees have gone up by more than a third in two years, and we know well that wages have not kept pace with the cost of living. As we have heard, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, staff surveys from the RCN and Unison found that nearly two thirds of staff feel worse off financially than they did a year ago. Forty-nine per cent. had asked for financial support from a family or friend, 13% had used a debt advice service and 11% had used a payday loan company. About a third of nurses are struggling to pay their gas and electricity bills, 53% are working extra hours just to pay their everyday bills and 11% had pawned possessions. The Cavell Nurses’ Trust also found that 20% of nurses had skipped a meal in the last year due to money worries. Those are not abstract figures; they represent real people.
There was a lobby of Parliament today, and I am sure that some hon. Members in the Chamber went to hear at first hand from nurses how they are struggling. I met a nurse from the west midlands who works three days a week because of her caring responsibilities. She told me that she is living below the poverty line. Are we not ashamed that someone caring for our most vulnerable has to live like that? Are we really comfortable with a situation in which the people we are asking to care for our loved ones are having to pawn their possessions in order to make ends meet? In one of the richest countries in the world, can any of us accept the sight of nurses going to food banks?
Nowhere is the problem more acute than in our capital city. The Nursing Times reported that 40% of nurses who currently live in London say that the cost of housing means they will be forced to leave the capital in the next five years. Of course that challenge is not unique to the health service, but vacancy rates in the London area are among the highest in the country, with at least 10,000 nursing vacancies. How long will it be before we reach a tipping point from which there will be no recovery?
The impact is not just on nurses in their daily lives outside work, but on their working environment. NHS staff surveys paint a picture that cannot be ignored. The 2015 survey for England found that 48% of those surveyed stated that a lack of staff was impinging on their ability to do their job, and only 43% felt able to manage all the conflicting demands on their time. The warning signs are there for us all to see.
Analysis of NHS England data by the Health Service Journal found that 96% of NHS hospital trusts in England had fewer nurses covering day shifts in October than they had planned, and 85% did not have the desired numbers working at night. In 2013, the regulator Monitor, now part of NHS Improvement, warned about the potential impact of continuing pay restraint, stating in a report:
“Capping wages for longer to keep costs down would be self-defeating for the sector in the long term as it would make recruiting and retaining good quality professionals increasingly difficult.”
We had that very clear warning four years ago, but we have not heeded it.
The evidence that we have heard today and on previous occasions has proved that that prophecy was correct. The Public Accounts Committee reported that the number of nurses leaving their jobs increased from 6.8% in 2010-11 to 9.2% in 2014-15. Simon Stevens gave evidence to that Committee in 2014, stating that pay restraint would not be an “indefinitely repeatable strategy”, yet that is exactly what the Government propose to do.
Pay restraint, along with a cut to the number of nurse training places in 2010, led to a situation in which the amount of money that the NHS spent on agency staff soared by £800 million in a single year to £3.3 billion in 2014-15. Although considerable steps have been taken to bear down on the figure since then, the situation only developed because of poor and short-term decisions made by the Government, and it remains the case that we still spend far too much public money on agency staff because the NHS has been unable to recruit and retain enough of its own. If we had maintained the levels set by the last Labour Government, we would have had 8,000 more nurses trained during the last Parliament.
Recent figures have revealed that the agency staff cap has been breached almost 2.7 million times in its first nine months of operation. That is a clear example of the impact of the recruitment and retention crisis on all areas of the NHS and how the current workforce balance is completely out of kilter. The use of agency staff is meant to be a temporary measure in times of particular demand and stress for the workforce, not a permanent feature. The fact that these incidences have run into the millions in less than a year should be a huge concern to the Government and a clear warning that the stability and continuity that we all want to see in our workforce is a long way from being achieved. The Government urgently need to address the situation in which hospitals seem unable to provide safe levels of care without relying permanently on agency staff.
The dependency on agency staff has made the case for a pay increase as strong as it has ever been. That is the view not only of the Royal College of Nursing, but of those that look at the impact of skills shortages on the wider economy. In March 2016 the Migration Advisory Committee found that many nurses are moving to agency work or leaving the profession altogether. The fact that the Government have had to put nurses on the skills shortages list should have been the point at which they realised that their pay restraint policy had reached the end of the road. Instead, they have ploughed on regardless, treating the symptoms rather than the cause.
In that regard, the disastrous policy of having tuition fees for student nurses will almost certainly make the position worse, not better. The Royal College of Nursing warned at the time that the policy could act as a disincentive for students from some backgrounds—particularly mature students and those on lower incomes—and early indications are that applications to study are down by at least 20%. If that turns out to be an accurate reflection of the position, the pressure on existing staff can only increase.
Dr Huq
At the weekend, on the doorstep, I met my constituent Dr Linda Burke, who is pro vice-chancellor for health and education at Greenwich University. She is really worried, because her university’s figures look like they are down by between 20% and 30%—UCAS will have final figures for late applications. She says that that is serious because it will directly reduce the number of nurses for the NHS. We should be thinking about our future workforce. Does my hon. Friend have anything to say about that?
Justin Madders
I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is out on the doorstep on a Saturday morning, but sorry that the news she was given is so concerning. It is not, however, a surprise. This is something that just about everyone interested in the matter warned the Government of and, as she says, we will find out in the next month or so what the final figures are. If they are of the order that we are hearing about, the Government will have the opportunity seriously to reconsider the policy. Today, when I attended the lobby, I heard some student nurses saying that they are finding it difficult to get staff mentors, because senior staff are exhausted. They do not blame those staff for that; they understand the intolerable pressure, because they too see it for themselves.
The change to student fees will add an extra penalty on those training from this year onwards, due to the Government’s decision to freeze the student loan repayment threshold at £21,000. That means that all future nurses will face a real-terms pay cut. According to Unison, based on current salaries, the average nurse, midwife or allied health professional will lose more than £900 per year to meeting their debt repayments. In practical terms, for a nurse on band 5, that means a salary cut approaching 5%. It is abundantly clear that that will make staff retention harder, not easier; there is a clear link between pay and retention levels.
Nobody is suggesting for a minute that anyone who goes into nursing is motivated by money, but when someone who has just finished yet another draining shift, going above and beyond the call of duty time and again, finds that they do not have enough cash in the bank to feed themselves and their family, and when each year their wages buy them less and less, they could be forgiven for thinking, “Is it all worth it?” It is morally wrong for the Government to put our nurses in that position, and it makes no sense economically either.
Lilian Greenwood
That is precisely the point that one of my constituents, a nurse, made when she wrote to me. She said that she graduated last year and is earning only £21,900, one of the lowest starting salaries among her graduate friends. She says that only months into her dream profession, she feels
“worn down by the strains put on the NHS. I face continued pressures every day. Most 12-hour shifts I don’t get my unpaid break, and I leave late.”
That is on top of knowing that she is not being properly rewarded for the work that she does. Is that not precisely why our nurses are feeling so demoralised?
Justin Madders
Yes. It is sad to hear that someone who has only just started out in the profession is being ground down so much already and is feeling so unappreciated. It is a story and a message that we hear repeatedly from our constituents who work in the health service. The Government need to listen carefully to it.
The RCN’s submission to the pay review body not long ago said:
“Having faced a long period of pay restraint, it is inevitable that a large number of staff are now undertaking agency work as a way of restoring the real value of their earnings. Further restraint will only lead to even more damaging impact to the recruitment, retention and motivation of the most valuable asset the NHS has.”
Those comments were echoed by the House of Commons Health Committee in July 2016, which said that
“a long term pay squeeze has unintended consequences for recruitment and retention, which may drive higher costs.”
The independent Nuffield Trust made a similar statement after the 2015 summer Budget. It said that
“curbing public sector pay may make it even harder for the Government to realise some of its totemic pledges, such as seven-day working and reducing reliance on temporary staff.”
All those comments have come before the implications are clear for recruitment and retention of the thousands of staff who come from the EU. If they left tomorrow, it would make the current staffing gaps seem like a golden age.
I conclude with a couple more quotes. The first states that
“as the economy returns to growth, NHS pay will need to stay broadly in line with private sector wages in order to recruit and retain frontline staff.”
That quote is from a document that I am sure is known to us all, the NHS “Five Year Forward View”. Median weekly earnings for full-time employees in the private sector rose by 3.4% in 2016. I referred earlier to the anticipated increases in the cost of living over the next three years, which are bound to put more upward pressure on private sector wages.
The second quote is from a document entitled “The Conservative Party Manifesto 2015”, which I do not generally quote. Page 38 says:
“We will implement the NHS’s own plan to improve health care even further—the Five Year Forward View.”
As the Conservative party manifesto includes a clear commitment to delivering “Five Year Forward View”, and as it is clear that pay restraint needs to end to improve recruitment and retention rates, I must ask exactly what is preventing that from happening. I would be grateful if the Minister, when he responds, could tell us whether he considers the current policy of pay restraint to be consistent with the successful delivery of “Five Year Forward View”.
Labour agree with what has been said, be it by the cross-party Health Committee, the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust or the Health Foundation, about the need to end pay restraint. We agree with their crystal-clear message, and that of many hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, that further pay restraint for NHS staff would be self-defeating and unsustainable. We therefore endorse the wording of the petition.
I conclude with another quote from the Migration Advisory Committee, which said:
“The restraint on nurses’ pay instituted by the government was presented to us, and in the evidence to the pay review bodies, as an immutable fact. It is not. It is a choice”.
That is the nub of it: this is a political choice that does not need to continue. The Government have persisted with a damaging policy in pursuit of an objective that they have now abandoned, yet despite all the evidence that that policy is self-defeating and will cost more in the long run, the pay cap remains in place. It is a choice that they have made. It is the wrong choice, and it is time that they accept that they have got it wrong and change course before it is too late.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
Mr Evans, I am grateful to you for calling me to wind up the debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on taking up the petition and giving a well-constructed speech, with which many people listening to the debate—not just Members from her party, but those outside—will feel considerable sympathy. I express similar sentiments towards the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). Although I do not agree with his prescription, I thought that he conducted himself in a thoroughly considered way, as usual. It is a pleasure to be shadowed by him, as well as by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who as usual made a constructive contribution.
[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]
First, I should say that we are all rightly proud of our national health service and the staff who work incredibly hard day and night for the benefit of patients. They undoubtedly deserve a cost of living increase, but we must recognise that the financial and quality challenge facing the NHS is unprecedented. These are not normal times. I deny the allegation that Agenda for Change staff are undervalued, as the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) indicated in his speech, which was knowledgeable, given his previous role as Health Secretary. Staff at all levels in the NHS do a fantastic job, and it is vital that we in Government and the leaders of the NHS recognise that staff morale is important to maintaining staff commitment to services.
In my experience of making visits across the NHS, hard-working staff put patients first every single day of the week. They do so because caring for sick and vulnerable people is as much a vocation for them as it is a job. I know that pay restraint is challenging, but when I speak to staff, they tell me that they want to know that the right number of staff will be working alongside them in the hospital or community setting. The Government have listened. Contrary to some of the contributions made by hon. Members, staff numbers have increased significantly across most grades since May 2010. We have recruited almost 11,800 more doctors. More than 13,300 more nurses are working on our wards today than in May 2010—the overall number of nurses working for the NHS is at an all-time high. There are over 2,100 more midwives, and more than 6,300 currently in training, as well as over 1,500 more health visitors and over 2,400 more paramedics.
The allegation that people are leaving the NHS in droves is simply not borne out by the facts. The most recent workforce statistics were published last week, covering the period ending October 2016, and they showed that a record number of full-time equivalents were working in our NHS.
Dr Huq
The Minister is giving figures for the current workforce, but does he have any for the future workforce? I mentioned my constituent, Dr Linda Burke, of nursing and education studies at the University of Greenwich. She is worried that due to the cut in nursing bursaries, the number of applications is falling, possibly by as much as 30%. The RCN itself has said:
“We have consistently raised concerns to the Government… Despite 100 years of nursing knowledge and expertise, our advice fell on deaf ears.”
The RCN is effectively saying, “We told you so.” Will he remark on that?
Mr Dunne
I can say to the hon. Lady that there are 51,000 nurses in training today—I cannot tell her whether that is a record number, but it is a very significant number. There are 1,600 paramedics in training, which I believe is a record number. She and one or two other hon. Members have given anecdotes today about applications for new courses starting in the autumn, but I cannot tell her what the figures will be, because I have not yet seen any numbers published by UCAS. I think that they are due in the coming days, so we will have to see.
Dr Whitford
Honourable but not right—I accept that. The figures from NHS England itself suggest a drop in nursing applications of at least 20% to 25%.
Mr Dunne
The hon. Lady must have access to figures that my Department and I do not have. My information is that we have yet to receive any formal numbers from UCAS; there may be some early indications, but they do not represent the actual numbers. We will just have to wait for them. There is no point in speculating any further.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the potential impact of Brexit on EU staff, who currently represent a significant number of the professionals working in the NHS. Some 43,000 non-UK-born nationals work in the NHS—about 15% of the workforce—and about half of them come from the EU. It is very important that none of those staff are unnecessarily concerned about their future. The Prime Minister has sought to make it clear on several occasions that she wants to protect the status of EU nationals who are already living here and that the only circumstances in which that would not be possible would be those in which the rights of British citizens living in EU member states were not protected in return. We wish to provide as much reassurance as we can, both to NHS workers and to their employers, that they have a constructive future here in the UK.
However, it is important that we move towards a self-sustaining workforce. Frankly, that is at the heart of the reason behind the change in funding for nursing places, which is to bring nurses in line with doctors and those doing other degrees in England, so that from this autumn onwards they receive funding through student loans rather than bursaries.
Dr Poulter
The Minister is right to highlight the increases in many staff numbers across the NHS. He will also be aware that because of the increased focus on quality of care, many trusts have had to acknowledge that they did not have enough staff in the first place. If there are enough staff working in the NHS at the moment, why is the locum bill about £3 billion a year?
Mr Dunne
I will come on to agencies shortly. I am not denying that there are vacancies within the NHS, but my point is that there has been and continues to be a significant investment in increasing the number of people working in the NHS, which was not the impression that other hon. Members gave.
Lady Hermon
I have listened very carefully to the Minister, but I have to tell him that nursing staff, midwives and others in the nursing profession—certainly those in Northern Ireland who have contacted me—feel very demoralised by the attitude that the Government have held for several years. People in the nursing profession do a wonderful job and perform a great service for us all and for our families and friends when we have accidents or are ill, and the Government really must recognise their sense of demoralisation. If the Government will not change their policy on pay restraint—the Minister has already hinted that they will not—what steps will they take to address the serious problem of low morale in the nursing profession?
Mr Dunne
Obviously I cannot speak about circumstances in Northern Ireland, because we do not have responsibility for that. As I develop my remarks, I will go on to explain some of the things that we are doing to ensure that people who work in the NHS feel valued, as the hon. Lady asked, and get the kind of motivation that encourages them to get out of bed every morning and come into work day in, day out.
Mr Dunne
I will make some progress.
We recognise that the NHS faces a number of very challenging pressures: not just the ageing population, but the expectations of the public, who rightly demand quality personalised care at home or in hospital every day, not just from Monday to Friday. Those pressures will not be resolved just through pay, but by engaging with staff as they adapt and respond to new ways of working, including by introducing change that comes with scientific development and by supporting them through appropriate training and development.
We know that inflation is increasing. We continue to rely on the independent pay review bodies, which for decades have applied their expertise and objectivity in making recommendations to Government, and we have huge respect for their important work. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North and the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) referred to the NHS Pay Review Body’s 2014-15 recommendations. Last year the Government accepted its recommendations for 2016-17. We have provided our evidence to the current round—as have others, including trade unions—and we expect its recommendations in the coming weeks.
Mr Dunne
I will first answer, if I may, some of the comments made about the NHS Pay Review Body’s recommendations and how they sit alongside other elements of the NHS.
The allegation was made that there have been significant pay rises across NHS boardrooms, which are demoralising for those who have suffered pay restraint. However, I say to the hon. Members who raised that point that in 2016 the median rise across all board positions in NHS trusts was 0%. There are individual examples, when very senior managers are introduced to trusts that are going through a management change or are in difficulty, where higher pay rates may have to be introduced than for the previous incumbent, but generally speaking the opposite is happening: in many cases, those coming into new positions are coming in on slightly lower salaries.
Justin Madders
The Minister talks about respecting the independent NHS Pay Review Body’s recommendations. Without having seen them, can he say whether the Government are likely to respect those recommendations?
Mr Dunne
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I cannot give him any reassurances on that. We will have to see what the recommendations are and then take a view. However, we are not very far away from that point now.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) referred to the national living wage. I got the impression from him that some NHS staff members in Northern Ireland are earning only the national living wage; I can reassure him that no NHS staff in England are earning only at that level.
Dr Whitford
Looking at the graph going forward, however, those on bands 1 and 2 of Agenda for Change will fall not only below the real living wage, which they are already below, but below the national living wage, which is the minimum wage, in the coming years—2018-19 and 2019-20.
Mr Dunne
Once again, the hon. Lady is speculating about what might happen in future, and I am afraid that not only can I not comment on that, but I am not sure whether she is correct or not. There are some assumptions in what she said about what will happen to the national living wage. The Government are making some assumptions, but what the Government choose to do about the matter we will have to see. At present, the policy is certainly that nobody will be paid less than the national living wage. I can reassure her about that.
Mark Durkan
Just to clarify, like the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), I was referring to the living wage and not to the national living wage, which is a figment of Government policy.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. You cannot take one intervention following another intervention. I call the Minister to speak.
Dr Whitford
I was basing my assumptions and suppositions on what the Government themselves announced when they said that the pay freeze would continue in the next four years. That was announced in the comprehensive spending review, so I am not just making it up, and if pay goes on the trajectory that was announced last year, it will fall below the national living wage, which is obviously due to rise towards 2020.
Mr Dunne
I have made the Government’s current position clear and we will have to see what emerges from the NHS Pay Review Body’s recommendations, and then how those are implemented over the coming years. I think it is fruitless to speculate on what might happen in future years, based on the suppositions that the hon. Lady made—
Dr Poulter
On the current position, can my hon. Friend clarify what the average annual increase in pay in real terms is for NHS staff who have been at the top of the Agenda for Change pay scale since 2010?
Mr Dunne
No, I am afraid I am going to make some progress.
Hon. Members need to recognise that there is clearly a balance between pay and jobs in the NHS and across many public services. I note that the Opposition spokesman was full of recommendations about what not to do but had none, as far as I could calculate, about what should be done in relation to the delicate balance between pay and jobs. If pay were increased beyond the proposal from the NHS Pay Review Body, or beyond what the Government intend to pay, clearly there could be an impact on the number of jobs that can be afforded in the NHS within the financial envelope that we have.
Justin Madders
We are very clear that we believe that the recommendations of the independent NHS Pay Review Body should be accepted. Much of what I said was about how we should recognise that, given the pressures on nurses’ pay, that will not necessarily cost the Exchequer anything in the long run.
Mr Dunne
I am not sure that that provides much clarification, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for having a go.
Employers in the NHS know that they need to deliver greater efficiencies and improved productivity to help protect frontline jobs. Making the workforce more expensive, through higher pay rises, will not help.
It is therefore disappointing that trade unions have alleged that staff have suffered a pay cut of about 14% in real terms—an allegation that has been repeated by a number of hon. Members in the debate. The truth is that the Government have ensured that no NHS employee —indeed, no employee—should be paid below the national living wage. As I have said, no NHS employee employed under the Agenda for Change pay system is paid below that.
The truth is that average earnings of NHS staff as a whole remained well above the national average salary for 2015, which was £27,500, and have increased by more than annual pay awards. For most NHS staff groups, half of employees employed in 2010 and still in employment in 2015 benefited from double-figure increases in earnings, equating to between 2.2% and 2.9% annually, depending on staff group. The average annual consumer prices index figure over the same period was 2.4%.
Dr Poulter
I specifically asked about those who are at the top of the Agenda for Change pay scale, which many Agenda for Change staff are. Can the Minister confirm what the figures are for that group, because I think that the figures he has given include those in receipt of incremental rises?
Mr Dunne
They do, and it is important for hon. Members to understand the impact of incremental pay rises. The truth is that some half a million Agenda for Change staff are eligible for incremental pay rises each year of more than 3% on average, on top of annual pay awards. I am not saying that NHS staff should have no concerns about the level of pay award they receive; what I am saying is that since the 2008 recession, NHS earnings and public sector earnings have generally compared well with those in the wider economy.
A number of hon. Members talked about regional pay and in particular the challenges of working in London. Of course, we are very sympathetic to individuals who face the pressures of working in London—in both inner and outer London—and that is why we have the increments available to recognise the extra costs of living there.
Mr Dunne
I will make a little progress, if I may.
NHS organisations spend about two thirds of their entire expenditure on pay. Ensuring that the NHS has the staff it needs relies, crucially, on controlling pay and on making every penny count for the benefit of patients.
I give way to my hon. Friend.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend the Minister may not have the answer to my specific question here today, but will he write to me after the debate to confirm the answer to my question about those members of staff who are at the top of the Agenda for Change pay scale? What, in real terms, has been their pay increase since 2010?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am slightly concerned by his response, in that he does not seem to be taking on board the very significant concerns that have been raised right across the board, not only by unions but, significantly, by the National Audit Office. Last week, in its report on ambulance services, the NAO said:
“Ambulance trusts face resourcing challenges that are limiting their ability to meet rising demand.”
One of the “challenges” that is specifically cited is “pay and reward”, which is hampering recruitment. It is not just the unions and NHS staff who are saying these things; it is the NAO and other bodies as well.
Mr Dunne
The hon. Lady refers to ambulance staff. In recent weeks—just before Christmas, in fact—the Department agreed a deal with trade unions whereby paramedics working in ambulances would have their banding increased from band 5 to band 6, phased in over two years so that they can demonstrate they have the increased skill competence required. That represent a significant increase in reward for paramedics; some 12,000 paramedics will receive a higher pay award, precisely to address recruitment challenges for that specific profession. So we are listening and we are doing something about this issue. I will try to give the hon. Lady other examples of where we are responding to specific pressures.
Mr Dunne
No. The hon. Lady has had a fair crack. I will make a bit more progress.
I was challenged in this debate to refer to what the Government are investing in the NHS and I obviously take some relish in responding to that challenge. We are investing an additional £21.9 billion in nominal terms, which is equivalent to £10 billion in real terms, to fund the NHS’s own plan for the future. By doing so, we believe that we are playing our part, through the measures announced over the last 12 months or so, to help the NHS achieve its five year forward view. It needs to do that not only by realising benefits from the Carter review to improve productivity, but by clamping down on rip-off staffing agencies and encouraging employers to use their own staff banks for temporary staffing needs, so that they can invest in their permanent workforce. That has been referred to by a number of right hon. and hon. Members.
Agency and bank working provide an opportunity for NHS staff to engage in more flexible working to suit their own circumstances, so I would not want to characterise all agency working as bad. What is challenging is when NHS organisations need, in some cases, to go out to external agencies beyond their immediate bank and pay significantly higher rates. That is why the Department introduced, a year ago, a number of measures to start to limit the ability of agencies to charge the NHS such high fees, and we have had some success in that. In the period for which I have figures—roughly the middle of last year—the agency costs to the NHS had been reduced by 19% over the equivalent period the year before, so we are doing something about those fees. We are apprised of the problem and are bringing down the cost to the NHS of employing agency staff.
This issue is not just about pay. NHS staff, like many people, work hard to improve our public services. They have families and commitments, and they deserve to be rewarded fairly for what they do. However, as has been said, pay alone will not necessarily persuade the skilled and compassionate people that we need to choose a career in the NHS. It would be wrong to see the NHS employment package as just about headline pay. NHS terms and conditions have been developed over many years, in partnership with trade unions, and they recognise that it is a combination of pay and non-pay benefits, which need to keep pace with a modern, changing NHS, that help to recruit, retain and motivate the workforce.
Dr Whitford
Certainly the nurses I met during the lobby here, who had come from all over England, but particularly from London, described literally struggling and facing great financial hardship. That is very difficult for them. They work so hard for the benefit of all of us, yet feel that they cannot go on in their profession because they simply cannot keep their families here in London.
Mr Dunne
I have already explained to the hon. Lady that we have a London weighting, which reflects the increased costs of living in London. I have also explained to her that average pay for nurses is significantly above the national average pay. She herself referred to average nursing pay of some £31,000—
Mr Dunne
If not her, then another hon. Member referred to it, and that is from the latest available workforce statistics.
Picking up on the hon. Lady’s point, it is important that NHS staff are confident that their employment package is competitive. We want employers to make better use of the full package in their recruitment and retention strategies. NHS Agenda for Change staff have access to an excellent pension scheme, far in excess of arrangements in the wider economy, which includes life assurance worth twice the annual salary, and spouse, partner and child benefits. They have annual leave of up to 33 days—six and a half weeks—plus the eight bank holidays, which is far better than that which is available in the private sector, and in many other elements of the public sector. They have sickness and maternity arrangements that go well beyond the statutory minimum and, as I have touched on, there are flexible working, training and development opportunities for staff at all grades. For too long, the NHS employment package has been a well-kept secret and we want leaders to make the very best use of the overall NHS employment offer to help recruit and retain the staff they need.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
The Minister has outlined the pay and conditions package—or part of it. Does he believe that staff within the nursing profession are confident at the moment about their pay and conditions package, or does he feel, as I hear, that they are undervalued within the system?
Mr Dunne
I have tried to indicate in my remarks that we do not undervalue anyone who works in the NHS. The role of our nurses in particular provides the backbone of the entire health service. Understandably, people are concerned about their level of pay. With several years of pay restraint, that is no surprise—it is the case right across the economy—and that is why we will look carefully at the recommendations of the NHS Pay Review Body. I have already said that we recognise that there should be some increase in the award to take into account the cost of living.
You will be pleased to hear, Sir Roger, that I am going to conclude my remarks, by reconfirming that as a nation we are extremely proud of our NHS. The patient surveys we undertake every year tell us that our patients are proud of our NHS. Our staff tell us, in the surveys we undertake of them, that they are proud of working in our NHS. This is not just me saying this, reading it from a sheet; it is what staff tell me whenever I visit an NHS facility. They are proud of their job. They are proud of looking after their patients, and they want to continue to do so.
The Government have to take tough decisions, and in this area we have done so to protect jobs through pay restraint. Average NHS earnings for most staff groups have continued to grow. We are committed to ensuring that they have the right number of colleagues working alongside them in hospitals and in the community.
I strongly believe that the issue of recruitment and retention is not just about pay. It is about creating a culture in which learning, development and innovation are encouraged. It is about creating an environment where staff want to work, take pride in what they do, and are well motivated and feel safe; an environment where employers promote the importance of the values of the NHS and work incredibly hard to keep staff safe, and where bullying and harassment are not tolerated.
Catherine McKinnell
I do not think that anyone could argue with what the Minister has just said about NHS staff being proud of what they do and wanting to continue. But even while this debate has been going on, I have seen several tweets. For example, one asks:
“please tell me what the RCN”
—it says the Royal College of Nursing, but I say the Government—
“is going to do. I am seriously starting to struggle now”.
Others say that they
“know so many young people who would be great nurses but lack of bursary & low pay put them off”.
Those tweets reflect NHS staff’s real live experiences of the current pay situation under Agenda for Change and the continued pay freeze.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed knowledgeably and passionately to this very important debate, whether in speeches or interventions. I feel very strongly that we have won the argument today. There is a high degree of cross-party consensus on many of the issues we have outlined, and the Government are either burying their head in the sand or deliberately not facing up to significant challenges regarding pay, recruitment and retention for NHS staff. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) pointed out, by failing to address the issue we are taking advantage of those who work in the NHS and are pushing their good will to the limit. What disturbs me even more is that not only their good will is being tested; their very ability to survive in the job is being tested, too. I have received a number of testimonies and seen the evidence—the Government seem to deny the figures, even though they are there in black and white and I set them out clearly in my opening speech— about the real-terms pay cuts that NHS staff are facing. They simply cannot manage, and that is a shameful situation.
I said in my speech that it is the very people the Government rely on to deliver a high-quality NHS service in extremely challenging circumstances who are being badly let down by the Government’s current policy. How have we reached a situation where nurses, midwives and other invaluable NHS staff are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table? They are pawning their possessions and turning to payday loans. On the softer side, they are turning to agency work to top up their pay—not to afford the luxuries in life, but the basics. It is a completely unsustainable situation, and the Government must take urgent action to lift this burden off our NHS staff so that they can do their job, which is caring for us and our loved ones without the fear of financial insecurity hanging over their every working day.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 168127 relating to pay restraint for Agenda for Change NHS staff.
House of Lords
Personal Statement
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to make a personal statement to correct a statistic I used in Committee on the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, on Friday. I said that in 2015 there were 929 abortions undertaken in England and Wales after 24 weeks under Ground E. There were in fact 230. I apologise to the House for this error and welcome this early opportunity to make this correction.
NATO: Eastern Flank
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robathan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contribution the United Kingdom is making to the defence of NATO’s Eastern flank.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom plays a significant role in the defence of NATO’s eastern flank, leading NATO’s enhanced forward presence in Estonia, deploying a reconnaissance squadron to the US battalion in Poland and leading NATO’s very high readiness joint task force with up to 3,000 UK troops. Typhoon aircraft based in Romania will conduct southern air policing this summer, and we will deploy a Royal Navy ship to NATO’s standing naval mine countermeasures group in the Baltic.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, one should never take historical analogies too far. However, we have an America that is increasingly protectionist and isolationist; we have an international system in the United Nations which is becoming less and less effective; in Britain we have reduced our defence spending hugely since the Cold War a quarter of a century ago; and we have a large number of troops on the borders of eastern Europe. It sounds depressingly familiar to historians. I commend Her Majesty’s Government for the position they have taken in sending a battle group to Estonia. The Prime Minister said,
“we should engage with Russia from a position of strength”.
Does my noble friend agree that that means we should review again defence spending in this relatively new Administration and that we should increase defence spending to take account of new circumstances?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of the British people at home and abroad. That is why we have committed to spending at least 2% of our GDP on defence every year of this decade. Not only that, in addition the MoD budget will rise by 0.5% a year in real terms to 2020-21 and we have access to up an additional £1.5 billion a year by 2020-21 through the new joint security fund. This is an appropriate response to the complex and challenging international and domestic security threats that we face.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the NATO eastern flank includes maritime and the eastern Mediterranean? Will he say whether we are contributing our Royal Navy to NATO in that area, and if not whether we would have the capacity to do so if we were so asked?
Earl Howe
The noble and gallant Lord will know that there is a NATO operation currently in train in the Aegean in which the UK is playing a leading role. As to a wider involvement in the eastern Mediterranean, I will write to him if I can find out any more plans which can be disclosed. What I can say is that we are conscious of the need to defend NATO’s southern border as well as its eastern borders, and that is why we are deploying RAF aircraft for southern air policing later this year.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite clear that we are not spending enough on defence, but that is not my question. I am delighted that we are showing support for our eastern allies in NATO, but I am wary of military involvement within Ukraine. Does the noble Earl agree that we must keep open at all levels every line of communication we can with the Putin Administration so that any incident does not actually become something far more serious? We are dealing with someone where things could become very nasty indeed.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord makes an extremely good series of points. NATO’s renewed focus on deterrence and defence is, we believe, a proportionate response by NATO allies to the changed security environment in eastern Europe as demonstrated by Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine. However, that does not change our approach to bilateral relations with Russia. Despite the challenges I have referred to, we will continue to engage where necessary in areas of shared interest, and engage in dialogue as well through the channels we have available to us, such as the NATO-Russia Council.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the deployment announced by the noble Earl in the eastern area of Europe is obviously to be welcomed, but is he aware of the RAND Corporation report of 2016 which sets out graphically the vulnerability of the Baltic states in the face of any Russian threat? Is not their best guarantee the fulfilment by all members of the NATO alliance of the obligation under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty—including, if I may say so, the United States, which after all was the beneficiary of that article after the events of 9/11?
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse entirely the point made by my noble friend Lord West that we should keep a dialogue with the Russian Government open, and the NATO-Russia Council is perhaps a vehicle for doing that. The deployment of British forces in Estonia and Poland is purely defensive, but can the Minister assure us that this will be kept under review, and should it be the case, we would have the capacity to increase the number of troops we have placed there? Does he further agree that no one at all in this country or abroad should be in any doubt that if NATO invoked Article 5, we will respond if any of our allies in the Baltic are threatened?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is absolutely right. The enhanced forward presence is undoubtedly a major step forward in NATO’s deterrence posture. These are forces that will reassure our allies. They will defend Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, another NATO territory, and we believe that they will deter Russian belligerence on an enduring basis. The forces are designed to be defensive but combat-capable in order to show the Russians that should they be rash enough to contemplate any incursion into the Baltic states, that will be met with an appropriate response from NATO.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, will it be possible to persuade the eastern flank nations which have the benefit of all the arrangements my noble friend has described to contribute 2% of their GDP to the cost of all these arrangements?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is encouraging that the defence investment pledge taken in Cardiff at the NATO summit in 2014 has raised the profile of investment within NATO. It has galvanised the allies’ defence spending. When leaders made the pledge in 2014, only three allies met the 2% of GDP guideline. Since then, two more have increased their budgets and five allies now meet the guideline. There is further progress still to come.
Viscount Hanworth
Will the Minister tell us how many of our Typhoon aeroplanes are deployed in the east and how many are operational at any one time?
Earl Howe
If the noble Viscount is talking about southern air policing, where we will station aircraft in Romania, four aircraft will be deployed to carry out that policing alongside the Romanians. The total deployment size is yet to be confirmed, but it is likely to be in the region of 140 personnel. I will write to the noble Viscount if I have any further details.
Brexit: Creative Industries
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the creative industries will continue to receive economic benefits from an international workforce.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the creative industries contributed more than £87 billion to the UK economy and nearly £20 billion in exports. They account for 5.8% of all UK jobs. As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech earlier this month, it is the Government’s ambition to continue to attract the brightest and the best to work in Britain, but there must be control. The UK’s creative industries produce an extraordinary level of creative talent, and we want to ensure that continues after we leave the EU.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for his response but, as he is no doubt aware, there are currently 17 creative roles on the Government’s shortage occupation list, and there is unease that this will only get worse after Brexit. The industry is already concerned that the EBacc is having a negative impact on the uptake of creative subjects in schools and, consequently, on skills. Exactly a year and a day ago, the Government’s consultation on the EBacc closed. The industry’s response was an urgent call for creative subjects to be given the same emphasis as science in our education system. Will the Minister commit to listening to the creative sector—and to his noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, a former Secretary of State for Education—and agree that what is needed is STEAM, not STEM? Will he also commit to a government response to the EBacc consultation?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the Government are certainly prepared to listen, including to my noble friend Lord Baker. As far as the EBacc is concerned, we accept that arts entry has declined in 2016, but that was one year. Between 2012 and 2015, entries into arts subjects rose. We absolutely accept that the arts have an important role to play in education. We believe that they are complementary to STEM subjects and that a rounded education includes the arts.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, now that the Supreme Court has decided, is it not wrong for anyone, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, to assume that we will withdraw from the European Union until Parliament has decided whether to trigger Article 50 and whether anything that results from the negotiations is acceptable?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I do not want to put words into the noble Baroness’s mouth, but I think she was assuming that Parliament would listen to the will of the British people.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the overriding concern for many artists, musicians and performers is the possible loss of free movement both ways, and that the grass-roots co-operation and cultural exchange that are such major factors in the success of the arts might be much diminished as a result?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
It would of course be much diminished if people were not allowed to move in connection with the arts, but I do not think that is what the Government are trying to achieve. We want free movement of all people connected with the arts. We want to make that a priority of the negotiations with the EU.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that the creative industries employ hundreds of thousands of EU nationals here in the UK, in everything from basic grades in the hospitality sector to highly specialist choreographers, visual effects designers and so on. All those individuals now face huge uncertainty about their future here, which affects their work, family and relationships. Why will the Government not act now to end that uncertainty and guarantee their right to stay, rather than use them as pawns in some future negotiations over which they have no control and no say?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The fact that the Prime Minister made this one of her 12 negotiating objectives shows that we absolutely take it seriously. All we are asking for is that, when we guarantee rights for EU citizens living in this county, EU countries guarantee rights for UK citizens living abroad.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that one of the important ways in which the creative industries grow in this country is through the education establishments that provide skills, through both specialist training and the schools system? At the moment, we face the risk that the very best people from the EU and beyond will no longer want to come and train in this country because it will be too expensive and, frankly, less good. That will not help us or the rest of the world. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that when the Government come to make their decisions.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I think that is one of the things that will be considered by Sir Peter Bazalgette’s early sector review, which was announced in the industrial strategy Green Paper. We are going to have a specific focus on growing the talent pipeline.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of the shortage of skills in the creative, media and digital industries. The Government talked about upskilling people in this country. What are they planning to do in the transition period, or do we expect to lose large sectors of this industry to a much more flexible regime in Europe?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
We have talked extensively to the creative industries, and that is why it is the subject of one of the first early sector independent reviews, as I just mentioned. Another two round tables will occur shortly with the Secretary of State. We completely understand the point. We are spending more time and money on skills through teaching and education. We absolutely get it and are working hard to make sure that those skills stay in this country.
Education: Newly Qualified Teachers
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of figures showing that nearly one-third of newly qualified teachers leave the profession within five years of qualifying, what steps they are taking, including continuing professional development entitlement, to retain them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, the proportion of teachers leaving the profession within five years of qualifying has remained broadly stable since 1996, with around seven out of 10 teachers still employed in state-funded schools after that period. We are addressing key issues such as unnecessary workload and poor pupil behaviour, and we are investing around £75 million in the teaching and leadership innovation fund to support high-quality professional development for teachers and school leaders in areas of the country that need it most.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer but the Government’s policy and complacency on this are staggering. I accept that there will always be some attrition rate but the record on continuing professional development is towards the bottom of the 36 OECD countries. In the light of the failure to recruit sufficient teachers and head teachers, how do the Government intend to address their failing policies?
Lord Nash
I think the noble Baroness was referring mainly to CPD. Last July, we published an entirely new standard for teacher professional development to help schools understand more fully what was involved in good CPD. We spend a significant amount of money on subject enhancement courses. We continue with high-performing senior and middle leader courses. We are reforming the NPQs. We have a number of high-quality MAT CEO courses coming on stream provided by institutions such as Cranfield University and King’s College London. We also have the teaching and leadership innovation fund, to which I referred.
The Lord Bishop of Ely
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the working environment for teachers is so often determined by the quality and effectiveness of school leaders, and therefore it is essential to equip school leaders to ensure the flourishing of their staff as well as their pupils? Will he be pleased to note with me the launch this weekend of the Church’s Foundation for Educational Leadership to work in this field?
Lord Nash
I am delighted to agree with the right reverend Prelate. I know that the Church is taking the lead in this. It has engaged in a big way with the Future Leaders Trust’s executive educators course. I believe it is sending 100 of its leaders on this course. As I say, we have other courses coming on stream from the likes of the University of Salford and a combination of the IoE and Deloitte. It is very encouraging to see these high-quality providers coming into this space.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, Ofsted has required an unsustainable level of personalised feedback from teachers to students. Although this guidance has been retracted, it is still common practice in many schools. An excessive workload, including data tasks, is damaging the well-being of teachers. What consideration of teachers’ welfare is measured by Ofsted during inspections?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness makes an extremely point. I know that this issue concerns us all—and Ofsted. We are committed to reducing teachers’ workload. We conducted the workload challenge and we are following all the recommendations from that. Our larger multi-academy trusts are developing extensive support programmes for their teachers to take a lot of the workload off them so that they can focus on the most important thing: teaching in the classroom.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have a granddaughter who is just completing Teach First, a two-year course. Is the Minister aware that not only do the people benefit from doing these courses but the pupils benefit because they have very bright, interested people teaching them in those two years? It is understandable that they should have all opportunities open to them—teaching or anything else—at the end of that time. Does he agree?
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, last year’s report from the National Audit Office recommended that the DfE should focus more on retention, especially as some subjects, including Spanish and German, are increasingly being taught by non-specialists. Does the Minister agree that the DfE should start monitoring retention by subject so that efforts to dissuade teachers from leaving could be better targeted?
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests relating to my work at TES. Last Monday, the head of education for the OECD, Andreas Schleicher, was in London, at a meeting of more than 80 Education Ministers. He reminded them that this country is the world capital of rote learning—as opposed to the leading jurisdictions, such as Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong, which have far less rote learning because they focus on deeper thinking through mastery. Is not the retention problem in this country that bored teachers are having to fill bored pupils with too much shallow-level content and not enough deep thinking?
Lord Nash
I do not agree with the noble Lord, although I have lot of respect for his experience in this area. One thing we have done is improve the knowledge in the curriculum because cognitive science is absolutely clear that to develop skills such as critical thinking, you need knowledge to apply. We are also clear that some of our best groups are now developing much better teaching resources for teachers so that they do not have to spend time devising lesson plans and can spend much more time developing the kind of techniques that the noble Lord refers to.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it beggars belief that just last week the Treasury cancelled a promised £384 million payment to schools—this at a time when the DfE itself is cutting school budgets. The Minister has said that he will address the very real issue of workload but the initial teacher training figures for this Session show that only 89% of secondary school places were filled—just as the “pupil bulge” begins to impact at secondary level. Does the Minister have anything positive to say about levels of professional pay to ensure that teaching remains an attractive profession?
Lord Nash
We have a very strong economy, as this Government and the previous Government have created what has sometimes been referred to as a jobs miracle, and many areas are struggling to recruit. I am sure the noble Lord will be delighted to hear that this year we are 12% up on maths and science teachers and 15% up on physics teachers. The number of returners to the profession is also up by 20% on 2011.
Schools: Access to Defibrillators
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that all schools and public buildings are equipped with defibrillators.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, the Government know how important swift access to defibrillators can be in cases of cardiac arrest. That is why we are encouraging schools to purchase a defibrillator as part of their first-aid equipment, and we have negotiated a deal to offer defibrillators to schools at a reduced cost. Since the scheme was launched, more than 1,800 defibrillators have been purchased through this route. The Government also continue to provide funding to make defibrillators more widely available in communities across the country.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply and for his work during the coalition Government and this Government. The Minister will be aware that today, 82 people will experience a sudden cardiac arrest and only eight of them will survive. He will also be aware of the work of the Oliver King Foundation, which was set up after the tragic death of a 12 year-old boy in a swimming pool in Liverpool, and which has campaigned ceaselessly for this provision. Is the Minister prepared to meet the foundation to discuss further ways in which it can be taken forward?
Lord Nash
I am very much aware of the work of this marvellous foundation, which I know works tirelessly to place defibrillators and raise awareness of sudden cardiac arrest. When I met Mark King nearly three years ago, we had a good conversation about our deal to purchase defibrillators and I would be delighted to meet him again.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, should not all children be given training in the use of defibrillators, and should they not have wider knowledge of how to use this machinery and other first aid when they come out of school?
Lord Nash
We leave it to schools to decide precisely how much they teach their pupils about first aid. Some very good resources are available from the British Heart Foundation, the Red Cross and others. The defibrillator we provide comes with audio instructions which make it very easy to use, but of course, training for staff and others is important.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Do the Government recognise that it is essential to have emergency action first-aid training in primary and secondary schools, so that children can recognise cardiac arrest in another child, respond appropriately, call for help and know where a defibrillator is? Simply purchasing a defibrillator is inadequate.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that the use of defibrillators has saved a great many lives—provided, of course, that they are used in appropriate circumstances?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, given the recent cuts in school funding, how does the Minister expect schools to be able to afford defibrillators, unless of course they have a special grant to purchase one from the department, which they most certainly should?
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
Is the Minister aware that these machines are now so sophisticated that if any operator is about to use one inappropriately, it has been programmed to tell the operator to “push off”?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly paid tribute to the outstanding work of the Oliver King Foundation, and I acknowledge the work the Minister has done in meeting the foundation and taking the issue forward. Every year, 270 children die after suffering a sudden cardiac arrest at school, and 12 young people a week die from sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. There are laws that mandate smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, seatbelts and lifejackets to save lives, but there is no law mandating a simple piece of equipment that could restart the lives of 12 young people each week. Do the Government intend to give a fair wind to Maria Caulfield MP’s Defibrillators (Availability) Bill, which will have its Second Reading in another place next month, so as to bring to an end the shameful postcode lottery that is access to defibrillators?
Lord Nash
My Lords, the Department of Health believes that it is unnecessary to require defibrillators to be placed in all public buildings, and it is our policy that local ambulance trusts already have responsibility for the provision of defibrillators and are best placed to know what is needed in the local area. When I met Mark King and the other representatives of the Oliver King Foundation some years ago, they seemed satisfied with our arrangements, particularly the deal that I referred to, but we are very happy to work with them further and to discuss what more we can do to ensure that more schools install defibrillators and that we raise awareness of this very important issue.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Following the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, how can children in schools be shown the dangers of diabetes or epilepsy and made aware of the symptoms? Is it possible to encourage schools and education authorities to make sure that those who are able to instruct are allowed into classrooms?
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, this is yet another argument for strengthening personal, social, health and economic education. If children understand their own bodies and are taught well about them, they can respond more appropriately to the issues raised in this question, and more generally, when such health problems arise for them or others.
Business of the House
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, this may be a convenient point for me to inform the House about the proposed timetable for our consideration of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in the other place on Thursday last week. To save noble Lords scrabbling for their pens and paper at this point, a copy of this statement is now available in the Printed Paper Office.
On the assumption that the Bill arrives from the Commons on either Wednesday 8 February or Thursday 9 February, we will hold a Second Reading debate over two days on Monday 20 February and Tuesday 21 February. We will take Committee stage over two days the following week: Monday 27 February and Wednesday 1 March. The Bill will then have its Report and Third Reading on the following Tuesday, 7 March.
As well as this timetable, I should alert noble Lords about some practical points which we have agreed in the usual channels to assist noble Lords with an interest in the Bill. The speakers list for Second Reading has already been opened, and any noble Lord wishing to sign up can now do so in the normal way. Noble Lords wishing to table amendments for Committee stage will be able to do so from 10 am on Thursday 9 February, or the arrival of the Bill, if it is later on the same day. I am grateful to the House authorities and, in particular, to the Legislation Office for their typical flexibility in this matter. I am also grateful to the usual channels for their constructive dialogue over the scheduling of this urgent and important Bill. I hope noble Lords will agree that we have balanced the priority of this House considering this important Bill against the need to ensure that it has the time available to conduct proper scrutiny, which I am sure it will do.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise only briefly to thank the Government Chief Whip for the courtesy he extended to me and other colleagues in advising us early of his thoughts about the timetable and also for listening to our urgent representations to ensure that the House has the fullest opportunity to debate the Bill and consider amendments. I am particularly pleased that we probably have a bit longer than our colleagues in the Commons to look at the details. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
If this House were to disagree with the other place, when would the sessions of ping-pong take place?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is not for me to answer a hypothetical question. There will no doubt be opportunities for the exchange of communications between the two Houses in the event of a disagreement, but I am not prepared to give a direct answer to that particular question because it is hypothetical.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I thank the Government Chief Whip for his courtesy throughout these discussions and also for ensuring that we will have adequate time to see this legislation through the House with due scrutiny, rather than it being unduly speedy.
Homelessness Reduction Bill
Monday 30th January 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 View all Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 27 January 2017 - (27 Jan 2017)
Higher Education and Research Bill
Monday 30th January 2017
(7 years, 10 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-VII(a) Amendment for Committee, supplementary to the seventh marshalled list (PDF, 53KB) - (27 Jan 2017)
Lord Mendelsohn
“( ) at least one member of the OfS Board with at least observer status.”
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I start by declaring my personal interest as an investor in the UK research base and in some of the institutions that came out of science and other research councils. I am also an investor in the science base overseas.
Before we get into the meat of all the groups that we have—which I hope will go at some pace because we have a fair degree of agreement—it may be helpful if I just set out the view of these Benches on Part 3 of the Bill. According to the OECD, in tracking the change in government spending on R&D as a percentage of total government spending, between 2002 and 2015 there has been a very strong correlation with the investments that have been made that have created new and emerging tech pioneers, including across eastern Europe in Israel and in other places.
Korea, Germany and Japan have powered ahead with increases. Most countries have reduced, but of the major economies it appears that only France exceeded our almost 30% decline. In this context, the Government’s recent announcement of funding has had two major impacts. On the one hand, it has certainly helped to address the changes that we have witnessed over some time; there has now been some redress, and I hope we can get to the position where we were previously in short order. On the other hand, it has laid a comforting blanket over the measures in this part of the Bill and provided an emollient soothing of concerns about where research is going.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, in his introduction to this part of the Bill. He commented on the danger that some universities may ditch research, but there are also concerns, following the first part of the Bill, that some universities may look rather critically at their undergraduate provision and wonder whether that is all worth while.
I have added my name in support of Amendment 508C in this group, which was suggested by a number of higher education organisations, including MillionPlus. Holistic oversight of the higher education sector is essential for its continuing success; the Bill must have measures in it that will ensure that the two major bodies, UKRI and OfS, do not work in silos. The work of each organisation is, after all, complementary to the other. A joint committee and an annual report would help to achieve this and deliver a closer working relationship between the two organisations, which would benefit students, providers and employers and provide parliamentary oversight.
Universities thrive through close collaboration between teaching and research, and in the previous part of the Bill we have already proposed that UKRI’s research expertise should be brought to bear in co-operating with the OfS in awarding research degrees. The other areas identified in this amendment are also key to the health of the sector. These issues are too important not to have some specific measures in the Bill to ensure that such co-operation and oversight takes place.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I have an amendment in this group, Amendment 509, which suggests a somewhat more vigorous role for co-operation than the amendment that has just been referred to. It appears to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, who cannot be here today, that the Office for Students is dealing with matters concerning research, but the whole object of this part of the Bill is to set up UKRI as the great authority on research. It seems extraordinary that the Office for Students should deal with research questions—the awarding of research degrees and the integration and teaching of research students—without utilising the resources of UKRI.
The Bill has very remarkable provisions on joint working. I do not want to examine the detail just now, except to say that joint working is permitted only in respect of UKRI in very restricted circumstances, which have nothing to do with the general power to award research degrees or deal with research students. It is about a particular kind of funding. That suggests to me that the idea of joint working seems very restricted in the Bill, and it is a matter of extreme importance. As I tried to say in my speech on Second Reading, it is a fundamental unity in many of the great universities in this country that they both teach and do research.
Some of the best teachers, in my experience, are those who are at the very forefront of research, because they usually have an enthusiasm for the subject which on lecturing they can transmit to their pupils. I think that I have some experience of that myself. People who really are at the heart of research are the best possible teachers, so to divide up the organisation of the university between the Office for Students and UKRI goes to the very heart of a fundamental unity which has been part of the strength of many of the great British universities for many years.
Therefore, I propose, in conjunction with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, that the arrangement should be that, when research matters are an issue, the decision should be a joint one between UKRI and the Office for Students. The arrangements for having observers or members across the divide are no doubt worthy of consideration, but we need to go to the very heart of this matter to ensure that research matters are considered by people with expertise in research, chosen for that purpose as the leaders of the research establishment, if you would like to call it that, in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his opening address, which was helpful in setting the context for this debate. The noble Lord is right: the context is partly Brexit and partly that many overseas countries are spending a lot more per capita on research than we do. It is also the fact that the British Government have committed to spending an extra £2 billion a year on research by 2020.
The noble Lord also raised the important issue of the evaluation of UKRI—this will come up later in the debate. One of the first things that the UKRI board will do after it is appointed is put together a strategic plan, which will be discussed in more detail in this House and government circles.
I welcome the opportunity to debate further the issue of joint working between UKRI and the OfS, which the Government—and the three noble Lords who have contributed to the debate so far—recognise as crucial to the success of both organisations. It was recently announced that the Government will be investing an extra £2 billion a year in R&D by the end of this Parliament. This investment is a clear vote of confidence in the new structures created by UKRI. It will play a key role in delivering the industrial strategy and in the success of our future knowledge economy.
On the issue of joint working, I sincerely appreciate the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and others. However, an absolute requirement for UKRI and the OfS to work together in exercising their functions could well be counterproductive. For the areas where they should be working together, Clause 106 offers a mechanism for the Secretary of State to require the two organisations to do so, should they fail to co-operate of their own accord.
However, this is not the sole, nor the most important, means to drive joint working. There will be regular engagement and communication between the two government departments involved and both organisations at all levels of operation. Guidance will also be issued through a variety of means, including the Secretary of State’s annual grant letters. Furthermore, in addition to regular meetings between the Government and senior representatives from the OfS and UKRI, the Secretary of State will have the power, through the Bill, to send representatives to attend the board meetings of both organisations. In combination with the expectation that each organisation’s annual report will address areas where they work jointly, this will allow the Government to perform an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of co-operation between the two organisations, and to respond quickly if this is not satisfactory.
On Amendment 509, as my noble friend Lord Younger said previously, UKRI will work closely with the OfS on matters related to research degree-awarding powers. Likewise, UKRI will work with the OfS at all levels to ensure there is a coherent approach to the research talent pipeline. While I agree that they should certainly take a joined-up approach on these two matters, joint decisions would not always be effective or efficient. For example, each year thousands of research students in the UK are supported by research council funding. It would not be practical or useful for the OfS to be involved in these funding decisions, just as HEFCE is not involved now.
On Amendment 508C, I do not believe that legislation is the right place to specify the particular areas that UKRI and the OfS should co-operate on. It is likely that such areas will change in the future, and there must be a degree of discretion to accommodate this. I hope noble Lords will agree that guidance is a better, more flexible mechanism, and this is what the Government intend to use.
On Amendment 471A, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, echoed by a number of other noble Lords, made the case for a shared board member between UKRI and the OfS. I can reassure the House that the Government have given this matter significant thought. Following in-depth consideration, the Government have concluded that a shared board member would not best serve its purpose. The responsibility laid on this member would be to encourage and facilitate effective communication between both organisations. However, this will need to happen at all levels, and covering the breadth of their remits. I do not believe that it is possible for a single individual to fulfil this role effectively. Responsibility for joint working and effective communication will be shared by all members of the UKRI and OfS boards, and involve many officials spread throughout the organisations.
Joint working and effective communication will be of the utmost importance, and I hope that I have provided reassurance that this Bill will put in place the appropriate measures to ensure this. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister for that reply but wish to make a couple of points. Certainly, there is always a place for guidance. The question here is: what are we trying to achieve? There needs to be a level of not just mechanics but of culture where these organisations work together. My fear is that the Bill could have unintended consequences. When we met senior administrators of universities, they asked how the organisation and running of their operations would change and about the interface with the OfS and UKRI. For example, the once-a-year evaluation with HEFCE will now take place with two separate organisations. Will that change the way the leadership works or the way that institutions report? A series of potential unintended consequences could occur unless we specify and knit together the way in which these institutions will work. That is the nature of the problem we are talking about.
There are some very specific measures, such as the one raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which is one that could be reasonably accommodated. However, in general, we need to establish the right culture and circumstances to ensure that these two institutions do not just have a sense of working together but see themselves as partners in a very important endeavour.
Finally, as regards the shared board member that I proposed, we are not placing a colossal, herculean task on one individual. For institutions that are meant to work together, it is important to have someone who is able to tell the temperature or the context of the debate, and be able to ensure that at the very top level both institutions are aware of the atmospherics and the sense of how an issue is approached. That level of understanding is important. Whatever the mechanics at the bottom, and whatever arrangements we have in place, if there is a dissonance in understanding at the very top, that is a major consideration. I hope that the Minister will provide some more developed thoughts on that at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharkey
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, this amendment proposes a change to the wording of paragraph 2 of Schedule 9. Sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 2 concerns itself with the experience of those appointed as members of UKRI. The intent of the sub-paragraph is clear: the Government want to make sure that the members of UKRI have experience in the various areas listed in the sub-paragraph. These are all important areas. However, a very important area is missed, which we will come to in the next group of amendments.
I think no one would disagree with the areas of expertise proposed. If UKRI is to do its job properly, it is vital that its members have between them the experience set out in the Bill. The problem is one of drafting. The Bill states:
“The Secretary of State must, in appointing the members of UKRI, have regard to the desirability of the members (between them) having experience of”,
and the Bill goes on to list the areas of experience. This is a very weak formulation and, in reality, imposes no real condition on the Secretary of State. It requires him to,
“have regard to the desirability”,
of UKRI members having the experience listed, but this is not equivalent to saying that they must have it. In fact, it allows for the possibility that a Secretary of State may conclude, no matter how perversely, that it is not desirable for UKRI members to have the listed set of experiences. Or it allows him to conclude that it is desirable that they have only some of these experiences between them. In any case, even if the Secretary of State were to conclude that it was desirable for UKRI members to have some or all of the listed experience, the Bill as drafted does not compel him to do anything about it.
Given the importance of UKRI and what I take to be the intent of paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 9, it would be much better and clearer to impose a duty on the Secretary of State, which my Amendment 472 sets out to do. It would revise paragraph 2(5) so that it read: “The Secretary of State must, in appointing the members of UKRI, ensure that the members have (between them) significant direct experience of … research into science, technology, humanities and new ideas … the development and exploitation of science, technology, new ideas and advancements in humanities, and … industrial, commercial and financial matters and the practice of any profession”.
UKRI’s membership is far too important to be left to the rather vague drafting that imposes no necessary structure on it. If we are to have a provision in the Bill to regulate membership of UKRI, it should have some practical force. Amendment 472 does this. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I added my name to my noble friend Lord Fox’s Amendment 473, which is remarkably similar to the one my noble friend Lord Sharkey has just spoken to. I therefore agree with my noble friend Lord Sharkey.
The Earl of Selborne (Con)
My Lords, these amendments certainly seem uncontroversial in that, if you look at paragraphs 2(5)(a) to (c)—we will come to a proposal later that another sub-paragraph be added—it is clear that these are experiences and expertise that will be highly valuable.
This gives me an opportunity to point out that, under sub-paragraph (c), one of the categories is experience of,
“industrial, commercial and financial matters”—
this is for a member of the UKRI board. This will be particularly essential, because of course Innovate UK will be subsumed as one of the nine councils within UKRI. It will have to have access to a completely new field of expertise, which Innovate UK does not have at the moment, particularly the ability to leverage new financial funds. Otherwise, you cannot expect the great expansion that we would like to see of Innovate UK, if it is to play the critical role in bringing research councils and commercial research into a closer relationship and improving our rather abysmal productivity levels—which, indeed, can probably be improved only by a successful rollout of innovation.
There will be a clash of cultures if UKRI is heavily weighted, as it almost certainly will be, towards,
“research into science, technology, humanities and new ideas”.
There simply must be people who understand the concept of risk, which is a completely different concept to the one that research councils at the moment have. I therefore point out just how critical it will be to have such experience not just on the council of Innovate UK, where inevitably all this expertise must lie, but it must be well represented on the UKRI board. Otherwise, the idea of bedding the two together will be doomed to disaster.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, said on the last group of amendments—that culture, not mechanics, is critical in this. That is one of the reasons why we are not being as prescriptive in the Bill as some people would like. That also applies to these two amendments.
I appreciate and understand the intention of these amendments, which recognise the vital role of the board in UKRI’s success. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Selborne just said, it is vital that the interests of research are properly balanced by people with experience in industry who are, as he put it, used to taking risks in the commercial world. The board will have responsibility for leading on overall strategic direction and cross-cutting decision-making, as well as ensuring close working relationships with the OfS and other key partners.
As noble Lords may be aware, an advertisement for board members has recently been published. It specifically calls for individuals with appropriate experience of those areas listed in the Bill but it also specifies that they,
“should be able to reflect and express authoritatively the perspective and views of stakeholder communities”.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and others that we are seeking the highest calibre of candidates. It will be critical that we find the right mix of skills and experience from a diverse range of backgrounds across the UK and beyond, and it will be important to maintain as much flexibility as possible. The Bill has been carefully drafted, with the appropriate legal advice, to ensure that it will enable this on a continuing basis. I reassure noble Lords that the intent of the amendments is already reflected in this schedule, and on that basis I ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Sharkey
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, if the intent of the description in sub-paragraph (5) is as the Minister described, I do not quite understand why it is not more rigorously written into the Bill. I do not see what possible harm it can do, given that that is in any case the intent, but I do see the benefit of including it, as it then becomes plain that it is a duty on the Secretary of State. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 478 and 479 in the names of my noble friend Lord Sharkey and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and to Amendment 475, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has added his name. I also strongly support Amendments 486A and 491 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and my noble friend Lord Sharkey respectively.
Having not had an opportunity to speak at Second Reading as I was attending NERC’s council meeting in Lancaster, I should for the record declare my interests. I am currently a council member for the Natural Environment Research Council, chairman of the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care in Yorkshire and Humber, a member of the Court of Birmingham University, a council member of the Foundation for Science and Technology and a consultant for HEE. I am designing a new doctoral training centre for advanced nursing, and, until 2016, I was chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities—hence my interest in these amendments.
In proposing Amendment 474, I should say that I am strongly in favour of the Government’s direction of travel with regard to the establishment of UKRI. I believe that the current system certainly needs change. Frankly, the notion that royal charter status gives freedom and flexibility to the decision-making of the research councils is fanciful. In many cases, decisions are made not by the research councils but by BIS, as it was, and BEIS, as it now is, and more regularly by the Treasury. Even with the support of committed former Ministers such as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who is in his place, it has at times been painful for my research council to change the governance structure of our institutes to meet challenging demands or respond to commercial requirements. However, to realise the potential of UKRI and the new research councils to be one of the most innovative and exciting research organisations in the world requires a membership which is able to think and act entrepreneurially in the interests of science, the economy and society.
Few sectors have the pressure to succeed more than the charitable research sector, whose direct interface with its millions of contributors makes it a powerful ally in research but whose support is needed on a regular basis to stay in business. What is more, while much of discovery science requires taxpayers’ money, the charitable sector is a major net contributor. The Association of Medical Research Charities, which covers most of the investors in medical research, contributed an impressive £1.3 billion in 2013, the same amount in 2014 and, in 2015, £1.43 billion. Its contribution over the length of this Parliament will top £6.5 billion.
While the Wellcome Trust, CRUK and the British Heart Foundation are the principal contributors, this sector is unrivalled anywhere in the world in its contribution to medical research. That was emphasised in the Nurse review, when Sir Paul said:
“To facilitate such interactions and to ensure that proper knowledge and understanding of the entire UK research endeavour is maintained, I recommend particular care is paid to ensuring there are strong interactions between the charitable research sector and the Research Councils”.
These amendments simply attempt to put what Sir Paul said in his report into action. They try to deliver “strong interactions” exactly where they should be—not simply on the boards of the research councils but on the board of UKRI itself.
Amendment 474 seeks that experience of the charitable sector should be an equally desirable quantity as industrial, commercial or financial experience, so drawing from the rich experience of the community. Amendment 475 seeks as desirable experience of the,
“funding of research from the charitable sector”.
Given the enormous contributions made by this sector, that seems entirely appropriate. Amendment 478 goes one step further, stating that:
“The Secretary of State must”,
include one person with,
“relevant experience in the charitable research sector”.
Who knows, perhaps even Sir Mark Walport or Jeremy Farrar, the past and current chief executives of the Wellcome Trust, might be thought worthy, or perhaps Peter Gray, the joint managing partner of Wellcome investments, who successfully manages its £20 billion portfolio? Amendment 479 would insert,
“research involving the charitable sector”,
as relevant experience for contributing to UKRI. There will be no shortage of candidates to join UKRI, but the charitable research sector must not be ignored.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 475 and 491 in this group. I declare an interest as the current chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities. The first four amendments in this group, including Amendment 475, all deal with a rather striking omission from this Bill. As far as I can tell, there is no mention at all in the Bill of the contribution of the charitable sector to UK research and no provision made for the representation of the sector anywhere. My noble friend Lord Willis has made the case forcefully and clearly for rectifying that omission.
My direct experience is with medical research charities. As my noble friend Lord Willis has just pointed out, last year these charities spent over £1.4 billion on medical research, 93% of which was through UK universities. That was a greater amount than was spent by either the MRC or the NIHR. Medical charity funding is vital to our standing and success in medical research. The UK is a world leader in this area, in part because of charitable funding. Medical charities also provide an unrivalled point of contact with patients, and I know the Government will agree that the patient voice should be represented in discussions about research funding and direction.
I acknowledge that the Government are aware of the importance of the charity research sector and have taken important steps to rectify its omission from the Bill. For example, as the Minister said, they have listed “charity research experience” among the desiderata in the recently published recruitment ad for UKRI members. That is a good thing, but it is not a substitute for having charitable research in its proper place in the Bill. That is what Amendment 475 does. It adds a further category—
“funding of research from the charitable sector”—
to the list of experience that, between them, the members of UKRI must have.
Amendment 491 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Willis and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, deals with the research councils, rather than with UKRI. As things stand, research councils can enter into joint funding partnerships with other bodies, and they very frequently do this. For example, I believe that around 40% of current MRC expenditure on research is in such partnerships. I am sure the Minister will agree that such partnerships are not only to be encouraged but are a well-established and vital way of doing business for the research councils. Amendment 491 is, essentially, a probing amendment. Its purpose is to seek reassurance from the Government, on the record, that after UKRI is established, the subsidiary research councils will still be as free as they are now to form such partnerships. I raised this issue in a recent meeting with the chair of UKRI, Sir John Kingman. He kindly wrote to me after the meeting, saying, “Let me also be clear that whilst legal agreements will be with UKRI, I fully recognise the importance, for example, of MRC being able to continue the rich partnerships they enjoy with medical research charities. The individual councils of UKRI will of course have delegated autonomy and authority to agree these arrangements, within their areas of expertise”. Could the Minister specifically endorse Sir John’s view?
I would also be grateful if the Minister could clarify a few further points about partnerships. What changes will research councils and their partners experience in practice as a result of the new UKRI/research council structure? What different experiences would new partners experience? Under what circumstances would a research council’s plans for research partnerships need explicit approval from UKRI before they could be activated? Finally, on a more general level, what spending decisions, if any, would be reserved to UKRI?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I strongly support the thrust of these amendments, which would bring the charitable sector into an important position in UKRI. The contribution of charitable organisations to the research effort of this country has been extraordinary, and I have no doubt that a great deal of its success has flowed from that support. The idea that it should be missed out of the qualifications possible for the board of UKRI strikes me as extraordinary.
The feeling I get—I am sorry to get it—is that commercial and financial interests have taken over, which, in a sense, was the thrust of the amendment passed in the opening sittings of this Committee. The universities are not simply commercial or financial organisations, they have a much wider role. Whether or not one agrees with the full terms of that amendment is another matter, but so far as its thrust is concerned, that is what it was about. I have no doubt that I will be corrected if I have got that wrong. Why should the charitable sector be left out of the definition of those being sought for positions on the UKRI board?
Another problem which needs to be taken into account was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. There is a good deal of participation at the moment between charitable institutions and universities in the carrying out of research. The research councils generally are open to participation in research with charitable organisations. Surely it is important that that strong and so far successful connection should be continued in the new organisation.
I am not completely happy with the reply to my Amendment 509 and I shall move it formally when we come to it later on. At the moment, the idea that the Secretary of State will arrange all this through guidance and so on leaves out of account the responsibility of this Parliament for one of the most successful parts of our national effort. We have a responsibility to see that the arrangements are certainly in accordance with what is best for these institutions.
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, I support the thrust of these amendments and I am sure that everyone would wish to acknowledge the enormous contribution made by organisations such as the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK, to name two of the largest. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, gave us the figures of just how big their contribution is at £1.2 billion from those two alone, while the sector as a whole contributes something like £1.6 billion, which is an enormous sum.
UKRI is to be the very much desired champion of research and to attract not only the interest of the Treasury but of the business and wider community, and it must therefore be totally conversant with all aspects of our research portfolio. That will include not only the large charities to which I have just referred but the smaller ones working in different fields such as the environment and nutrition. Also, we should not be too hard on the business community. Let us remember that it spends more on research than academia, something like 70%. Where we are failing at the moment is in the application of research.
We know that our science base is absolutely excellent and business will always depend on it. It should be nurtured and if anything we must increase its funding, and we therefore warmly welcome the fact that £2 billion will have been secured by the end of this Parliament. But it will not all go to academia because it has to be spread around the entire research portfolio in the country, which means that Innovate UK will be able to help bring the science base and industry together in a more purposeful way to the advantage of jobs, regional employment and much else. If we are to have a successful knowledge economy, as the industrial strategy White Paper pointed out, it will be through the successful implementation of large parts of this Bill. So I welcome the reminder that the charitable sector is an extremely important component. I am sure that when the composition of the UKRI membership is undertaken, difficult task though that may be, the charitable sector will have to be represented.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, and spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who covered extensively the reason why it is necessary for the charity sector to be represented on the board of UKRI. My experience during my time serving on the Medical Research Council showed that collaborations between the three major medical research charities, the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation, made an enormous contribution. It would be rather odd if the medical research charities are not represented on a body whose job is going to be that of co-ordinating research in the entire sector across the United Kingdom. It is imperative that they should be represented, and I think that UKRI will gain from that. Again, I support the amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as the chief executive of a medical research charity and as chair of the National Cancer Research Institute. I support the thrust of the amendments in this group because I feel strongly that the contribution made by the charitable sector to medical research should not be thought of as being merely a business or entrepreneurial approach or that of the “charity sector”. It is a great source of innovation and partnership. The National Cancer Research Institute is an excellent example of that kind of partnership because it brings together not only all the leading funders of cancer research in the UK including the Department of Health, the devolved Administrations, industry representatives and the leading charities which have already been referred to such as the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK, but also patients. The institute brings patients into the partnership, and of course the research councils are active partners to the institute. So I would echo the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, about the ability of the research councils to continue to form these productive partnerships in the interests of patients.
It is absolutely essential that the expertise of the charity sector is integrated with UKRI at the highest level and that we enable the funding councils to continue to work in these successful partnerships as they have been doing so far.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I too support the amendments. I am afraid I did not speak in the Second Reading debate—I was detained unavoidably elsewhere—so I express my interest as having recently retired from 19 years as the scientific adviser of the Association of Medical Research Charities. I clearly outlived my usefulness there. I am also a member of boards of a number of medical research charities.
It seems incredible that the charity sector is not mentioned and represented in this group of activities. We know that Cancer Research UK funds the majority of research into cancer. The British Heart Foundation funds the majority of research into heart diseases. It has buildings and professors of cardiology. The Wolfson trust funds a large number of research buildings in universities around the UK. Arthritis Research UK funds the majority of research into arthritis. There is also the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, where a huge amount of work is going on, supported solely by the research charity sector.
Another element to this is that many of the charities are funded solely by raising funds from the public—from patients and their carers. In a way they represent that constituency. It is a vital sector, yet they are not represented in UKRI. We must correct that. I hope the noble Lord will take these amendments seriously.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, a number of points have been raised in this group of amendments. I hope when he replies my noble friend the Minister will not lose sight of the extremely pertinent questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, about the ability of research councils to form partnerships and to do so without having to seek permission.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very good, sharp little debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Given his previous background in your Lordships’ House as a spokesman on behalf of the Department of Health, presumably he will speak with a bit more direct experience than would otherwise be expected. It must be very clear that, whereas in the first two groups of amendments we were talking about the mechanics and he was able to guide us away from any suggestion that the Bill might be amended, he is now firmly up against the fact that the culture is sorted here, but the mechanics are not. We will have to look very hard at the points made, with some force, by all those who have spoken.
We have signed up to most of the amendments in this grouping and support the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Sharkey. They made it absolutely clear that what we are talking about is completely different from desirable changes. It is about ensuring that the huge success we have seen in the development of research—particularly medical research, but it applies to other research councils—is wired into the structure. We must have an assurance from the Minister that that will be the case.
What was not said, but is available for those who have read the briefings, is that the current situation is also of concern to charities. They feel that they have been slightly taken for granted. If there had not been the change proposed here for UKRI they would probably have come forward with suggestions that they should have been brought in at this stage, if they had not been before, to the Medical Research Council and others. That is not a new initiative; it has been a bit of sand in the oyster for some time. It would be appropriate to do as they suggest. We have already been reminded that the Nurse review made it clear that charities felt that, given,
“the overlap in their interests with the Research Councils, it is important that strong contacts are developed and maintained between the Councils and the charitable sector”.
Indeed, Sir Paul, in the final section of his report, says:
“To facilitate such interactions and to ensure that proper knowledge and understanding of the entire UK research endeavour is maintained, I recommend particular care is paid to ensuring there are strong interactions between the charitable research sector and the Research Councils”.
That is a coded phrase, but it is fairly clear that his intention would be that charities, which make so much of a difference to what we are doing and bringing in patients—they have been doing this for so long and have so much experience to offer—should be hard-wired into what we are about.
Our Amendment 486A is subsidiary in a sense because the primary purpose of these amendments is to make sure that charities are involved going forward. One amendment, which we support, suggests that the mechanics of this should be done by continuing the arrangement that those charities which currently fund jointly with research councils should be able to do so and there should be nothing in the Bill to prevent that. We suggest that, in looking at this, the Government might also look at the question of making sure that the UKRI has that capacity as well and there is no problem in any legal framework about it. We support these amendments.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, this has been a really good short debate. I think we are all in huge agreement about the importance of the charitable sector. I recognise the figures given today: over the lifetime of this Parliament some £6 billion—I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said—will go into research from charities. That is about £1.3 billion a year, which is huge. As the noble Lord said, it is bigger than the NIHR. We are all acutely aware that research money from charities is absolutely fundamental to our whole research effort in the UK. Even after the increase of £2 billion a year from the Government in 2020, which is a fantastic change, if you compare our research spending with other countries we are still low. We depend heavily on the charitable sector.
I share with all noble Lords the aspiration for UKRI to work harmoniously and productively with the charitable sector. That is why the recent advert for the UKRI board lists engaging with charities among members’ duties and welcomes applicants with experience of the charitable sector. UKRI board members will be recruited on the basis of experience and expertise from across the full range of interests of the UK’s research and innovation system. We are ensuring this happens through our current recruitment exercise. If noble Lords will find it agreeable, we will reflect on today’s debate and see whether we ought to stiffen up that language.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
We have heard a number of variations on the theme of reflection. Before the noble Lord finishes, could he be clearer about whether he will seriously take this away and look at it with a view to coming back on Report or will he just sit and reflect on it? Noble Lords would be very grateful to know that.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I was under the impression that the word “reflection” has a parliamentary connotation and means more than just idly reflecting in the Bishops’ Bar after this debate, instead implying a serious discussion with colleagues and parliamentary draftsmen. Sometimes you can make amendments that satisfy the spirit of everything that has been discussed but they have unintended consequences which can have the opposite effect. When I use “reflect” now or later in this debate, I do so with serious intent.
Turning to Amendments 486A and 491 on partnering, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, with a third of university research income coming from links with business and charities, their contribution towards the UK research endeavour is clearly very significant. The councils continue to have an important role, encouraging links with universities and through forming their own direct partnerships. UKRI will continue this and ensure public, charitable and private investments in research are aligned to achieve maximum overall benefit. Noble Lords will have noted that UKRI has two specific powers to allow joint working: with the devolved Administrations and with the OfS. This is not just because these are important interactions; there are specific legal reasons why additional powers are necessary, for instance to allow Research England to continue to work with the devolved Administrations jointly on current UK-wide priorities, including developing the next research excellence framework.
In all other instances, however, I can reassure noble Lords that UKRI will not need specific provision to be able to work jointly with other bodies. I can absolutely reassure noble Lords that those partnerships between UKRI or its councils and the charitable research sector, not to mention other research funders, will be in no way impeded by the Bill. I can confirm the statement made by the UKRI chair, Sir John Kingman, in this respect. In fact, the Bill places a duty on UKRI to be as efficient, effective and economic as possible. It is difficult to envisage instances where collaborating with an appropriate funder from the charitable sector or elsewhere would not achieve these aims.
In conclusion, while I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of this proposal and welcome the opportunity to recognise the important role of charity funders, no additions to the Bill are required to enable UKRI to work with other bodies or to ensure charity sector experience on the board. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sharkey
Perhaps I might press the Minister for a little more clarity about how these partnerships will take place in future. Will there be any additional requirements in forming these partnerships above those that currently exist? I also asked whether there were any circumstances in which such proposed partnerships would need explicit approval from UKRI. The more general question which relates to that is: what spending decisions, if any, would be reserved to UKRI?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I think I shall duck that to some extent and write to the noble Lord, if I may. Where money changes hands in these partnerships, there has always been some control from the Secretary of State. Is that not right for a new partnership or a joint venture? Rather than ad lib on this, I had better consult officials and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I think it is reasonably clear that the research councils will cease to exist as bodies. They will become committees of UKRI. Therefore, it will be impossible for them to form any kind of partnership. What will happen, I assume, is that UKRI will form partnerships, perhaps resembling the partnerships that were there before, but there will be no question of the research councils having any right to form partnerships of any sort whatever. UKRI will have to do all of that.
Lord Patel
Perhaps I might expand on that. I had always assumed that the research councils will be able to form partnerships. If what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, just said is true, the Minister needs to emphasise that because it changes the whole working relationship between the research councils and UKRI.
Baroness Neville-Jones
Could there not be a delegated authority to do this?
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
The Minister asked me to withdraw the amendment but I think we have started a whole new debate—this letter will be very interesting when it appears. I thank the Minister for his response, particularly for nuancing the whole issue of taking something back for Report for stiffening up, which is a very nice phrase and we look forward to this stiffening up on Report. I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. I assure him that he has not outlived his usefulness. There is a great deal of usefulness still to come.
This has been a hugely interesting debate. Two things have emerged from it. First, recognising the importance of the charitable sector for research, particularly medical research, by the councils themselves or indeed UKRI is something that has to be addressed. I hope the Minister will address it when it comes back on Report. Secondly, partnerships are now a fundamental issue. I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The understanding of most people in this Committee—other than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—was that the councils would be able, as they are now, to make their own arrangements for commercial and other partnerships, either with charities or bodies overseas. If that is not to be the case, a whole new bureaucracy has just emerged from this debate. But I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Patel
“the higher education sector of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
Lord Patel
My Lords, before I speak to the amendments listed under my name, I declare some interests. I am currently the chancellor of and a professor at the University of Dundee. Because of what I am about to say about my amendments, I make it clear that I am a graduate of the University of St Andrews—as is, I know, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie. I am also associated with higher educational institutes in England and have previously been associated with the Medical Research Council and other research charities. In speaking to my amendments, I express my gratitude to those who have added their names to them; I look forward to hearing from them. I also hope that somebody on the government Bench will join in the discussion, but we will see. In speaking to my Amendment 476, I will also speak to Amendments 482, 486, 501, 502, 504 and 507.
It would be wrong to assume that my amendments are special pleading for Scotland’s higher education institutions and their research arrangements. They are not; they are intended to fill a gap in the Bill, which does not recognise that while the business of UKRI and Innovate UK will be UK-wide, other areas of its business, such as Research England, do not pertain to Scotland. Some form of arrangement needs to be put in the Bill to make sure that this is dealt with. Scotland’s universities are a core part of the United Kingdom’s strength as a world force in research and innovation. Their contribution will be essential to the success of UKRI; likewise, UKRI needs to be set up in a way that fully supports the success of Scotland’s universities. The Bill as drafted does not do this.
My concerns are in common with those of other devolved jurisdictions and their universities. Importantly, the amendments are also supported on a cross-party basis by the Scottish Parliament. This was expressed in a letter written in December from the convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Education and Skills Committee to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and subsequently to the Speaker of your Lordships’ House. It should of course have been sent to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie. I hope this House will give appropriate weight to the views of the Scottish Parliament.
As the incoming chair of the UKRI, Sir John Kingman has offered personal assurances that it will operate for the benefit of the whole UK. Such assurances have also been given by the Minister of State for Universities and Science. Good as that is, the Government still need to go further and recognise in the Bill certain arrangements, which I will come to. My amendments are intended to achieve this. They would require UKRI to work in the interests of the whole UK and to give proper attention to the interests of the devolved jurisdictions. They would create an in my view necessary financial firewall between UKRI’s UK-wide functions and its England-only functions, in a way that is consistent with the Bill’s overall policy.
Amendment 476 would therefore require the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of appointing UKRI members with experience across the devolved jurisdictions. Of course, I welcome the Government’s Commons amendment requiring the Secretary of State, in appointing UKRI members, to have regard to the desirability of including at least one person with relevant experience in relation to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. I believe that the importance of UKRI to the devolved jurisdictions is such that the Secretary of State should have regard to the appointment of members with experience of all the devolved jurisdictions. The increasing divergence of policy between the UK Government and the various devolved jurisdictions makes it important that the people appointed to UKRI have diverse insights and experience across the constituent jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, to enable UKRI to maintain a cross-border research ecosystem that is responsive to that divergence.
Amendment 482 would apply the same principles as Amendment 476 in seeking the appointment of experts from across the UK to individual research councils. This is important so that priorities set at the research council level and individual research project decisions are informed by knowledge of the capacities that exist across the UK. This is no different from what happens now: the research councils take cognisance of institutions in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in their research.
Amendment 486 requires UKRI to exercise its functions for the benefit of each part of the United Kingdom. The research councils have a strong record of support for Scottish research, and on the basis of competitive excellence, Scottish universities win around 14% of funding. In 2014-15, some £260 million in research grants was won by Scottish higher education institutions. Scotland fares much less well, however, in the research councils’ decisions about where to locate national facilities. For instance, the Science and Technology Facilities Council’s only national centre in Scotland is the UK Astronomy Technology Centre in Edinburgh. Scotland receives only 6.8% of research councils’ investment in national facilities. So Scotland punches way above its weight in research grants, but not when it comes to the placing of research councils’ facilities.
There are risks that the Bill as introduced will create a UKRI which is responsive principally to a Secretary of State whose role’s principal focus is England. There are perceived risks arising from the integration of Research England into UKRI. That is the important point: UKRI has duties regarding research and also regarding Research England. UKRI will work most closely with institutions in England, the drawback being that it will naturally focus on institutions in England alone.
There is also the structural risk that UK-wide funding for research councils may be diverted into the England-only activities of Research England. Amendment 501 requires the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations before approving UKRI’s research and innovation strategy. Currently, the Bill does not ask that that be done. This amendment protects the integrity of the UK-wide research and innovation ecosystem by ensuring that the UK Government consult the devolved Administrations before deciding whether to approve or modify a research and innovation strategy proposed by UKRI. This is important because the devolved Administrations are major players in the research and innovation ecosystem, so any UK-wide strategy must be the subject of co-development with the devolved Administrations. For instance, in Scotland, research endeavour is supported by the Scottish Government in several areas to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds as part of the dual-support model.
On innovation, the devolved jurisdictions have their own economic policies and economic development agencies, and it is important that any innovation strategy developed by UKRI take full account of these policies. For these reasons, it is essential that a UKRI research and innovation strategy be considered by the devolved Administrations and that the UK Government have regard to their views before deciding whether to approve or modify such a proposed strategy. I believe that the Government need to make an explicit and binding commitment that the devolved Administrations will be consulted about UKRI’s research and innovation strategy.
Amendment 502 would create a strong mechanism to protect the separateness of UK-wide and England-only resources within UKRI. It would also ensure that Innovate UK has a separate budget that it can rely on for its own distinctive mission. A key value of the research councils as constituted is that they provide UK-wide research project funding, currently worth around £2.6 billion per year, to institutions across the UK simply on the basis of the excellence of their proposals. This is at the heart of what makes the UK a disproportionately successful nation in research, second only to the United States, which has far greater resources.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we have Amendment 477 in this group. As we have heard in great detail from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the Bill currently provides that in appointing members of UKRI, the Secretary of State must,
“have regard to the desirability of the members including at least one person with relevant experience in relation to at least one of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
We do not believe that this is good enough for UKRI to be properly representative of the whole of the UK. There should be a proper representative for each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and Amendment 477 would ensure that there will be at least one person with experience of Scotland, one person with experience of Wales and one person with experience of Northern Ireland. Although the issue of gender balance is not in the amendment, I am sure the Minister would want to reflect on that—that seems to be the word of the day—and assure us that consideration will also be given to ensuring that there is a proper gender balance.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments raise important issues. I would like to bring to them my own perspective as pro chancellor of Lancaster University, not speaking for the institution but talking about how it strikes me that these issues concern us, thinking about the strength of the university sector in the north of England.
The fundamental problem with UKRI—on the whole I support the idea of UKRI, I hasten to add—is that the research and innovation strategy concerns the whole of the UK but the HEFCE functions on research are purely for England and are to be exercised by Research England. My fear about a board that, like that of the BBC, had a governor for each of the nations would be that the interests of England in such a body might not be as strong as they should be, and, in particular, that Research England and its funding might over time be marginalised as a result of the emphasis on the UK.
The funding for Research England is absolutely crucial to institutions such as my own. We are a top research university but not part of the golden triangle. We are in the north of England and we are quite small. So, because of scale, the ability to land big grants from the research councils is limited. A lot of our research success comes from the ability to do well in the research assessment exercise and get QR funding. If there were any reduction in the total of QR funding, that would hurt universities such as my own quite considerably.
I am concerned about the tension—it is in the nature of the beast, really, and we have to find a way of resolving it—between Research England, its Englishness and the need for that to be protected on the one hand and, on the other, the need, which I fully support, for a coherent UK research and innovation strategy. I am not sure that the best way of achieving it is by having, as it were, a governor for each of the nations of the UK. Indeed, if that were the Government’s response to this question, I would come back and say, “Well, can we please have a north of England member of UKRI?”.
I know that this sounds sectional, but the truth is that one of the strategic objectives that the Government have just put forward, in the very good industrial strategy paper that Greg Clark has presented, is to try to prevent the ever-greater concentration of research funding within the golden triangle. If we are going to have an effective regional resurgence, which I think there is cross-party consensus that we need in this country, universities will be at the heart of it. We have to find a way of making sure that other parts of England, as well as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, have the opportunity to benefit from this welcome increase in research and innovation funding. To be frank, the risk with UKRI is that it will be dominated by the great and good of the science world, who will continue to channel most of the money into the golden triangle. I hope that the Government will take action to make sure that this is prevented.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, as somebody involved in the governance of Newcastle and Lancaster universities, I must say that in Lancaster we regard ourselves as extremely fortunate to have as pro chancellor my noble friend Lord Liddle. I was present at the meeting on Saturday when he made a terrific contribution and people listened with real sincerity to what he said.
There is a lot of importance in the point that the noble Lord just made about the north of England. If there is to be a regeneration in the north of England, the universities will be crucial to this. It is therefore essential that we ensure that we stop talking about regeneration in general terms and start doing concrete, specific, identifiable things to support that regeneration. This area is one that will obviously be crucial.
What attracted me to this particular amendment is that, as someone who is both a Scot and an Englishman—my mother and my brother were both at Scottish universities—I am very conscious of the high-powered and distinguished contribution that has been made by universities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It seems to me quite extraordinary that we should not as a matter of course say that that tradition and wealth of experience should be represented in the governing councils—as of right and as essential. That is very important.
If what I have been saying about regeneration in England is true, we are also these days discussing the need and importance of a greater sense of cohesive community in the devolved parts of the United Kingdom. We need to show that we are serious about this where it matters. The amendments help in that respect. It is very difficult to look at the Scottish universities, for example, and not see the whole story of the British industrial revolutions of the future. They have made profoundly important contributions, and continue to do so.
I do not know intimately, or so well, the story in Wales or Northern Ireland, except that I know that it is powerful. There is an area that is not central to our immediate considerations, but perhaps it should be. One of the things that I have always been struck by in Wales is that Aberystwyth was the first university in the United Kingdom to make the study of international relations and international affairs a recognised, serious degree and postgraduate subject. That has been terrifically important in our history.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will take it very seriously.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 502. Indeed, until I saw it I had been minded to submit a similar amendment myself. My desire is to ensure that Innovate UK receives appropriate funding and the amendment happens to fit that rather well.
I believe that while the distribution of money across the research councils should to a significant extent be determined by UKRI, the allocation to Innovate UK which, I remind noble Lords, is to benefit persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom and improving quality of life in the United Kingdom, as laid out in the Bill, should be determined by the Secretary of State, and then not interfered with. It is important to emphasise that this allocation cannot be altered by UKRI without the specific approval of Parliament, by means of a resolution of each House. The criteria used by Innovate UK to determine which projects to fund are of a completely different nature from those used by the research councils. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, mentioned this, and I shall mention it with other amendments; they are different from those used by the research councils to determine excellence in research in science, the arts and the humanities. While it is important that UKRI ensures that there are strong links between the research councils and Innovate UK, the allocation to Innovate UK should not be balanced against that to the research councils. It should be determined as a separate matter of national concern in consultation with industry and others by the Secretary of State.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I agree that consideration needs to be given to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, but one must not forget that there are regions of the United Kingdom south of the Scottish border which may require special attention.
I am hopeful that the reflection, which I am sure that we will have on these amendments, may result in good outcomes. Officials in the department have given me a copy of the application invitation to non-executive members of UKRI, which says:
“We welcome applicants with a range of experience from within the different nations of the UK, the charity sector, and with international experience”.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing it so well, because he covered all the nuances. We have one amendment in this group, Amendment 500A, which complements the points that he was making. It reflects the need to make sure that Research England, in its functions, which would be very narrowly focused on England—including, of course, the north of England—could have the capacity to consult other bodies that perform the same functions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That goes with the general grain of what is being discussed.
I have a fantasy that this area was probably dreamed up in the good old days before Brexit was on the horizon, in the confident assumption that there would be no separate Scotland—and certainly no separate Wales and Northern Ireland, if these issues are still in play, as I am sure they are. That reflects a relatively straightforward analysis of what had to be done to pay lip service to the need to ensure that those people not physically located in England were seen to have some influence on the levers that generated the money. But that is such a naive view of what is now such a complicated world that I wonder whether what is in the Bill is sufficient to take that trick. It is one area in which reflection will be required, as the noble and learned Lord hinted, because I do not think that what we have here will do.
I take it as axiomatic that UKRI is not a representative body and that there would be no advantage in making it so—so we are not talking about ensuring that the representation on it is in some way reflective of the various agencies and constituencies that need to be served by it. However, there are optical issues—it has to be seen to be representative in a way that would not have been the case two or three years ago. The idea that, as we heard from the letter of invitation, it has an acknowledgment of the need to recruit from people with obvious experience in an area will probably will not be sufficient. We are talking about the allocation of resources getting scarcer as we go forward, despite the Government’s reasonable largesse, in an environment where it would be very difficult for those bodies that have been funded to seek alternative matching funding. The institutions we are talking about are not all universities, because research is carried out outside the universities—although much less than in other European countries—in research institutes and similar places. Up until now these have been very reliant on external funding and, as we will hear in later amendments, they are feeling a cold wind coming. In this very complicated area we have to ensure that the funds will reach the institutions which are best able to provide the research services which UK plc is looking for and in a way that is seen to be fair.
We have not touched on the fairness issue. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, talked about the need for firewalls to make sure that the funding streams were not absorbed by other pressures and under other arrangements. That is probably a necessary but not sufficient condition and does not need to be in the Bill. However, the idea exists that England, because of the golden triangle effect, has a pre-eminent chance of getting all the funding and that, despite the way in which these funds will be allocated—through the Haldane principle and others—there will be enough room left for those who wish to make trouble about this in, say, Scotland or other places. This is a worry and it will need to be looked at very carefully before the Minister comes back. I do not have a solution to it, but we are not necessarily in the right place at the moment.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his speech at the beginning of this debate which helped identify some of the issues. First, I emphasise that UKRI, as a UK-wide body, has a built-in duty to work for the whole of the UK. The prospect of having people on the UKRI board from all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland does not fill one with much joy. Secondly, I make it clear that these reforms will not affect current funding access for institutions in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. In the other place, my honourable friend the Minister cited the Public Bill Committee evidence of the former vice-chancellor of the University of Dundee and current vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds, Sir Alan Langlands. I hope that noble Lords will permit me to echo that powerful evidence once more. Sir Alan said that,
“given the dynamics of devolution and the fact that essentially we are dealing with four different financial systems and four different policy frameworks, the one thing that has stuck together through all this has been the UK science and research community. The research councils, HEFCE and, indeed, BIS have played a hugely important part in that”.
As part of UKRI, the research councils and Innovate UK will continue to operate across the UK, funding projects through open competition on the basis of excellence, wherever it is found.
In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on capital, the devolved Governments have a capital allocation direct from the Treasury as part of their block grant. Decisions on whether to allocate any of these funds on research or innovation are entirely for them: this will not change. Capital allocated by research councils, as a result of competitive processes, wherever the researchers are based across the UK, will continue to be delivered through the UKRI councils: this will not change. The Secretary of State, when making capital allocations for research, most recently through the capital road map, also makes an allocation for HE institutions to support the sustainability consequences of their relative success in winning research council funding. This process will not change, including the requirement for the devolved Governments to match-fund any allocation by the Secretary of State to the devolved funding councils.
On Amendment 501, I share the noble Lord’s desire that UKRI’s strategy should work for the whole of the UK. The strategy will be the product of a consultation with research and innovation institutions and bodies from across the UK. I also assure noble Lords that this consultation will of course incorporate the views of the devolved Governments. However, I disagree that this should be achieved by requiring the Secretary of State to formally consult with the devolved Governments on reserved UK government policy, which would undermine the whole devolution settlement.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that we are putting in place extra protections for Research England. This reflects the provisions in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which places the same restriction on the Secretary of State in relation to HEFCE funding. The provision protects the academic freedom of institutions in respect of what is taught, what research is undertaken and who is employed. Likewise, I assure noble Lords that Research England will work closely with its devolved counterparts on matters of strategic interest—for example, on the research excellence framework. After discussions with the devolved Administrations, the Government passed a new clause in the other place, now Clause 107, to enable this joint working. Additionally, the current drafting of Clause 91 enables Research England to consult with its devolved equivalents, and we would fully expect it to do so whenever this was appropriate and valuable.
I turn to Amendment 502. UKRI must have flexibility to manage its funds to ensure best value for its resources and to meet our strategic aspirations for seamless administration of interdisciplinary research and joint research and innovation projects. Currently, allocations to funding bodies are discussed with the Treasury, which assesses any Barnett implications for the devolved Governments. This is not changed by the Bill. UKRI will also be bound by rules established for managing public money and a financial accountability and assurance framework which will be set up with the department. These arrangements do not constitute a reduction in current levels of parliamentary oversight. This amendment would place additional duties on Parliament to scrutinise even small variations in budgets that would be required in response to changes to project timelines or to support joint research and innovation projects, for example. This would not be a good use of Parliament’s time, and would hamper UKRI’s strategic agility by significantly slowing decision-making.
I urge noble Lords to consider the advice that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, offered at Second Reading:
“I urge UKRI not to be overly prescriptive about partitioning funds between its component parts. We need a system that allows partners to come together across STEM subjects, the humanities and social sciences, and with industry partners, to drive a research ecosystem which goes from blue-skies research to commercial application and impact”.—[Official Report, 6/12/16; col. 624.]
Noble Lords have raised concerns about Research England’s funding stream. I reassure them that the Secretary of State would not agree to UKRI viring money in such a way as to result in a net change in Research England’s stated budget over a full spending review period. This will be made clear in guidance to UKRI.
Amendment 504 would give an effective veto power to the devolved Governments on matters of reserved UK government policy. The power of direction is limited to financial matters and reflects existing powers. The Secretary of State may use it to deal swiftly with financial issues, and it is an essential safeguard to the over £6 billion of public money that UKRI will receive per annum. Since this power is intended to allow the Government to deal quickly with urgent financial matters, I further appeal to noble Lords that a restrictive and drawn-out process of consultation is not the right approach.
As regards Amendment 507, the Government will continue to work with the devolved Governments on research and innovation policy, as they do now. The Secretary of State, as a UK Minister, already has a duty to act in the best interests of the whole of the UK. The Government made an amendment in the other place to ensure that the Secretary of State, when appointing members to UKRI’s board, must have regard to the desirability of including at least one person with relevant experience in relation to at least one of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. No such duty is currently in place regarding existing bodies with UK-wide remits. This strikes the right balance between ensuring relevant experience of research and innovation systems across the UK on UKRI’s board and giving the Secretary of State the flexibility to appoint the best people for these important roles. Here I assure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that there will be a proper gender balance on the UKRI board. Further wording around the Secretary of State’s duties in this respect would damage this crucial flexibility. With these explanations and assurances I ask the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who supported my amendments, or at least discussed them. I will borrow the Minister’s words and say that I will reflect on his answers to see how much of a reassurance he has given. As for the application invitation that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was handed by the department, an invitation is not the same as a requirement, and it can be interpreted in different ways. None the less, I was interested to hear about that. On that basis, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(a) a non-executive chair,(b) the Chief Executive of the science and humanities Council or of Innovate UK, as appropriate, and(c) at least four and not more than eight other members (the “ordinary Council members”).”
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, in moving the amendment, which is also in the name of my noble friends Lord Krebs, Lord Mair and Lord Broers, I will speak also to Amendments 481A, 481B to 481D, 482A and 482B.
Bringing the research councils, Innovate UK and Research England together in one organisation, UKRI, opens the possibility of achieving some important benefits, in particular in the areas of: interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research, which have not always been well served by the current structure of the research councils, and where many researchers attest that some of the most exciting and potentially far-reaching current developments are happening today; in further improving the links between academia and business; and in making a stronger case to government about the importance of research and innovation to the future success of the UK, to secure the levels of funding that will keep the UK at the top of the league tables for our research while moving us up in terms of innovation—the kind of achievement we have seen today, with the recently announced funding, which we have all been celebrating—thereby ensuring that our outstanding research translates into profitable business for the UK. That is all positive, but for this to be successful the new UKRI organisation will need the existing councils to maintain their own strengths and their diversity while it works more effectively across the councils. The amendments in this group focus on ensuring that we preserve the good things about the councils today while adding the benefits UKRI can bring.
Amendment 479A relates to the structure of the individual councils. Today, they have distinguished independent chairs working with chief executives and relatively large councils made up of distinguished academics, businesspeople and other members. The independent chair is in line with Sir Adrian Cadbury’s advice on governance in his 1992 report: it avoids the concentration of power in one individual, while allowing the chief executive to both present to, and listen to, the high-quality debate at council meetings, without at the same time having to manage the meeting; it ensures that views which the chief executive may not agree with are well aired and discussed; that all relevant issues are included on the agenda; and that all council members are enabled to play their full part. Sir Adrian was looking at the problems of the finance sector but the general principles are valid here too. If these councils are to be engaged in important business, as we all intend they should be, these principles are of particular concern. The presence of an independent chair, rather than a research council head in the role as executive chair, will give the council roles higher perceived status than simply of an advisory board reporting directly to the chief executive. That will help to maintain the high quality of individuals who compete for appointment to these roles. It will also give the chief executive a critical friend and mentor and provide the council with a senior independent voice into the chief executive of UKRI if the council is concerned about the way things are going.
That is particularly important as regards the independent chair of Innovate UK. At Second Reading, many speakers from all sides of the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Jones, Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Garden and Lady Rock, and my noble friends Lord Mair and Lord Broers, emphasised the importance of maintaining the business focus of Innovate UK. This was captured in the royal charter of its predecessor, the Technology Strategy Board, which was a body established,
“for purposes connected with research into, and the development and exploitation of, science, technology and new ideas”,
for the benefit of,
“those engaging in business activities in Our United Kingdom”.
Amendment 481A would ensure that the independent chair of Innovate UK came from business, along with the majority of ordinary council members, in line with the earlier remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Amendments 481B to 481D would introduce consequential changes.
Amendment 482A would require UKRI to establish an executive committee including all the councils’ chief executives. This seems, in any case, very likely to be something that any new chief executive of UKRI would want to do, but putting it on the face of the Bill, giving it recognition as a key part of the governance and indeed the intelligence of UKRI, would reassure the community in relation to the ongoing importance of the individual research councils. It would also emphasise the important and influential roles of the heads of the new research councils. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I must remind the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 480 and 481 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 480 and 481, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharkey. Before doing so, I offer support to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, particularly for proposed new paragraph (a) in Amendment 479A, which would insert a requirement for a non-executive chair for each of the new research councils. I totally agree with the point she made. Having worked under two non-executive chairs at NERC, I know that the advantage they bring to the challenge facing the chief executive and to leading the board in terms of that challenge is of fundamental importance, and doing so would be difficult without it. I await the Minister’s response on why the Government have chosen the route of an executive rather than a non-executive chair. That is a huge departure from the way in which we have approached the research councils in the past.
I confess that I tabled Amendments 480 and 481 to try to tease out from the Minister why the councils should consist of between five and nine members rather than between nine and 13, eight and 14 or some other number. There does not seem to be a clear explanation as to why those numbers have been chosen. I admit that I generally prefer to have small boards—of one person, if possible—because they are likely to be far more effective, efficient and dynamic, but there is clearly an optimum size depending on the nature, the mission, the budget, the governance and the expectation of the organisation.
The Bill—wrongly, I think—assumes that each of the new research councils will be exactly the same, but they will not; they will have very different aspirations, albeit a general one in terms of promoting research. The current research councils have memberships ranging from 10 on the ESRC to 17 on the EPSRC, and that is entirely possible because the Science and Technology Act 1965 did not say anything about numbers. I suggest to the Minister that, rather than adopt an amendment of this sort, it may be better to remove this requirement altogether and to allow the newly formed research councils, with guidance from the Secretary of State—we are very keen on that—to decide what number of members would work well for each one.
Amendment 481, the second amendment in my name in this group, is perhaps more significant. The one thing I have learned while I have been on a council—sorry, I have learned a lot of things; that sounded awful. But one of the most important things I have learned is the value of the lay members who come along to challenge the executive, and indeed the council, in ways that I did not think were possible. That has been particularly important as our research council has tried to remove our research institutes into different governance arrangements. It has been hugely important to have people who actually understand the machinations of changing governance and financial structures and who are able to look at complex organisations working with each other. Therefore, Amendment 481 says that on every research council there should be a minimum number of lay members to allow that challenge. If you had a board of five, it would be very difficult to say what the minimum number should be. I accept that four is a purely arbitrary number, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 479A and 481A, to which I have added my name. I declare my interests in higher education and research as a professor of engineering at Cambridge University and as indicated in the register. I speak from my experience both as an active leader of university research, collaborating very closely with industry, and as a practising engineer in industry for almost 30 years before becoming an academic.
As has been said by my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge, and reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, the aim of these amendments is to maximise the effectiveness of the councils, including Innovate UK, under the proposed new UKRI structure. They should each retain independent non-executive chairs, as well as having a chief executive. This generally works very well for the research councils and Innovate UK as they currently operate—each has a chief executive and a non-executive chair, the latter usually from a business background. This is surely good governance, facilitating the successful operation of each council, as well as ensuring that the council can provide effective challenge to its chief executive. The non-executive chair can also play a key role as an independent senior voice for each council. The Bill proposes to remove the non-executive chair, which many of us believe would reduce the effectiveness of each council. The aim of these amendments is to restore that important role.
In the case of Innovate UK, it is especially important that the non-executive chair that we are proposing should be from a science-related business background. Industry will want to see this. Close engagement with industry is vital for Innovate UK’s effectiveness. Innovate UK will be able to operate most effectively with its unique business-facing focus if the majority of the ordinary council members are from a science or engineering-related business background. There is a real danger that industry will perceive the UKRI structure currently proposed in the Bill as a downgrading of Innovate UK in terms of industry engagement. Amendments 479A and 481A seek to avoid this.
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 479A and 481A. Perhaps I should declare a historical interest in Amendment 479A, because way back in the 1980s when there were six research councils, two of them had a non-executive chairman—the Medical Research Council, chaired by Lord Jellicoe, and what was then the Agricultural and Food Research Council, which I chaired and which has now been subsumed into the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. I think that both Lord Jellicoe and I were rather flattered when, as a result of the review of the research council model, it was decided that the other four should no longer be headed by what was called a HORC—a head of research council—but a non-executive chairman, whose job was to do what happens in good governance in any other organisation, where the chairman holds the chief executive to account and the two have very separate roles. That model has been well adopted by the research councils. I was on the Science and Technology Committee of this House at the time, when some of my colleagues looked with some suspicion at this proposal, but now it is clearly viewed with universal favour.
On Amendment 481A, it is inconceivable that Innovate UK should not continue to have a non-executive chairman, as it does at the moment. Innovate UK has got to be business related and facing business. Business needs to continue to have confidence that it is there to represent its interests and that it has not been taken over by academia and other interests. That will be a battle. As I said on an earlier amendment, the cultures will be very different. These two amendments precisely deal with this issue and like the noble Lord, Lord Mair, I support them both heartily.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I also support Amendments 479A, 480 and 481A to 481D. I remind the House of my already declared interest as a so-called lay member of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
The case for a non-executive chairman has been made extremely cogently by both the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and my noble friend Lord Selborne, and I hardly need repeat what they have said. Certainly, anyone who has read the corporate code knows that the case for non-executive chairmen is spelled out extremely clearly and cogently and that the notion of having an executive chairman is roundly condemned. The first works much better than the second and avoids conflicts of interest. The two functions are different and should be carried out by different people. Innovate UK will be much stronger in its performance if it is chaired by someone who has a science-related background but is also in the business community. It is crucial that we should make that link.
As to membership, having had personal experience of council membership—I am not the only person in the Chamber so to have done—the EPSRC has one of the bigger budgets and one of the bigger boards. I talked to the chief executive, who told me that there is a limit of 18. He said it operates customarily on about 15 or 16. I do not think the boards need to be quite as large if we have UKRI also on the scene. However, we should be practical about this. All of the members of the board of the council have full-time careers and are doing a full-time job—this is something extra that they do—and some are very pressed indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, is a good example of someone who does multifarious things. The thought that the board can operate with the subcommittees that it has, with the travel it engages in and the consultations that it has with the universities, and that it can do so without having both numbers and variety of people on the board—businessmen as well as people like myself and academics—is fanciful. It will weaken the total structure if one does not allow the councils to fulfil the remit that UKRI is meant to create and enable them to do.
It is important that the Government do not limit the size of the council to that which would make it difficult for it to be effective. I am not going to suggest a limit—if you want to put in a minimum, put it in—but, on the whole, the figure for the councils, certainly for the larger ones, should be in double figures.
Lord Broers
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 479A and 481A. I understand the concern about the appointment of non-executive chairs because that would introduce an additional level of management, which is clearly undesirable. I feel that the disadvantages of not having a non-executive chair are quite serious, and they have been put extremely well by my noble friends Lady Brown and Lord Mair and by the noble Lord, Lord Willis.
However, one case has not been mentioned. A non-executive chair becomes absolutely critical when the members of a board feel that the CEO is not performing adequately. In that instance, under the current arrangement, presumably it will have to be the UKRI CEO, who would not have watched that person performing as the members of his or her council would have done. Although the UKRI CEO could consult with the members, the UKRI CEO will not be nearly as familiar with the situation as they are. That is, as I say, quite serious.
A possible solution, but perhaps not a satisfactory one, would be to appoint a senior council member in a somewhat similar way to the senior non-executive directors who have become fashionable on corporate boards. That senior member could act as an adviser to the CEO and perhaps chair meetings where there were concerns that the CEO had a serious conflict of interest.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 480 and 481 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Willis. The Bill proposes what is really quite a radical reduction in the size of the existing research councils, which are to have between six and 10 members. The existing councils have between 10 and 17 members, with an average of 15, of whom four or five are lay members. It would be good to hear from the Minister an explanation of the rationale for this reduction in the size of the research councils. In particular, could he point to evidence that their current size has led to inefficiencies or undesirable outcomes? If that is not possible, can he say what the evidence base is for suggesting how a reduction in the membership would actually improve their performance?
I note here in passing that the membership of UKRI itself is proposed to be at least 12 and at most 15. Why is it desirable that the membership of the research councils should be smaller than that of UKRI itself? I am not arguing that it is not, but I would just like to hear the reason the Government think it is.
Of course, it is not just the numbers that matter but the experience and the mix of the members. The practice of having lay members is an important part of our current councils. As I say, each of them has four or five lay members, except for the STFC which has three or four, depending on whether you count people as lay or not. We know from experience in other fields, especially financial services, how important it is to avoid groupthink and to have outsiders challenge established or entrenched views. Can the Minister set out what approach UKRI will take to the appointment of lay members to the research councils? Is it the intention that the present balance should continue?
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 500B, 507ZB and 507B, but first I will echo the support of these Benches for the amendments proposed. It is important to understand that they share the objective of trying to maximise the effectiveness of UKRI and the councils themselves. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide reasonable assurances on these matters.
The case made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, about their size is very important. In all the evidence we have received there has been no suggestion that their size has been a disadvantage—quite the opposite: it has been a huge advantage. I will be interested to hear the justification for the reduction in number and whether there has been any assessment as to whether this diminishes capacity.
We strongly support the call for independent chairs. That case was extremely well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. Not only do they have a good record of governance thus far, but it has been good governance. The noble Lord, Lord Broers, made the essential point that in any circumstances where there is a board, corporate governance has got to the position it has because a board needs a chair to deal with the issues incumbent on dealing with a chief executive. To eliminate that would be a strongly mistaken act.
It is imperative that councils remain the prestigious and capable institutions that they are. Their role should not be usurped or superseded. They require independence and authority. They should not be the plaything of Ministers. There should be a real, consistent quality to the recruitment of staff, the board and lay people. The Minister should accept that this should be a measure of whether they are still meeting that test. In ensuring that the councils can work effectively, especially in a new framework, they cannot have the notion that they will change quickly and rapidly from their original brief, because that would unsettle these arrangements.
There is real power to the weight of the arguments presented. I hope that the Minister will reflect on them. It reminds me of Confucius’s saying that there are three methods by which we may learn wisdom. The first is by reflection, which is the noblest. The second is by imitation, which is the easiest—I am sure that noble Lords would be more than happy if the Government were to imitate the amendments. But the third is by experience, which is the bitterest. I hope that the Minister will consider that, in this area, the weight of the arguments would help the Government to learn how they would have to rectify this from bitter experience. It is important that governance is absolutely right.
In Amendment 507B we suggest, because there is no real stated role for councils in UKRI, that the executive committee should have a role in the innovation strategy. We think that it is important that those who work on it are specifically defined as having that role.
The amendment that stands out slightly is the one that proposes that the royal charters should remain in existence but not in force. The crucial question is whether this would work or whether leaving them would create its own problems. There are two reasons for keeping them. First, in the circumstances that we are unable to establish that this system will work better, or that the mechanisms will reach a critical mass of working better, it is important that there is some useful architecture to revert to in this area, where we cannot afford to get things wrong. Our current method has not been shown to have any poor performance; it is just that we believe that there are better ways. Secondly, the system should accord a level of prestige.
There is not really a case for removal. The discussions that many noble Lords have had with the Privy Council suggested that the royal charters do not necessarily need to be eliminated. There is an argument to say that having the safety net of keeping them in place would mean that some might use it to undermine the current arrangements. This is not a reasonable concern, although it would be if we did not have such a great degree of unanimity about the importance of trying to move on and reach a new stage.
Motivation is more likely. If this is properly managed by Ministers and incentivised, there would be a quicker desire to remove the stabilisers. There may even be the opportunity for it to be a more liberating mechanism to ensure that other inventive, creative mechanisms are used. It is important that we do not throw everything out and that we do not eliminate things that we do not have to.
Finally, I would be grateful to clarify one element in this section that has not been fully covered: the position of government departments’ areas of research. Some government departments have their own research facilities, such as the Department of Health, the Ministry of Defence, Defra and others. Some would say that these are fiefdoms but I would say that they are just areas that fall under the government departments. How will they relate to the new arrangements? Of course, as we look at the Nurse review, there was consideration that these should be considered under the ambit of Research Councils UK. Indeed, the section that included Innovate UK and HEFCE—not that I wish to reopen the discussion we had earlier—also said that consideration should be given to the place of other government departments’ research within Research Councils UK. I would be very interested to hear how the Government view their interrelationship with this new set up.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I agree that the issue of research council autonomy is of the utmost importance and will take this opportunity to restate the Government’s commitment to the Haldane principle so well described by my noble friend Lord Willetts. I think we will be coming back to the Haldane principle later this evening. We sought to embed it throughout Part 3 of the Bill.
These reforms have been developed following Sir Paul Nurse’s independent review of the research councils, which involved significant consultation with the sector. It would not be for the benefit of research and innovation, or the UK, were we to delay bringing these reforms forward while conducting another review. In implementing Sir Paul Nurse’s recommendations it will be necessary to make changes to current structures—for example to better enable inter-disciplinary research. I am confident that we can undertake these reforms to build on the existing success of our funding bodies.
I reassure noble Lords that the research councils will continue to be vital components of the research and innovation landscape, and through Clause 103 we are protecting their symbolic property and goodwill, including their name, insignia and branding. Furthermore, they will retain their discipline responsibility, operating within a structure that enables greater interdisciplinarity.
Key among Sir Paul Nurse’s recommendations is the need for a single accounting officer. To implement his vision, the governance structure of research councils needs to change and the role of the chief executive will evolve accordingly. Council executive chairs will be powerful positions focused on key strategic planning, performance management and decision-making within their disciplines. The role will have sufficient powers and should be able to attract extremely high-quality candidates. To ensure that this is the case, the role will combine those of the current council chair and chief executive.
I do not believe that a distinct, non-executive chair position is necessary within this new arrangement. Councils will have collective responsibility for strategic, scientific or innovation decisions in their disciplines and they will, for example, continue to take decisions on the prioritisation of their hypothecated budgets within their delegated limits. The UKRI chief executive and board, which of course has a non-executive chairman, as well as the executive committee, will be able to provide challenge and support to inform these decisions. Each executive chair will also be supported by their council. Introducing a non-executive chair and chief executive for each council into this line of accountability would risk confusing accountabilities within UKRI and undermine its key strategic role.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, referred to Confucius and the three ways of improvement: reflection, imitation and experience. All my experience—it is possibly bitter experience—is that confused lines of accountability lead to problems. To have chief executives of councils who are accountable to a non-executive chairman, with perhaps a dotted line there and a straight line to the chief executive at UKRI, would build accountability problems into the structure. I was interested by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Broers, of an equivalent to a senior independent director or SID, in a sense imitating corporate governance on the board of a council. That is worthy of further consideration. Perhaps the chair of UKRI might like to discuss that with council members once they have been appointed.
On the proposal for an executive committee, I fully agree that such a committee would provide a valuable forum within UKRI. Yet an executive committee would simply be a matter of good organisational design and governance, and it does not need to be in the Bill. However, noble Lords made an interesting case warranting—I regret to say—further reflection.
Following on from this, I will also address the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, that the executive chairs of councils should be consulted on the development of UKRI’s strategy. I agree wholeheartedly; it is a necessity to ensure the overall coherence of the UKRI strategy and each council’s strategic delivery plan. I fully expect the executive committee, on which all the executive chairs will sit, to play an integral role in this process.
On Amendment 480, we set an upper limit on the number of members on each council to facilitate their effective and efficient operation. I believe that this is appropriate, particularly given that the UKRI board will take on certain functions such as oversight of corporate functions. None the less, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and others made a compelling case to increase this limit. My noble friend Lady Neville-Jones suggested that there should be no limit at all. Again, that is something that we would like to reflect on.
On Amendment 481, regarding lay representation on councils, I appreciate the intent with which the noble Lord tabled this amendment and reassure him that this legislation does not preclude the councils from appointing lay members, as many currently do. I hope that I have provided some reassurance—
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
If you imagine having a chief executive who is also an academic, the rest of the council could then be appointed as academics. Where does the challenge come there to address the issues mentioned earlier about, for instance, the north, Scotland and other organisations?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I think the challenge comes from two places. First, the executive chairman would be on the executive committee of UKRI so it will be challenged there. Secondly, there will also be challenge—or support, where required—from the UKRI board. I hope that I have provided reassurance on the proposed governance structures and powers regarding the councils, and ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
I thank the Minister for his detailed response, and in particular for his commitment to the Haldane principle and his assurance about the continued importance of the individual research councils within the new organisation. I also thank the other noble Lords who spoke powerfully in this debate for their contributions in support of both my own and the other amendments.
I really believe that UKRI can be a success but achieving that will need strong, autonomous and diverse councils working together. Governance changes do not need to remove independent chairs. Just about every major company in the world these days operates a matrix structure where people manage dotted and solid-line accountabilities and responsibilities. Managing that is not beyond the very best of science, innovation and business in the UK. I hope there will be some further reflection as the Minister withdraws to his room of many mirrors. I am glad that he will at least consider the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Broers, of a senior independent director. I wonder if that senior independent director might still grow into an independent chair of a board.
I am delighted to hear that the Minister will also reflect on the size of councils, because they are diverse and will need to be of different sizes. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, the EPSRC distributes a lot of money across a very diverse collection of engineering, science and mathematics subject areas. It is very important that both the business and academic communities can be present on the council in order for it to make good decisions.
I am also delighted to hear that the Minister will reflect on whether an executive committee should be put in the Bill.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I did not say that I thought the executive committee should go in the Bill. I felt that it was not necessary for it to go in the Bill because it will just be part of normal, good operational governance.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
I beg the Minister’s pardon. I misheard him. I thought he said he would reflect on that further and I thought that might mean it would appear in the Bill. Since it is so necessary, I do not see any reason he would not put it in the Bill because it would provide so much assurance to the community about the importance of the research councils. Of course, we would expect such a committee to play a key role in strategy.
As I think the Minister can tell, I am looking forward to hearing more about potential government amendments in this area and I hope that they will not disappoint us. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I was very tempted to rise during the Minister’s previous comments, but that would have undermined the next part of my address, looking at this group. I hope he does not mind if I touch on some of the other issues very briefly. In moving Amendment 482BA, I will speak also to the other amendments in my name and address some of the issues raised in the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson.
The first point we want to make about the functions of UKRI is that because there is a very important and complex series of relationships with the councils, the function of UKRI needs to be defined and the right assurances given. There are already considerably confused lines of accountability in how this is established. You have only to look at the different functions that are laid out for UKRI to perform and for councils to perform and where the determination rests on those. The obvious issue is who is responsible for hiring and firing an executive chair. In Schedule 9 this is the Secretary of State, for any reason that they see fit—for example, if the chair misses certain meetings—or if they feel that there is no appropriate mechanism for that to be effectively dealt with.
The main issue comes down to: what is the separation of functions? UKRI is meant to be a strategic brain. It is meant to facilitate the overall development of cross-disciplinary funds and activity. It is also meant to be responsible for the back-office functions across the organisation, although when you try to determine what those back-office functions are, many of them are core to the operations but are outsourced rather than having one organisation dealing with them. Even within the administration of an organisation, there is a series of issues which will impinge upon the other functions that the councils will have to undertake. When you identify the areas that are delegated to the councils, they lend themselves not just to an independent chair but to understanding that the lines of accountability are pretty clear, based on the definitions of the different roles, as specified by the Government.
However, I have gone a bit too far; that was not really my purpose. I wanted to raise that point but I have gone way beyond what I intended. I am keen to get some sense of how the guidance on the functions that UKRI will retain will work, particularly with regard to the back-office functions—that area where the Government believe there are such considerable savings to be made. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me some sense of how that would work. I appreciate that the detailed guidance is not published yet but I would like some idea of how the Government came to the conclusion that there was such a great bonanza to be gained from merging those activities, and how that could be effectively managed.
Many of our amendments are probing in nature but they also look at some drafting issues. We have considerable concerns about inconsistencies and areas where we believe that the wording requires some degree of change. It is more than just occasions when we feel that a “may” should be a “must”, which very often is more than just a drafting issue. There are amendments which tidy up inconsistencies—for example, social sciences are mentioned in one place but missed out in another—which I hope the Minister will address and will understand are beneficial. Amendment 482BA suggests that UKRI should be able to delegate “some” of its functions, rather than “any”, as the Bill currently states, to ensure some degree of consistency. Many of the others are in the same vein.
Lord Judd
My Lords, Amendment 485C is in my name. I want to follow the theme developed by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn in the latter part of his remarks. This country needs strong industry and strong technology, which are vital to our future survival. The universities are indispensable in this respect. But the standing of our universities in the world, particularly universities with unrivalled reputations—I am proud to be involved in one, LSE—have those reputations because of the quality of their research. What has sometimes been most important in building up that reputation is exactly what my noble friend was talking about: the independence of that research. Within the vital indispensability of the applied research we do there is also a danger: that we lose perspective and the independent ability to judge what it all adds up to for the future well-being of our country.
It is no good trying to disguise the great concern that exists that in placing heavy emphasis on applied research and its vital needs, which we have debated this afternoon, the social sciences get weaker. It is absolutely indispensable for us to have firm guarantees from the Government that whatever arrangements are made, the social sciences will be guarded and protected, because within them are the people who see the consequences of developments as they take place. They see the wider social implications of what is happening. If we are talking about the well-being and viability of our society, their significance cannot be underrated. My amendment would simply add to this by saying that pure research matters, and we must emphasise it. In doing that, we must not become so mesmerised by the battle to survive in the immediate economic sense that we lose the perspective which is the guarantee of our future well-being as a nation.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, while I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn—the points he made were absolutely right and I hope the Minister will be able to address some of them—I would like to concentrate my remarks on Amendments 493, 494 and 495, which are in the names of my noble friend Lord Sharkey and I and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.
In outlining the desirable functions of the research councils, Clause 89 is far too narrowly defined, particularly subsection (4)(a). Amendment 493 recognises the importance of resilience as a fundamental requirement for the UKRI landscape. While a significant amount of the research funded by research councils should rightly contribute to growth—and most certainly does—a significant amount of research council investment directly benefits the economy by avoiding cost, rather than increasing income. Both these funding objectives are important and contribute to the UK’s resilience. Equally, by retaining a broad scientific capability across the research councils, the UK retains the ability to be resilient when under threat or pressure.
In his earlier remarks on his amendments the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, stressed the importance of the arts and social science in this respect but the impact of other areas of science is equally important. Successive Governments have cut back on our national capability to generate scientific advice, and thereby resilience, by privatising government laboratories such as the government chemist, which is within LGC, the National Physical Laboratory and the Forensic Science Service, which was the last to go into 2012. I am not making a negative comment about privatisation, but once the Government could no longer rely on them for advice, an element of national resilience went at the same time.
Particularly since the mid-1990s, right across government, departmental resource for in-house science research has dropped dramatically. Since 2010 it has virtually disappeared from some departments, so it is a rather academic exercise to say whether it should be included within UKRI or elsewhere, because most of it has gone. The only way the Government can get a great deal of that hard scientific advice is, yes, through their own advisory services, but from the research councils. The need for the research councils to maintain capacity to train a body of scientists to carry out research on all manner of possible events—from avian flu to erupting volcanoes, from BSE to the El Niño effect—and to support the efforts of organisations such as the Met Office, the Antarctic service, Rothamsted and the Diamond accelerator has never been greater. It is the research councils which generally develop the skills at PhD and postgraduate level to supply those cadres.
Amendment 494 follows in a similar vein. Clause 89(4)(b) clearly recognises that research councils should have regard to the desirability of “improving quality of life”. It would be odd if they did not want that, which is clearly an essential element of government. This amendment would go much further by adding that research councils should support research activity that seeks to improve quality of life by seeking to enhance,
“social inclusion and community cohesion”.
When I wrote these amendments, I did not know how appropriate they would become as the threats to social inclusion and community cohesion, both here and abroad, become even greater. Using scientific research to make our lives simply better, rather than wealthier, seems an objective well worth pursuing.
However, Amendment 495 is in many ways the most significant in this small group. I hope that when he responds, the Minister will either accept this in its entirety or, if not, find a suitable set of words to convey the same meaning. A huge, although I believe unintended, consequence of the Bill, along with the emergence of UKRI as a new accounting body for UK science, is that the future success of UK science will be judged by its economic rather than its societal impact. Each should have parity of esteem. The principal role of fundamental or discovery science is to improve the nation’s science and knowledge base. Everything else flows from that, which should be an objective in its own right. While research councils must guard against their presumed inability to draw to an end certain funding lines of inquiry, we should never be so risk-averse that we do not try to fund risky ventures but always try to fund winners. Some of the greatest fundamental science had absolutely no outcome at the time it was developed, yet has proved incredibly powerful across the world.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 493, 494 and 495, to which I have added my name. I must declare interests as chair of the advisory board of CEH, a trustee at Rothamsted and chair of the strategic advisory board of the Government’s Global Food Security programme. As has been explained, these amendments are designed to broaden the vision of the purposes of the research to take place under the councils within UKRI. It is wrong for the primary focus of Clause 89(4)(a) to be pinpointed solely on economic growth. To my mind, that is a throwback to the bad old days of the 1980s, when competing in the marketplace at all costs was considered the primary purpose of life. We soon realised that that was not sustainable. I say that as a past member of the Round Table on Sustainable Development, so I use “sustainable” in that context advisedly.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
I rise to speak to Amendments 490C and 490D, which are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Krebs, and Amendments 495A and 495B, which are tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Mair and Lord Broers. These amendments concern the roles and responsibilities of the science and humanities research councils.
Amendments 490C and 490D would ensure that the science and humanities research councils are able to exercise the functions of UKRI in their fields without any additional constraint from UKRI, which is important for the autonomy of the research councils. Clause 89(1) currently restricts them exercising those functions of UKRI in such fields of activity “as UKRI may determine”. Amendment 490D simply removes the implied additional level of control by leaving out “as UKRI may determine”. This helps to strengthen the autonomy of the research councils in the new UKRI structure which noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Finlay, Lord Patel, Lord Kakkar and Lord Rees, and the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, spoke so passionately about at Second Reading.
Amendment 495A echoes the concerns that we have just been hearing about and reflects the focus of a number of amendments in this group that I strongly support. The research councils in Clause 89 are very focused on contributing to economic growth and quality of life, both of which are clearly very important. However, as we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lord Cameron, basic or pure research, whatever you like to call it, whether in sciences or humanities, is the pursuit of new knowledge for its own sake and as a contribution to scholarship, knowledge and understanding more widely without a current economic purpose. That is critical for a healthy research base.
Amendment 495B, which is tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Mair and Lord Broers is to help ensure that Innovate UK’s business-facing function remains clear and distinct from those of the humanities research councils. In Clause 90, Innovate UK is specifically prohibited from doing the research councils’ role of carrying out research, which seems appropriate. This amendment would prevent the research councils duplicating Innovate UK’s functions so that those important functions remain clearly business-led.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I shall briefly speak to some of these amendments. I think the Government, perhaps through infelicitous drafting, are creating unnecessary anxieties, given the way that these clauses are currently formulated. I particularly welcome two of the amendments. First, Amendment 484AB tackles a rather peculiar feature of Clause 87, which may well be due to the way in which the parliamentary drafting developed. The phrase,
“research into science, technology, humanities and new ideas”,
is not the way in which the science and research community would list its activities. It is regrettable that social science is not specially identified in that list. We are all familiar with the term “arts and humanities”. Many of us are lay people, but we nevertheless understand the distinction between life sciences and physical sciences. This is a rather peculiar way of formulating it. I suspect a parliamentary draftsman said, “Well, social sciences are a science, so they must be covered by ‘science’. We don’t need to say ‘social sciences’ as well”. I suspect that that is the conversation that happened. We have ended up with something that, for people in this community, looks a rather peculiar list. It would be better if it were closer to the way in which we think of the range of research activities carried out in the UK.
Secondly, Clause 89(4) currently lists,
“contributing to economic growth … and … improving quality of life”.
Again, that seems to promote unnecessary anxieties. It has not been my experience that any science Minister from any political party represented in this Chamber believes that there is no value in pure research. I do not think that people sit around saying, “All we’re interested in is the immediate consequences for economic growth”. There is a great story about Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, receiving a brief advising her not to invest in the large hadron collider because it does not have any useful economic effect. She scribbled on the brief, “But it’s very interesting, isn’t it?”, and the public funding went ahead. That is the approach that I hope all of us take to science funding. I do not believe it will be any different under this new structure. However, it would tackle a concern if the Bill were explicit that, alongside the promotion of economic growth and the quality of life, we also believe in simply extending knowledge and research in this country.
There may be other areas. I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, about what can also be improved on. These are unnecessarily narrow formulations that do not adequately capture what the Government intend with the new structure. As we have heard the Minister’s willingness to reflect, I hope that this is an area where he reflects with particular energy and concentration.
Lord Broers
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said. I have my name on Amendment 495B, to which my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge has spoken so excellently. In trying to distinguish what Innovate UK and the research councils do, Clause 90 states:
“arrangements may not be made under this section for the exercise by Innovate UK of UKRI’s function mentioned in section 87(1)(a)”.
When you look at Section 87(1)(a), you will find it states:
“carry out research into science, technology, humanities and new ideas”.
Innovate UK spends 20% or 30% of its resource, I believe, on research that underpins the product programmes it is supporting, which is only appropriate. In Amendments 484A and 484B, which are in this group, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, suggests adding “basic, applied and strategic” before “research”, which really steps into Innovate UK’s territory. There is no specific amendment on this—I just point out to the Minister that there is concern about the wording. It is misleading if you take it just as it reads.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment 495, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Willis and to which I have added my name. It amends Clause 89(4). Clause 89 defines the fields of activity for each of the research councils. It goes on, in subsection (4), to say:
“Arrangements under this section must require the Council concerned, when exercising any function to which the arrangements relate, to have regard to the desirability of … contributing to economic growth in the United Kingdom, and … improving quality of life (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)”.
The requirements are a little vague, and the obligation to “have regard to the desirability of” is very weak. But the intent seems to me to be clear, and the two desiderata seem to need a third to achieve any kind of balance. The priority for any research council should surely be to increase the UK’s science and knowledge base. Contributing to economic growth and improving the quality of life are good and desirable objectives, as are the others that we have discussed this afternoon, but they must be subordinate to the objective of improving the science and knowledge base. That must come first.
My noble friend’s amendment adds improving this base to the list of have-regards, so that it is explicitly clear that this is a desirable function of research councils. We need this additional requirement, or something very much like it, to avoid distorting the priorities of research councils and to make clear, in the Bill, what their primary purpose is.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
This will probably be the shortest speech I have made, or ever will make, in the House of Lords. I have a registered interest as a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and would like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has indicated this afternoon. Given that the Minister is respected as someone who does not just listen and reflect but is actually prepared to give and to come back with solutions, I hope we will be able to reflect on the importance of avoiding doubt and—as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has said—misunderstandings simply by getting the wording right and reassuring people that we are approaching this with a comprehensive view for the well-being of our university research community and for the future well-being of the country.
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, for slightly different reasons, I also support the concept that social sciences should be in the Bill. One of the purposes of the formation of UKRI is to address the need to promote interdisciplinary research. So many of the exciting areas of science are interdisciplinary, but it has to be admitted that research councils have not always successfully collaborated, certainly not with other parts of the research portfolio. We have talked about the great contribution that charities, the departments and independent research institutes make, and one of the jobs of UKRI will be to have real knowledge about how all these can contribute together. One thing that is absolutely certain is that social sciences are the key to interdisciplinary research. It is almost impossible to think of a research programme that does not have some social science implication, so it would be enormously helpful just to remind us that when we are talking about interdisciplinary research, we should see social sciences as key to that.
I also very much agree with Amendment 494 in this group, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, touched on earlier, regarding how UKRI should be charged with responsibility for social inclusion and community cohesion. If it was just about economic benefit, we might as well continue to have the golden triangle and all that flows from that, and the lack of community cohesion. This is a game where UKRI, taking as it does an overall view, can make a real contribution to ensuring that the areas which are suffering at the moment from a lack of investment and poor productivity benefit from innovation.
At the risk of repeating what I said at Second Reading, although we congratulate ourselves, quite rightly, time and again on the quality of our science base, it does not necessarily work through in terms of productivity, which is below the EU average: 50% of United Kingdom cities are in the bottom 25% of European cities in terms of productivity. That is a goal on which we should always concentrate our minds. Innovation and the science base are both key to getting this right—this is about the long term—but the formation of UKRI, bringing together as it does the research councils and Innovate UK, must be seen to have these wider objectives.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, before I come to the amendments in my name in this group, I will just mention first that Clause 105, a definitions clause, says that “‘science’ includes social sciences”. So that is in the Bill, in a way. It may be that my noble friend Lord Willetts or the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, would like it to be more prominent, but it is certainly there already. Clause 105 is also the source of what I said about the councils. It says:
“’Council’ has the meaning given by section 86”.
Clause 86 is where “Councils” become “committees” of UKRI.
My amendments are inclined to emphasise the importance of basic science. I very much take what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others about developing knowledge for its own sake. That was a very clear statement of a very distinguished mathematician in my youth, GH Hardy of Cambridge. He was a theory of numbers man, which had no very obvious application to anything much at that particular moment, except that he brought the wonderful Indian mathematician Ramanujan to this country and made him prominent. GH Hardy’s view was that mathematics, particularly the theory of numbers, should be researched, investigated and developed for its own sake.
Amendments 484A and 484B relate to Clause 87, which defines UK Research and Innovation’s functions. I am glad that I have already had support from two speakers for these amendments before I had the opportunity to mention them myself. Clause 87(1)(a), which is mentioned in the provision referred to by the noble Lord, says:
“UKRI may … carry out research into science, technology, humanities”—
which includes the arts by definition, although I am not sure what else it includes separately from the arts other than perhaps languages—“and new ideas”. UKRI has the important function of promoting research into new ideas, which is distinct, apparently, from research in the earlier listed subjects of science, technology or the humanities. I am not absolutely clear what that adds to the whole function, but no doubt the Minister will be able to explain it to me with his usual clarity.
I want to emphasise the need for basic science to be remembered, which is why I have sought to add to UKRI’s functions as listed at subsection (1)(a) research into “basic, applied and strategic” science. That seems to me to be essential if UKRI is to carry out the kind of function that we expect from it of enlarging knowledge for its own sake as well as for the benefits that it may have to others. Enlarging knowledge will benefit people, even if you do it for its own sake. It is also important for the development of science itself that too much emphasis is not placed on applications, as the theory and development of the basic structure of the science is extremely important.
I noticed in today’s paper a comment on the research into dementia. A particular medicine or drug had been developed that was thought to be helpful in relation to dementia but, unfortunately, it did not work. It must have taken a little time to find that out, but it did not work. The comment was that the research was too narrowly focused on an aspect of the disease. This is a very topical example of what I am trying to say.
I hope an amendment such as the one I have proposed will be incorporated. I do not necessarily say that mine has the best ever wording—it could be improved, I am sure—but it is the best that I have so far been able to offer. No doubt the Minister’s reflections may improve it further.
Lord Oxburgh (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak today. I declare my membership of the Foundation for Science and Technology, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and my honorary professorship of the University of Cambridge. The comments I wish to make cut across many of the amendments that we have discussed, both now and earlier.
Reading the Bill as it stands, you could believe that from a research point of view the UK was an island sufficient unto itself. There is almost no reference here to any international work. I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made a passing reference to that in one of his interventions in today’s debate, but it is crucial. There are whole areas of science in this country where we would not have a presence without successful international collaboration. A very good example is marine work. Marine research ships are very expensive to run, and frequently they have been run in collaboration with other countries. One could also mention big science facilities.
My concern with the Bill as it stands is that paragraph 16(3) of Schedule 9, which deals with supplementary powers, says:
“UKRI may not do any of the following except with the consent of the Secretary of State: … enter into joint ventures”.
Does this mean that if one of our research councils or other parts of UKRI wish to set up a collaboration with one of their opposite numbers, be it on the other side of the Atlantic, in mainland Europe or anywhere else, they have to go to the Secretary of State before they can do so? I hope that that is not the case, and that the importance of international work can be a little more clearly expressed in the Bill before we finally approve it.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chancellor of the University of Birmingham and chair of the advisory board of the University of Cambridge Judge Business School. On that note, if I may boast, today the FT global rankings for the MBA came out and the Judge Business School rose from number 10 to number five in the world. This is a business school that has been around for only 26 years, compared with the Harvard Business School, which is over 100 years old. One of the reasons for that success is the excellence of research at a university like Cambridge.
The problem that is overlooked completely by the Bill is that we in this country carry out excellent research despite underfunding it compared with competitor countries. We spend 1.7% of GDP, compared with 2.8% in the USA and Germany. Our research councils, which are world-class and respected around the world, have been doing a great job as autonomous units. One of the main worries about the Bill in universities and research councils is the removal of the autonomy of these institutions. They function well thanks to that autonomy.
I support Amendment 490D from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which would leave out the words “as UKRI may determine”. Under Clause 89, headed, “Exercise of functions by science and humanities Councils”, UKRI would have the right to determine what they do. This is absolutely wrong. Whatever the reasons the Government have given for having a layer like UKRI, many people—the noble Lord, Lord Rees, has argued well against it—have said it is completely not necessary and could be damaging to the whole sector. The analogy made was setting up a body to represent all the world-class museums in London, which are the best museums in the world. That would be completely unnecessary as they are doing a great job on their own. We have to ensure that the autonomy of the research councils is protected, whatever happens, even with the existence of this body called UKRI.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay kindly referred to my usual clarity. I fear, in so far as I ever had any clarity, it is rapidly dissipating as time goes on. Still, I will try to respond to many of the issues that have been raised in this very interesting debate.
I shall start with the governance relationship between research councils and UKRI. I will resist the temptation to address the broader issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, but I recognise that the UK still underfunds research compared with many of our competitor countries. Nevertheless, the £2 billion increase coming into UK research in 2020 is a significant change. One has to ask oneself whether that would have come about without UKRI being about to become our key co-ordinating research body.
Through Clause 89 the research councils retain their right to make decisions within their respective discipline areas. I assure noble Lords that UKRI must arrange for the seven research councils to carry out their roles and functions within their areas of activity. UKRI cannot prevent any of the research councils carrying out their functions in their respective areas.
I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay for pointing out that references to “humanities” are in fact defined in the Bill, in Clause 105. It makes it very clear that they are defined as including the arts, and references to “sciences” include social sciences.
In discussions in the other place, the Government were clear that funding allocations would be made to each of the councils by the Government in the UKRI grant letter. Delegated authority limits will be set for the research councils to operate independently but additional approvals may be needed, including from the UKRI board, in line with current government best practice.
It is an important part of these reforms that UKRI will empower the councils to work together. The amendments would not prevent UKRI operating in this manner, but would obscure our intent for UKRI to take strategic decisions and facilitate development of the overall direction.
To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, this reform is about far more than efficiency savings or a reduction in bureaucracy. We must deliver these where we have the opportunity to, but not at the expense of the strengths of the current system. However, the removal of the current duplication of back-office functions across multiple bodies will ultimately drive efficiency savings and reduce the administrative burdens placed on research and innovation leaders, freeing them up to focus on strategic decision-making. It will also help to deliver simplified systems and processes for funding recipients.
On Amendments 485C and 195A, I welcome the opportunity to assure noble Lords that UKRI’s core purpose is to seek to improve the UK’s science and knowledge base, and it will seek to improve knowledge and understanding through research. Advancing knowledge is a critical role of the whole of the UK research base, including UKRI and the research councils, and we will look carefully at this matter before we return to the House on Report. I share the aspiration of the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Cameron, for UKRI to support research programmes that can help to shape government policy, ensure resilience and respond to key challenges facing the UK.
On social inclusion, community cohesion and social and cultural well-being, I am certain that the current duty on councils to consider the desirability of improving quality of life is sufficient to cover these.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the noble Lord for that reply. This has been an excellent debate, with some outstanding contributions from across the Committee. In particular, given my detour into some of the issues about matrices and responsibility, I thank those noble Lords who made a better case for my amendments than I did.
I am grateful for the support, particularly around the social sciences. I am keen to observe that the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about definitions is absolutely right and true. However, there is the inconsistency when referring to different places. For example, the Natural Environment Research Council means environmental and related sciences, and at that point the definition is inoperable. Therefore, the issue of consistency is important and speaks to the outstanding contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about the language used, and the unnecessary anxiety that some of the drafting has caused across the Committee.
There is great merit to many of the amendments and I hope that the Minister will reflect on these. It reminds me of John Locke’s observation that,
“education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him”.
I hope the Minister realises that he is in good company here, and that he will reflect wisely on these amendments and bring something forward on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Recent Changes to US Immigration Policy
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement on the implications for this country of recent changes in US immigration policy.
In view of the understandable concern and uncertainty, it may be helpful if I describe for the House the consequences for British citizens and dual nationals of the executive order issued last Friday. Let me begin by saying that this is not UK policy—this is not our policy—or a measure that the UK would ever introduce. I have already made clear our anxiety about measures that discriminate on grounds of nationality in ways that are divisive and wrong.
On 27 January, President Trump issued an executive order banning the citizens of seven countries from entering the US for a period of 90 days. Those countries are Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Sudan. The order makes clear that no US visas will be issued to citizens of those states, and anyone who already has a visa will be denied entry.
The immigration policy of the United States is of course a matter for the Government of the United States, but on the face of it this executive order had consequences for some British citizens. For that reason, I spoke yesterday to the US Administration, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has today spoken to General Kelly, the Secretary of Homeland Security. I am able to provide the following clarification.
The general principle is that all British passport holders remain welcome to travel to the US. We have received assurances from the US embassy that this executive order will make no difference to any British passport holders, irrespective of their country of birth or whether they hold another passport. In any case, the executive order is a temporary measure intended to last for 90 days until the US system has added new security precautions. This is of course a highly controversial policy that has caused unease, and I repeat that this is not an approach that this Government would take.
Let me conclude by reminding the House of the vital importance of this country’s alliance with the United States. On defence, intelligence and security, we work together more closely than any other two countries in the world. That relationship is overwhelmingly to our benefit. The Prime Minister’s highly successful visit to the White House last week underlined the strength of that transatlantic alliance. Where we have differences with the US, we shall not quail from expressing them, as I have done so today, and as the Prime Minister did in Philadelphia last week. But I will also repeat our resolve to work alongside the Trump Administration in the mutual interest of both countries. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s visit took place last week in the context of the biggest global refugee crisis that we have seen since the Second World War, with huge implications for peace and security throughout the world. The 1951 refugee convention and 1967 refugee protocol oblige all signatories to accept refugees from war, without regard to their race, religion or country of origin. This order is in clear breach of that international obligation.
As Mr. Trump signed this executive order barely an hour after he had finished his talks with the Prime Minister on Friday, can the Minister explain why the Prime Minister, unlike the German Chancellor, felt unable on Saturday to remind the President of these responsibilities and condemn this action and executive order? Can the Minister also tell us whether the Government have made any assessment of the impact this order may have on the United Kingdom’s ability to uphold its obligations under these international treaties?
While the reassurance on British citizens is extremely welcome—I am pleased the Government were able to sort that out over the weekend—will the Minister confirm that those citizens of the seven designated countries who do not hold British passports but are legally resident here in the UK will be barred from travelling to or through the United States? Will she also reassure the House that, during the 90-day period of this order, which, as she said in the Statement, is a temporary measure, the Government will take every step and opportunity at all levels of our special relationship to raise with the US Administration that this is a divisive and dangerous policy that will impact on peace and security throughout the world?
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, and I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary has described the new US immigration policy as “divisive and wrong”—it surely is.
Can I point out that, as originally announced, this policy would have swept up the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, who might have had the uncertain privilege of risking jail if she returned to her home country of Iran, yet being expelled if she tried to enter the so-called liberal democracy of the USA? As someone who benefited from that liberal democracy by being able to pursue all my postgraduate study in the United States, I find this development almost unbelievable. It was an astonishing action to take in relation to refugees on Holocaust Memorial Day.
What assessment has been made of the potential backlash from countries identified and from Muslim communities worldwide, and what impact might this policy have on British citizens, including aid workers, army personnel and diplomatic staff living and working in these countries? Do the Government agree that the policy potentially promotes, rather than limits, instability and insecurity? Might we even have seen evidence of that divisiveness in the utterly inexcusable act of terrorism that we have just seen in Canada, whose leader was wonderfully forthright in rejecting his neighbour’s policy?
Does the Minister agree that working together with our European allies is, right now, even more important than it ever was, in the light of the unpredictable and reactionary nature of the current US Administration? What are we doing in pivoting away from Europe towards the US? Does she agree that, even though President Trump’s apparent commitment to NATO may be welcome, we cannot rely on what he seemed to agree? Does she agree that, although trade with the US is important to us, it is dwarfed by that with the EU as a whole, and that expanding it is less a matter of tariffs and more a matter of standards and regulation, and that none of us would wish to lower our standards in agricultural products to enable an increase in that trade—an increase which experts estimate may amount to only 2%?
In conclusion, will the Minister strongly reaffirm that, even in our exposed post-referendum position, the UK Government will not in future hesitate before we make it plain that we will not stand by when there are such assaults on the liberal international order—rather, we will challenge both the ideology and actions that are illustrated by the orders emerging from the Trump Administration in their very first week?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I believe that both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary have made it very clear that they consider that the executive order was wrong and divisive. I think that that covers much of what the noble Baroness has referred to there.
With regard to its impact on people around the world, time will tell, but of course the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and all its personnel around the world stand ready to assist anybody who feels that they may be unsettled or be in any difficulty as a result of any opinions expressed in those countries. The noble Baroness raises an important point on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked in particular about our view on refugees. For us, the implications are quite simple: we do not resile from any of our undertakings to international law and international humanitarian law. The UNHCR and the IOM remain strong partners for the UK in delivering our humanitarian and development response to the refugee crisis. Of course we will need to wait and understand any impact of US decisions on their operations, but we will look very carefully, and our commitment to them remains.
I was asked why the Prime Minister did not immediately condemn the executive order on Saturday. That was for two reasons, but the prime one was that on Saturday we were waiting to have clarification about the implications for the range of those who carry British passports, and to think before we acted. Also, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, with regard to international relations it is the Foreign Secretary who takes action and with regard to issues of immigration it is the Home Secretary who takes action, and therefore they pursued these matters at the earliest opportunity.
I was asked whether an assessment has been made in the UK about upholding our obligations. As I say, the assessment is that we maintain our obligations on refugees.
I was also asked about those who are legally resident here and whether their ability to travel to the United States has been compromised. The US embassy web page has been updated to clarify that matter, and it says that, additionally, those who have indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and hold nationality of one of these countries are eligible to apply for US visas. So they are eligible to apply for visas.
Clearly, this is a matter where we should work with all our allies, both within the European Union and worldwide, to ensure that all of us understand our duties in international law—and, beyond international law, humanitarian law and our simple duty as humanitarians in these issues.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
My Lords, as an example of the special relationship in practice, could the Minister—with whom I sympathise—inform the House when we were first told?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, clearly there were private conversations happening with the Prime Minister on Friday, and there was a public press conference, and I am not going to add to those. But it certainly became clear, when the executive order was published, what the text of that was. As I am sure my noble friend will be aware, the position has been, from the point of view of the United States at least, rather evolving and, let us say, confusing.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Prime Minister’s visit was a success. Does she realise why there are many in Britain who regard her scramble to be the first through the doors of Mr Trump’s house as both unseemly and ill judged? Did she not realise when she went there that Mr Trump has specifically made it clear that he wishes to see the break-up of the European Union? Does she not realise that to be the first through that door in the way she did is bound to ensure that she is treated with greater suspicion when she comes to bargain on our behalf with the members of the European Union? For a little PR and a distant promise of some trade deal that we do not know any details about, she has damaged her ability to get a decent deal for this country in the thing that really matters.
As for the invitation for a state visit, I make this prediction. I do not know whether it will embarrass Her Majesty—she will do her duty, no doubt, as she always does—but I promise that this will end up embarrassing the Government and, in the face of the huge public demonstrations against him, end up embarrassing the highly volatile, thin-skinned US President. I cannot see how that helps anybody.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I have never known my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to scramble or be undignified, and I have known her for some long while. She demonstrated her dignity and statesmanship when she was in the United States, and she will continue to do so as she fights for British interests. It is the case that the United States, as the noble Lord is well aware, is our oldest and strongest ally—historically, as I was always reminded by one noble Lord, Portugal beats them in time, of course—and certainly it is our strongest ally. For the sake of world peace, it is right that that alliance should remain so. However, as the Prime Minister said, she will make clear her views; when we disagree, we will make it clear.
Yes, indeed, Her Majesty the Queen has issued an invitation to President Trump. Details of the date and arrangements have not been announced, but I would judge that the people of this country will act with dignity as well at the time.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister say very clearly—I think she is about half way there—whether or not we regard the action taken by the US Administration, in particular the action on refugees, as consistent with their having signed and ratified the 1967 protocol to the 1951 convention? Secondly, would she say whether the British Government consider that the action that has been taken by the US Administration is likely to reduce the threat from terrorism or, possibly, make it worse?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, on threats of terrorism I rely on the advice of our security agencies and border security, to whom I pay great credit. I saw them in operation when I returned earlier this month from a Foreign and Commonwealth meeting overseas. I have great respect for the work that they do. I am not going to jump to any conclusions here or announce the results of any assessment. It will be for those in the United Nations to take a view on the matter of law and whether this is a breach of the 1951 convention. I would hope that advice was taken before the order was issued.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said about refugees, but it is not clear what the British Government have said to the US Government, particularly regarding the blanket, open-ended exclusion of refugees from Syria, which must clearly contravene the obligations under the refugee convention and protocol. What has been said to the US Government on this specific issue?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the fact that we have said this is divisive and wrong encompasses that as well, as does the fact that we would not carry out a similar act. That covers the fact that this is not the way we would behave towards refugees. The Home Secretary has of course made it clear that it is important to understand whom one is describing when one talks about refugees, and to take into account the security of a nation in the way one screens those arriving in one’s own country. We make careful efforts to do that, but that also means that we would not use this kind of executive order.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, the Minister tells the House that the reason the Prime Minister hesitated—if I can describe it that way—was because she was waiting to be on top of the facts and they were not clear when it originally happened. When moderate Muslims in this country—I hate to describe myself in that way; I prefer to use the phrase secular Muslim—are constantly exhorted to fight radical elements in our midst, we take up that challenge. Does the Minister accept that in return we expect our Government, whether they are waiting for facts or not, to speak with a clear, moral voice when actions are wrong and simply say, as Angela Merkel has, that it is wrong to generalise among entire countries of people? That is what we expect to hear from our Prime Minister and it was extremely sad to hear her. It made communities in this country extremely nervous. It is only by luck that Pakistanis, large numbers of whom are in this country, are not on this list, although we know that Pakistan is a source of terrorism. For some inexplicable, illogical reason, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not on the list but they could have been and it would have affected tens of thousands of people in this country.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as I have said before, my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have made it clear that this is divisive and wrong. I do not know what could be clearer than that. Today we have had the opportunity to give the detail of the implications for those who hold British passports, and they are still welcome in the United States. The noble Baroness referred to other countries. I appreciate that the list is of seven countries whose nationals President Obama had previously said would have to apply for visas and not be able to use the visa waiver scheme. The question of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan is one for the US Administration, not us.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, when my noble friend gets back to her office, will she look at an article entitled “One million sign a petition” on the BBC news website and then scroll down to look at the 5,000 plus comments? She, and the whole House, would find it interesting. There is overwhelming condemnation of the “synthetic outrage” at the ban. She will see that there is massive support for President Trump coming here; that there is recognition that it is not a ban on Muslims; that the list of countries was drawn up by Obama, who banned everyone coming from Iraq for six months; and that the President was merely implementing what he promised to do when he was standing for election—a nice change from Obama. On the BBC website the silent majority are not opposed to the President’s visit and are not outraged.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I have carefully noted that, whenever President Trump has been asked about these matters, he has sought to stress the fact that it is not about Muslims, it is about the countries concerned. It is important for those who are responsible for carrying out the processes by which people now enter the US to hear that.
Lord Judd (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the real tragedy in this situation is that, faced with global insecurity and dangers on an unprecedented scale, the challenge, above all else, is to build bridges, make friends and win good will? A few hasty words, ill thought out in their consequences, can do immense damage to that cause. If we really are going to make this relationship with the States so important, we have to undertake a huge battle with our friends in government there to persuade them to take the course of reconciliation and understanding. The underlying issue is that we will ultimately secure a peaceful world by winning minds and hearts, not by executive orders.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the devil is often in the detail, so I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that, although British residents are eligible to apply for visas to travel to the United States, the Printed Paper Office copy of the Statement outlines that they could face additional screening at US airports. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s own website still states that dual nationals will be affected: that they might have extra checks if they are,
“coming from one of the 7 countries themselves – for example a UK-Libya dual national coming from Libya to the US”.
Can the Minister clarify that point? In your Lordships’ House on 16 November, I raised the issue of whether US immigration policy would be applied to UK citizens, irrespective of their faith or belief. On that occasion, the Minister quoted the policy of US Customs and Border Protection, which clarified that:
“The religion, faith, or spiritual beliefs of an international traveller are not determining factors about … admissibility into the US”.—[Official Report, 16/11/16; col. 1425.]
If there are to be extra checks for British residents or dual nationals, as outlined on the website, will the Minister assure the House that the United States will be applying those checks, irrespective of the faith or belief held by that British resident or national, and that British dual nationals who happen to be Muslims will not face different checks from those who happen to be Christians or Hindus?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I can assure my noble friend that that is the position as we understand it, as it is the existing direction given to those who carry out the checks. The FCO website says:
“The only dual nationals who might have extra checks are those coming from one of the 7 countries themselves – for example a UK-Libya dual national coming from Libya to the US”.
This was merely a caveat; a slight warning that there is likely to be longer queues for those going into the US. All of us who have travelled to the United States know how long those queues can be. It is just a cautionary matter in an evolving and confusing time at the US end. There will still be time for this to work through. Of course, this is only for a 90-day period, subject to evaluation, and we understand that there are legal challenges in some US states.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, before she went to Washington, the Prime Minister suggested that she was going to “speak truth to Trump”. At the press conference on Friday, it appeared that she may have made some progress on NATO and torture, yet her response to the executive orders was that the United States was responsible for its policy on refugees. Does the Prime Minister understand that there is a difference between refugee policy and immigration policy? Can we call on the Minister to ask the Prime Minister to tell the President of the United States that his action is in breach of international law? The Foreign Secretary telling Members of the House of Commons about the rights of UK nationals is one thing, but if anything is speaking “truth to Trump”, it is saying that this policy on refugees is morally abhorrent and illegal.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as I have already mentioned, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that this policy is wrong and is not one that we would adopt. But, clearly, Governments make policy. We did not make this one and, as I have said, we would not make it. We could not make that clearer to President Trump if we tried. The whole issue of international law is a matter for lawyers to construe. I am sure that we and all the members of the United Nations will work on this issue to see whether it is compatible with international law, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister just referred to the importance of international law. I press her further on the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Hannay, my noble friend and the noble Baroness. Are the law officers being asked to give advice to the Government, so that not only we but our many friends who sit in the American Congress can evaluate what they have to say about our commitments under the Geneva convention? That is, after all, one of the bulwarks which will ensure that these executive orders are given proper scrutiny in future. They could then see what the obligations are in law and come to their own conclusions. What consideration has the Minister given to our counterterrorism strategy? Does she accept that the inability to understand the difference in our own narrative between a faithful Muslim who prays in a mosque each week and lives their lives by the tenets of their faith, and those involved in jihadist activities supporting Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda or ISIS, plays into the hands of those very groups?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, indeed it is very much the cornerstone of security policy in this country to ensure that one can differentiate between those who effect the outward trappings of devotion and those who have faith, and that one can determine who is a threat to security and who is not. Regarding advice on legal matters, as far as I am aware, the law officers advise the UK Government about their own legal responsibilities. However, my expectation is that there would be discussions at an international level—say, in the United Nations—on the implications of the United States’ actions. That would be for the United Nations to decide, not this country. I do not think we could have made clearer the UK Government’s view on this divisive and wrong policy.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, the Minister seems to be saying that there is not much opposition to President Trump visiting the United Kingdom. I have just left a demonstration in Whitehall involving thousands of people. They streamed over into Parliament Square saying, “We do not want this visit. We do not want to embarrass our sovereign, ourselves and our Parliament by having him here”. This is not happening just in London. If you went to Bangor, Aberystwyth, Swansea or Cardiff tonight, you would find demonstrations there and everywhere. I imagine that there will be as many as 50 or 60 demonstrations going on throughout the United Kingdom. Is the Minister aware of people’s feelings about what is happening in the United States, and that we do not want to be tarred with the same brush?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I think Hansard will make it clear that I said nothing of the sort. With regard to the state visit, I said that I expected that British people would act with dignity, which can encompass making one’s view known. In this country we have freedom of expression, which is a great privilege not enjoyed by all countries around the world. I wish that it were.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness spoke about those who have indefinite leave to remain, and how they may be treated in the future. Will UK consular services be available to those with indefinite leave to remain who may get caught up in additional screening at their port of entry? In the past, we have had consular access in certain cases for not just foreign citizens but those with indefinite leave to remain. Can she shed any light on that?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I will certainly make inquiries about that. As the noble Baroness is aware more than most, having been a Minister with responsibility for these matters, normally the guidance is that those in our posts around the world give information and advice only to those who hold British passports. There is the added inhibition that we do not normally provide consular assistance to those who hold dual nationality in countries which do not recognise that dual nationality. However, we do waive that in certain cases and provide advice and assistance, as in the case of Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I will make inquiries about the specific matter of those who are not nationals or dual nationals and do not hold a British passport but have the legal right to remain.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Monday 30th January 2017
(7 years, 10 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-VII(a) Amendment for Committee, supplementary to the seventh marshalled list (PDF, 53KB) - (27 Jan 2017)
“(d) form, participate in forming or invest in a commercial arrangement including a company, partnership or other similar form of organisation for the purposes of supporting economic growth through commercialising research or promoting university-business collaboration (up to a financial limit determined periodically by the Secretary of State).”
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 482C, I wish to speak also to Amendments 490A, 495C and 495D in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Mair and Lord Broers. All these amendments relate to the issue that I and others highlighted earlier of the need to maintain and strengthen Innovate UK’s business focus within UKRI, and, in delivering its support to businesses of all sizes and stages of development, ensuring that Innovate UK is itself able to innovate in the forms of support it can deliver, so that they are appropriate to the need and scale of the business.
As we heard earlier, Schedule 9 states that UKRI is not allowed to enter into joint ventures, or form or invest in companies, partnerships or similar forms of organisations without the specific consent of the Secretary of State. These are just the kind of things that Innovate UK has done, does now, and which it is likely to want to do more of as it extends its activities in the future. The very successful catapults, for example, are companies which Innovate UK has formed, appointing their initial chairs and non-executive directors and funding them. Indeed, I understand that Innovate UK has recently appointed a chief investment officer to look at opportunities to support new technology-based companies. Schedule 9 appears to constrain this type of innovative business support rather than encourage it. The amendments would remedy this while still leaving an appropriate level of oversight and control with the Secretary of State.
Amendment 495C also supports the business focus and autonomy of Innovate UK within UKRI. It would transfer back from UKRI to the Innovate UK council, with, I hope, its independent chair, the determination of which of the UKRI functions Innovate UK should exercise to increase economic growth in the United Kingdom.
These are very important aspects of ensuring that Innovate UK can continue to provide innovative business-focused support to UK economic growth. I beg to move.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments standing in my name. Briefly, the context is of course that Innovate UK is a good thing that is making real progress, and we do not want to see anything that constrains it, particularly within this legislation. However, it is worth looking at the Government’s case for its inclusion in UKRI—we will deal with some of its merits later—and what that means for its operating method and efficiency, and whether it meets the right objectives. That is also about ensuring that Innovate UK has the right basis for entering it, which is what our Amendments 482D and 495E relate to. The efficient use of the interrelation between business and research is aptly put by the question I will ask having visited Harwell, where there is a fantastic facility. Particularly with regard to space, where we have a huge emerging industry, we have invested in a chamber to be able to test products as they would wear in space. There is a five-year waiting list, even though construction has not been completed yet. Therefore, where in the research world is the case made to extend those facilities and make them more available? That is part of what we are looking at here.
Amendment 495F would require Innovate UK, when exercising the functions required,
“to maintain its focus on assisting businesses”.
As well as some people having concerns about Innovate UK affecting the way the research is seen, we want to make sure that Innovate UK is established with the right focus and that its priorities and funding will not be excessively influenced by its proximity to the research councils and Research England.
One of the other issues on which we would like clarity from the Minister is how other elements, which have a strategic focus on these issues, relate to this. One is the role for the Council for Science and Technology, which is known by the acronym CST and sometimes dubbed “Charlie Sierra Tango”. It advises the Prime Minister on science and technology policy issues, which cut across the policy issues of government departments. It is housed in BEIS, and it is the most significant location where issues of science, technology and the interface with business are addressed by government. It would be logical for it to be proactively charged with the role and responsibility to look at this issue. We will be interested to see where it fits in.
Amendment 495G is our proposal that Innovate UK’s spending is separately reported and evaluated by the NAO, just to make sure, again, that we have that counterbalance.
In the development of the relationship with business and making sure that that function works particularly well, it is narrow just to consider the role of Innovate UK, however esteemed, useful and effective it is. We should be looking at the issues surrounding spin-outs—the commercialisation of university research, and how that works. We should be looking at some of the other elements; for example, research councils supported the Rainbow Seed Fund as a seed fund generator. It is a most outstanding, although small, fund, which has done a terrific job at encouraging investment in our research base and in companies that spin out from it. It will be useful to have some idea of where some of the new institutions, such as the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, which has been announced, will fit in with Innovate UK and its new research framework. Similarly, how will the Small Business Research Initiative fit in?
There are of course other examples. Many people commented on the recent announcements that we were looking for something similar to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency—DARPA—in the States, which has had fantastic non-military applications, such as computer networking, graphical interfaces and other things. Will the Government also consider, in the context of what they are trying to achieve, that there is a role for institutions such as Israel’s Yozma programme, which revolutionised Israel’s venture capital industry and has totally transformed its universities and capacity to the point where Israel is investing as a proportion of GDP twice as much in private equity and venture capital as the United States? That has transformed the research capability of its institutions.
Innovate UK is therefore a good thing, it should not be restricted and it should certainly have a lot more functions. However, is that the end of the story, and are there other ways in which research elements that we have already, as well as others, will be considered by the Government?
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I support this case as well. Innovate UK has been very successful and should not be constrained in any way. It may be useful to talk about three examples of where institutions, excellent in the purest of research and in applied research, do similar things. I will start with Cambridge. I declare my interest again as a past vice-chancellor and head of the Department of Engineering, and I remain chair of the International Visiting Committee for the department—a point about internationality came up recently.
Cambridge University established Cambridge Enterprise about 10 years ago to aid the transfer of knowledge from the university through commercialisation. Its mission is to achieve this through intellectual property management and licensing, investment in university spin-outs, and consultancy management and advice. It has been a big success. Similarly, the Royal Society—I declare my interest as a fellow—launched the Royal Society Enterprise Fund in 2008, with the objective for it to become a financially successful contributor to early-stage company support and a role model for the translation of excellent science for commercial and social benefit. Again, the Royal Academy of Engineering—I declare my interest as a member and past president—recently established its Enterprise Hub, through which it offers a number of grants aimed at identifying and supporting the next generation of high- potential entrepreneurs and prizes celebrating success in innovation and entrepreneurship. Innovate UK should also, as the amendment says,
“participate in forming or invest in a commercial arrangement including a company”.
One of the reasons that some of us are worried about bringing Innovate UK under UKRI is that it is so different from the research councils, and we do not want to harm the research councils or Innovate UK. This is therefore a plea to give Innovate UK its true freedom, which it enjoys at the moment.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 482C, 490A, 495C and 495D, to which I have added my name, and support what has been said by my noble friends Lady Brown of Cambridge and Lord Broers.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred earlier to the industrial strategy. This is highly relevant to the Bill and to Innovate UK. The industrial strategy has 10 pillars. The first is:
“Investing in science, research and innovation”.
The Green Paper clearly acknowledges the serious problem we have in the UK with commercialising our outstanding science. It states that,
“historically, we have not been as successful at commercialisation and development as we have been at basic research … We have already taken action to address the UK’s … relative weakness in commercialisation, through the establishment of new, more industrially focused institutions such as Innovate UK”.
This group of amendments addresses the freedom of Innovate UK within UKRI to operate successfully and with full autonomy—otherwise there is a danger that it will not be as effective as it should be. I fully support the point made by my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge. Paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 9 states:
“UKRI may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions”.
However, paragraph 16(3) states that UKRI may not,
“form, participate in forming or invest in a company, partnership or other similar form of organisation”,
except,
“with the consent of the Secretary of State”.
That seems unnecessarily restrictive on Innovate UK. It should not have to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State whenever it wishes to make an investment in a company, partnership or similar organisation. A very similar point was made earlier by my noble friend Lord Oxburgh in relation to forming joint ventures. Innovate UK should have the freedom and flexibility to invest as necessary to promote research and innovation to the greatest economic benefit of the UK—although, clearly, financial limits should be set periodically by the Secretary of State. That is the purpose of our Amendment 482C.
The world is changing very rapidly and it is therefore vital for the economy to have a high level of UK R&D investment in science and engineering. The UK must continue to be world leading in innovation. We cannot afford to slip behind, and UKRI must be made to work really effectively. Innovate UK, with its strong business-facing focus, along with the science and engineering community, must therefore be allowed to continue to play a key role in promoting research and innovation. Innovation is an inherently risky process with an uncertain outcome. To be really effective, Innovate UK must be allowed to promote high-risk and disruptive innovation.
This House’s Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and of which I am a member, heard in evidence that many businesses have concerns about the status of Innovate UK in the proposed UKRI, especially in relation to risk and the backing of new companies. Innovate UK must be allowed to invest in commercial arrangements, including companies or partnerships, if it is to be fully effective in promoting innovation and commercialising research—and this should be in the Bill.
Innovate UK operates in a quite different way from a research council, so I urge the Minister to reflect on and give careful consideration to this matter, and to ensure that the proposed structure of UKRI is not unnecessarily restrictive on the crucial activities of Innovate UK.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it is perhaps important to point out that Innovate UK is to be henceforth merely a committee of UKRI. The scope of its work is set out in Clause 90(1), which states:
“UKRI must arrange for Innovate UK to exercise such functions of UKRI as UKRI may determine for the purpose of increasing economic growth in the United Kingdom”.
So I do not think that there is any sense in which UKRI is autonomous. Innovate UK will have no employees of its own—they will all be employees of UKRI—and it certainly will not be autonomous in any sense that I can understand. The question may be whether the result that these amendments are aiming at can be attained only by taking Innovate UK out of UKRI and giving it a separate status. There may be disadvantages in that as well, but, as presently set out in the Bill, Innovate UK is a mere committee of UKRI—and that is not a particularly elevated status. In many aspects—not all, because I have just referred to a special aspect in the clause that I mentioned—it is being treated pretty much as a part of UKRI.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 482C, 495C and 495D. I note what has just been said about the committee status of Innovate UK, and many noble Lords—I include myself—do not regard that as a satisfactory way of running things. We would much prefer it to be a separate entity. If the Government are unable somehow to strengthen the role of Innovate UK within the present structure that they have chosen, there will be a real problem that we will have to tackle on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, said many of the things that I wanted to say, but much more eloquently. He made the absolutely vital point that the functioning of Innovate UK is crucial to the attainment of the Government’s industrial strategy. If that is the case, it will need the powers to enable it to do that. The purpose of Amendment 495C is to give Innovate UK the right initiative that is needed if it is to achieve its objective. Amendment 495D emphasises the central role of Innovate UK in promoting the commercialisation of research. It has to be able to enter into business relationships which underpin that; thus we come back to the problem that has been identified.
The Minister’s remarks will obviously be very important here. If the language is not right, perhaps it can be fixed, but this is an issue of fundamental importance on which I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.
The Earl of Selborne (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, referred to the short inquiry that the Science and Technology Committee undertook earlier this year, just as the Bill was introduced in the other place. It was clear from the evidence that we took from organisations such as BP, the Royal Academy of Engineering and others that they were rather taken by surprise by the way that the Government had implemented the Nurse review in this respect. After all, the Nurse review had been asked to look at research councils. However, when they had participated in the consultation, they had not thought to give their view on Innovate UK because they had not realised that it was part of the agenda. If you read the Nurse review carefully, you will see that it does not make a firm recommendation on this; rather, it states that this is something on which more consultation is required, although there would clearly be benefits from bringing Innovate UK and the research councils closer together—as I think we all accept.
Equally, there are real dangers, which have been referred to. In the letter that I wrote on behalf of the committee to the Minister, Mr Jo Johnson, we said that, if this is to work, the issues of autonomy, funding and business focus simply must be addressed. During any number of discussions that we have had, I have been prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this. I am sure that while the present Minister and the acting chairman are in their roles, they will be very sensitive to the need to keep this organisation business focused. However, we have to make sure that it survives the test of time when very different people are in those roles.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay pointed out, autonomy is a real issue. We are talking about what is effectively a subset of UKRI, and UKRI has the last word. That is why, on one of the earlier groups of amendments, I suggested that it was absolutely critical to have on the UKRI board people who understood the Innovate UK agenda. That is not to say that they should be in a majority but, if these two cultures are to succeed in working together, it is clearly absolutely critical that there is a great deal of cross-representation and certainly a strong degree of business understanding, expertise and experience on the UKRI board, as well as on the Innovate UK council.
Again, I am absolutely certain that the issue of autonomy can be addressed by an understanding between UKRI and all its councils. The more I heard the earlier discussion, the more alarmed I became at how the councils could potentially be circumscribed. Clearly, that would be unhelpful. There would be a lack of ability to respond with the sort of flexibility that we heard about in relation to charities. We have a lot to learn from them.
Of course, if the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible, he will probably not abdicate all financial responsibility—I accept that—and, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mair, is asking a lot if he wants to be free of all such restriction. However, again, there can be delegated powers. I hope that the Government realise that if they are going to set up UKRI with its council of Innovate UK, with a much enlarged brief, they will have to consider a completely different remit.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, last year I shared a platform with the chief executive of Innovate UK at the International Festival for Business in Liverpool. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Mair about the great work it is doing and how important it is for our economy to encourage innovation and the translation of research from universities to business. Is it not ironic that here we have this Bill about which our greatest worry is its threat to autonomy—the autonomy of our universities, of our research institutions and, now, of Innovate UK? We cannot in any way stifle Innovate UK’s work or its ability to partner with or have joint ventures with organisations or to be innovative in itself. We cannot spoil Innovate UK being innovative. I urge the Government to listen to the amendment in the name of my noble friends Lady Brown, Lord Mair and Lord Broers and enable Innovate UK to be innovative itself.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, I will begin by saying that I agree 100% with the principles behind many of the amendments in this group. It is absolutely right that Innovate UK should have as much autonomy as possible over all matters related to its remit and mission. We are fully agreed on that. However, I disagree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones. I fundamentally believe that Innovate UK will be better off within UKRI and that bringing together into one organisation research and the translation of research will create a much stronger one. I also feel that, when it comes to negotiating budgets with the Treasury and the like, again Innovate UK will be much better off within UKRI than if it were a separate body.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I am not in fact advocating that Innovate UK should be separate—that battle is over. But, if the Government are going to construct the structure that they now wish, my point is that the structure must enable Innovate UK to do its job. I do not think that the present draft allows that to happen.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I thank my noble friend for that.
Turning to how autonomous and free Innovate UK is, I fully agree it is important that it is able to provide a broad range of financial support, including the sorts of commercial activity listed in the amendments. I assure noble Lords that paragraph 16 of Schedule 9, which provides detail on UKRI’s supplementary powers, does permit UKRI and its councils to make such investments, but with the consent of the Secretary of State. This is not an unreasonable or overbearing condition. It is a necessary one to comply with cross-government rules set out by the Treasury in Managing Public Money. It is also not a change to current practice—such permissions are already required. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, mentioned catapults, but as things are set up, they do require consent from the Secretary of State.
It would not be responsible to cut out ministerial oversight entirely, particularly with regard to commercial activity that potentially carries a significant level of financial and/or reputational risk. Absolutely nothing in the Bill curtails the powers of Innovate UK to enter into joint ventures or investments in the way that it does at the moment. I agree fully with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mair, that commercialising our science, one of the 10 pillars in the industrial strategy, is critical to improving productivity in the UK more generally. The Government fully understand it is important that UKRI has flexibility in this regard. The Secretary of State will specify conditions for such activities, below which UKRI can act without referring back to its sponsor department.
I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. I cannot agree with Amendment 495E, which would risk taking the emphasis away from Innovate UK’s mission to support businesses by giving it further duties that are not reflected in its current charter. However, I find myself in complete agreement with the sentiment behind Amendment 495F. Although the Government strongly believe that the current drafting protects Innovate UK’s business-facing focus, let me assure noble Lords that we will carefully reflect on the comments made in this debate.
On Amendment 495G, as a council of UKRI, Innovate UK will continue to undertake detailed evaluation of the economic impact of its business-led innovation projects. It is right that the organisation is given a degree of flexibility to determine how it reports on its activities, rather than entrenching such detail in the Bill. Let me reassure the House that it is not the Government’s intention to place artificial and unjustified limits on what commercial activity UKRI and Innovate UK may undertake. The Government’s position is very clear that Innovate UK must retain its business-facing focus. I hope that with the assurances I have given noble Lords this evening, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response and other noble Lords who have contributed fully to the debate. I am pleased that the Minister agrees with the principle behind many of these amendments—I hope I have understood him correctly this time—particularly the need for autonomy for Innovate UK and for it to be able to deliver a broad and innovative range of financial support and commercial activities.
The Minister mentioned that the Secretary of State would be able to specify conditions within which UKRI can act, which is specifically indicated in one of the amendments. Perhaps he can write to us with more information about that as it may further allay some of the concerns.
The issue of the autonomy of Innovate UK, and the opportunity and need to have an enlarged brief to deliver the economic growth which we are all keen to see from our science base, are so important that we would like to hear more about the Government’s thoughts in this area. It is an issue to which we may wish to return on Report. However, in the context of the strong reassurance that we have had on this point, and that we will hear more, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I shall move Amendment 483 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Storey and speak to Clause 90 stand part, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has also added his name.
The previous group has already addressed these issues in some detail and so I shall be brief. These are probing amendments of course. We recognise that UKRI is effectively a fait accompli, but following concerns raised both tonight and elsewhere by supporters of Innovate UK and of the research councils that the proposed combining of forces may have unintended consequences, this seemed to be a moment to raise the issue again. Amendment 483 would remove Innovate UK from UKRI. In the previous debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, all addressed this proposal without necessarily supporting it.
Innovate UK is primarily business focused. It works with the private sector and is generally supported by the business community. It should perform a key role in the industrial strategy, and it performs a valuable function in ensuring that the UK benefits from UK research. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, set out, there are too many examples of research that is carried out in the UK by UK academics being commercialised elsewhere or undersold in the UK. Innovate UK has been successful in addressing and improving that situation. The noble Lord, Lord Broers, also addressed this issue, and the Minister addressed it in his closing remarks on the previous amendment. However, the challenges of Brexit add to the need for Innovate UK to work well, and there seems to be no good reason for changing its structures.
Concerns have also been expressed by the research community that the interests of pure academic research might be disadvantaged by being under the same governance as the commercial arm. We have heard those concerns expressed again this evening.
Clause 90 follows from that. It sets out clearly that Innovate UK has the purpose of increasing economic growth, to benefit business and improve quality of life. Those are all admirable aims, and after tonight’s discussion there may be additions to them. What assessments were made of possible detriment to Innovate UK and the research councils of being under the same umbrella? What evidence is there that such a combination will be successful? Is there any provision for a review in case any problems arise with this multifaceted and enormously influential institution? I beg to move.
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, we have discussed at good length the various problems that Innovate UK might or might not face within UKRI. I would like to explode one myth in case anyone has any illusion about the linear model or believes that ideas automatically start in academia and go in one direction only—into commerce. That model has long since been exploded. Ideas go in both directions and academia benefits as much from interaction with commercial activity as the other way round. Once we have got that into our heads and realise that we need to bring them all together and provide an opportunity for each to spark the other, then we will see how Innovate UK might realistically and helpfully be embedded in the organisation.
It did not help that the consultation in the early days, before the Bill was published and after the Nurse review, was, quite frankly, inadequate. There has been a great deal of excellent consultation since, which is why many of us have changed our minds—or at least are prepared to accept that it could be made to work—and I hope that we can be given further assurance about the issues referred to in the earlier debate about autonomy and being business-facing.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, in commenting briefly on this clause I draw attention to the fact that I am currently trying to set up a venture capital fund. It does not yet exist, but it might do.
Several noble Lords have gone through the thought process to which my noble friend Lord Selborne has just referred. The decision that Innovate UK should be part of the overall UKRI, which is not clear in the original Nurse review, we now accept and recognise.
There are two points on which it would be helpful to hear more from the Minister. If this involves one of the letters for which this Committee has become famous, so be it. It would be helpful to know how many of the Secretary of State’s powers—which are, as the Minister rightly said, explicit in the Bill as part of the usual Treasury controls—will, in practice, be delegated to Innovate UK. Although it is clear that in theory there is a great deal that Innovate UK can do only with the consent of the Secretary of State, it was not my experience as a Minister that I or Sir Vince Cable were endlessly getting petitions to do specific things. Organisations operated within a range of delegated authorities so that they could get on with doing things. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the kind of flexibility that he envisages Innovate UK would have within the UKRI regime.
Secondly, in the Bill as currently drafted there is a hint of old-think pre-industrial strategy. I wonder what would have happened if the chronology had been the other way round and we had had last week’s excellent consultation document on industrial strategy and then the legislation. Some of these constraints are hard to reconcile with the ideas in the industrial strategy. Again, if the Minister can show how this model will enable Ministers to deliver what they are talking about in the industrial strategy, it would be very helpful.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I shall speak to our amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, has made a very good case. The long and the short of how we see this is that we do not think it was a very good idea in the first place and time has passed on. Many of the comments that have been made will find an echo in our thoughts.
It is worth returning to the original Nurse review. The report states:
“In relation to Innovate UK, as stated earlier, the current delivery landscape is too complex and there should be a smoother pathway to more applied research. Integrating Innovate UK into the Research UK structure alongside the Research Councils could help such issues to be addressed However, Innovate UK has a different customer base as well as differences in delivery mechanisms, which Government needs to bear in mind in considering such an approach and which this review, according to its remit, has not looked at in depth”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, made exactly that point: what evaluations were made when it went in?
I would suggest that both its target audience and the mechanisms that Innovate UK uses are so dramatically different that it is unlikely to be able to perform such an effective function within the context of UKRI. I think that it would be a terrible misfortune if Innovate UK, which has proved itself over some years to be a very effective body doing great things, were to come into UKRI with its current framework. That would not just be restrictive but could possibly be quite damaging for an institution that is following a good path.
I also think that this is a policy that was designed for a pre-Brexit world. In a post-Brexit world—which we are not in at the moment—we know that we are going to have to rely on research an awful lot more, and a great deal will be required of it. I cannot imagine that in such a situation we would ever put one of our most significant levers into this sort of environment; we would leave it to work independently. With the industrial strategy having now been published, it is absolutely clear that there is a massive hole in the delivery of its research objectives that would have been filled by Innovate UK. That is a mistake that the Government would be wise to take note of.
By the way, it is important to understand that Nurse himself recommended:
“At the very least, the Chief Executives of HEFCE and Innovate UK should be represented, on the Executive Committee of Research UK”,
or UKRI. And that was probably a very measured judgment.
My final very brief point is in relation to what it is necessary to do to make the best of our university sector and to be able to commercialise at both ends of the spectrum via big company investments and tracking what research is being done as well as smaller companies emerging as the result of venture capital. An awful lot is going on in this area. Recently I spent time with some of the companies at Cambridge Enterprise Limited. Innovate UK is not the only solution that is required, and I think that it would be a colossal mistake to expect UKRI to perform that role and to forget the other things we may need to do. To restrict UKRI in that situation has the potential to do great harm to the long-term needs of our country, especially in an environment where we need an effective industrial strategy.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, we could debate this issue for two or three hours, but we must restrain ourselves. I turn first to the two points raised by my noble friend Lord Willetts. I will indeed have to write to him about the powers the Secretary of State will be planning to delegate to Innovate UK. In a way that also answers his second question because he referred to “old think”, and indeed some of that could be construed in this Bill when comparing it with the requirements of the industrial strategy. But if the delegation to UKRI and Innovate UK from the Secretary of State is right, I think it will be perfectly possible to reconcile that with the industrial strategy.
I would actually take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, because I think that Brexit has made the coming together of Innovate UK with the research councils within UKRI even more necessary, but I agree that Innovate UK is only a part of the answer. We have to have a competitive fiscal regime, long-term risk capital and a well-trained technical workforce among many other things. Innovate UK on its own is not going to shift the productivity dial for the country, although we believe that it has an important part to play.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, asked about an assessment of Innovate UK. A detailed business plan was made, although I am afraid that I cannot remember when it was published. I shall certainly endeavour to send her a copy of that report. The fact is that this is more of a judgment than something which can be proved with spreadsheets and the like. I think that the right judgment is to bring innovation together with research; that is the right thing to do because the reality is that one of our weaknesses, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is that we have a fantastic research base but have not been able to take maximum commercial advantage of it. That is a space which Innovate UK has filled and will continue to do so.
The extra investment being made by the Government in UKRI is a clear vote of confidence, and our support for the central role of Innovate UK in delivering our future knowledge economy will include a substantial increase in grant funding. The Bill seeks to name Innovate UK in legislation for the first time. It will retain its own individual funding stream and grow its support for business-led technology and innovation as a key part of the industrial strategy. I think it is worth quoting Ruth McKernan, the chief executive of Innovate UK:
“The establishment of UK Research and Innovation, including the research councils and Innovate UK, recognises the vital role innovation plays and further strengthens the UK’s ability to turn scientific excellence into economic impact”.
That is one of the 10 pillars of the industrial strategy referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Mair. It is absolutely fundamental to our future and bringing these organisations together is critically important. Only by bringing Innovate UK into UKRI will we remove the remaining barriers to greater joint working between research and business at all levels. Businesses will be able to identify more readily possible research partners and will benefit from the better alignment of the outputs of research with business needs in, for example, technology and data skills. Researchers will benefit from greater exposure to business and commercialisation expertise so that they can achieve maximum impact. It will be simpler to find and form partnerships and there will be easier movement between academia and business. The UK will benefit from a more strategic, agile and impactful approach across UKRI’s portfolio which can respond to real-world challenges and opportunities.
The critical achievement is reaching the right balance between freedom and autonomy for Innovate UK while recognising at the same time that, ultimately, the Secretary of State has to be held financially accountable in Parliament for the money that is spent. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and other noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. As the Minister said, we could have carried on debating this for rather a long time, but of course we will not.
One of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, about Brexit is that it generates an extra degree of uncertainty, and with all the uncertainties already around, this may not be a propitious moment to be creating another uncertainty by combining Innovate UK with the research councils. I look forward to another letter for the dossier, and indeed we are acquiring quite a number of them at the moment. If there is any more clarification, I would also welcome that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this continues on the theme of uncertainties. I think that I can deal with the issue fairly quickly; at least that is my aspiration in moving the amendment. The starting point for this brief debate is Clause 86, which lists the seven current research councils and then adds Innovate UK and Research England. The intriguing statement is:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend”,
that list so as to,
“add or omit a Council, or … change the name of a Council … But the regulations may not omit, or change the name of, Innovate UK or Research England”.
Inevitably, the question that arises is: why is that? This is not in any sense an attempt to set in concrete the existing structures. These councils have come and gone and changed their names with dazzling frequency and I do not think that what we have before us, the seven currently dealing with the range of research that they do, will last for very long. But it is important to have an explanation from the Minister, perhaps by letter if he so chooses, of what consultation might be undertaken before the councils are changed—because there is a bit of a worry about the uncertainty.
Lord Willetts
The noble Lord has just made an assertion which I do not think is quite correct. After the research councils were created in 1965 by the Wilson Government, if someone who had participated in those debates at the time were to look at this list of research councils, they would indeed observe changes. However, it is not the case that they change frequently: rather, they have changed very slowly over time. For example, the Economic and Social Research Council was created in the 1980s and the Science and Technology Facilities Council more recently. But the noble Lord should recognise that there is some quite deep continuity here, which is important if we want to ensure that they remain stable entities in the new dispensation.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
That is a very kind intervention because I no longer need to give the second half of my speech, in which I would have stated that the names of the councils are only one aspect; the worry is that the work might change. That was the point I was seeking to make. I beg to move.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the global research and innovation landscape is constantly evolving. It is important that the Government can react to this by making changes to the research councils, just as they have done in the past—for example, with the creation of the Arts and Humanities Research Council in 2005. We are all saying the same thing.
In the other place, the Minister of State, Jo Johnson, was absolutely clear that any future changes would not be undertaken lightly. This is reflected in the fact that this power cannot be exercised without legislative scrutiny and the agreement of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure. I can assure noble Lords that this is not a change in approach and reflects existing powers to make changes to the research councils. Secondary legislation strikes the right balance here. Primary legislation would impact on the ability of UKRI to react quickly to changing circumstances. Technology is changing very rapidly, as we all know.
In the other place the Minister of State committed that the Government would seek the views of the stakeholder community through proper consultation prior to putting any proposal forward. I reiterate that commitment. In the hypothetical event that such consultation had not taken place, I am absolutely sure that this would be strongly challenged by noble Lords during the affirmative resolution process. I believe that this is an appropriate and powerful safeguard. However, I understand noble Lords’ concerns and will reflect on today’s debate. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am almost humbled to accept such a wonderful offer. I thank the Minister very much indeed and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prior of Brampton
“( ) facilitate, encourage and support knowledge exchange in relation to science, technology, humanities and new ideas,”
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the Government have brought forward these amendments to clarify the vital importance of knowledge exchange within UKRI. Knowledge exchange is an essential mechanism to support universities in effectively contributing to UK growth, but it is not limited to higher education innovation funding, which is currently administered by HEFCE. The integration of knowledge exchange functions across UKRI is critical to achieving greater strategic co-ordination across the research funding landscape.
“( ) facilitate, encourage and support the development of activities in higher education providers associated with entrepreneurship, innovation, commercialisation and support of regional economic growth.”
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
I shall speak to Amendments 485A, 496 and 499A in my name. I welcome the government amendments to include knowledge exchange in UKRI, but I do not feel that they go far enough. The Minister mentioned the Higher Education Innovation Fund, which is currently distributed to universities by HEFCE on the basis of encouraging interactions with industry and business, which includes knowledge transfer, collaboration support for registration of intellectual property, entrepreneurship and a range of other things.
Historically, HEIF has been assessed as delivering a benefit to the UK of £7.30 for every £1 invested. It is mentioned in the new industrial strategy as one of the routes to address the concern that the UK is excellent in research but not innovation. Indeed, the Green Paper is looking to explore the expansion of HEIF. This news will be celebrated by UK higher education institutions of all kinds, from the highly research-intensive to the more applied and business-focused institutions.
I understand from discussions with the Minister of State and the Bill team that HEIF will continue to be delivered by Research England. This is again good news, except that in Clause 91 Research England can provide financial support only for research or facilities for the purposes of, or in connection with, research. This needs to be addressed at the Research England level in Clause 91 and for UKRI in Clause 87.
The government amendments in this group are very much appreciated as they go some way towards addressing this issue by extending the UKRI and Research England support to knowledge exchange. However, I am not quite sure what the definition of “knowledge exchange” is. I believe that HEIF as currently applied delivers benefit some way beyond what one might assume is included in “knowledge exchange”. It is used to support entrepreneurship activities among undergraduates, postgraduates, researchers and university staff. It helps to support initiatives such as “dragons’ den” competitions for start-up companies in universities. It supports working with local enterprise partnerships on business growth in the regions. I am not sure whether all of these activities can be classified as knowledge exchange, but they are all important in ensuring that our universities play a strong role in stimulating innovation, entrepreneurship and economic growth locally and nationally.
My amendments would go further than the Government’s proposals to ensure that the excellent work done under HEIF can continue—and, indeed, to allow Research England to distribute other such funds in future with equally broad scope for encouraging university-business links and entrepreneurial activities. I do not believe that these amendments have different objectives from those of the Government, but I ask the Minister to reflect on whether the wording of the government amendments could go further to ensure that they cover the quite broad scope of HEIF as it is currently very effectively used.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, who described the wide range of activities undertaken by universities under the banner of knowledge exchange—and, beyond that, the contribution that they make to their local communities, to entrepreneurship and to local economic growth.
The Bill makes clear that Research England will retain HEFCE’s research and knowledge exchange functions. This will include distributing higher education innovation funding. This vital block grant for universities in England represents an important source of stability to the sector, allowing maintenance of facilities, core staff, support for postgraduate students and a degree of entrepreneurial research activity. Research England and the new Office for Students will act together to deliver HEIF—an example of the close joint working between the two bodies and their shared remit to support business-university collaboration. The Office for Students will continue to encourage student activities such as entrepreneurship training.
The Bill ensures that UKRI will be equipped to continue to support universities to continue to play a critical role in their communities, including through knowledge exchange.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
I thank the Minister for his reassuring response. I am keen to know how the OfS and Research England will work together to deliver HEIF funding, because, as the Minister will know, there is a very precise formula for delivering HEIF funding relating to things such as the amount of university-business research collaboration undertaken by universities. It is important to understand how work will be done between the two organisations to continue to deliver this funding. Will the Minister include that in one of his letters? In that light, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
“( ) facilitate, encourage and support UK research’s participation in EU programmes and initiatives and be responsible for ensuring the UK’s position on international research projects.”
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to UK research and the impact of leaving the European Union and probes the Government’s intentions about how we should approach this. Of course, as has been said, the Bill was written in a pre-Brexit environment and there is not inherently a good post-Brexit situation. A great many concerns have been expressed over the issues of funding and staff—researchers and others—and students being able to gain access to it, and also about our leadership in the European and international research community being diminished as a result. Indeed, on other amendments we have already debated some of those issues.
I have a genuine personal concern about this. I have been involved in two businesses now that are both within the context of our science and research base. The fundraising of one, which I was looking to participate in, has been pulled because the CIO, the CTO and two engineers and designers—who are European—now plan to return to their countries. The company has a considerable problem in being able to deliver its plans. The other company is in a similar position. Not all is doom and gloom; I am invested in another company which does not have too many EU nationals involved.
I have spent rather too long with doctors in recent times but one of the medical research teams told me that his team was informed not only that it would not be welcome as part of the European bid that it had been involved in for some time, but also that it was felt that the UK being involved would mark it down. As a result, a whole group of researchers is giving notice and planning to leave, and is currently planning arrangements for their children.
As a result, we have a pressing need to address some of these issues quickly. While there are other amendments on this—I note the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who proposed some very good ones—we tabled Amendment 507ZA to establish a UKRI visa department which may well have a useful function in a post-Brexit scenario but certainly, in our view, in a pre-Brexit scenario has symbolic value and is an important aspect of what we need to do to reassure people that this is a primary concern, something the Government will address and that they will almost move mountains to deal with.
The other amendments look at ensuring that UKRI spends a lot of time—I think it will need additional resourcing for this—to make sure that the UK continues to have a very strong participation in EU programmes and initiatives. There is much to be done in intergovernmental negotiations, which this is not part of. The Government need to work harder at those sorts of things. Of course, as in Amendment 485F, we are concerned about other aspects of research support from the EU. The Government committed to supporting the European funds that are lost—that is to be welcomed—but it is important that we quantify that loss on an ongoing basis.
We must also consider that we will have lost some important research opportunities. For example, there is a belief among many in the sector that our inability to access the European Research Council creates a real gap as it, in particular, complements other funding activities in Europe and has an investigator-driven or bottom-up approach. It allows researchers to identify new opportunities and directions in any field of research rather than other sorts of priorities being established in other ways. Those sorts of gaps are important for us to identify.
Given the firm consensus that exists to ensure that the UK base remains as strong, world-leading and important as it should be in future, the purpose of this group is to track what we do, do more to hold our position and show symbolically that we will welcome and look after people who come here. If we do not do that, we will lose our global position as a world-leading base. I beg to move.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 488, which has in a way been trailed already in its substance by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who raised but did not get a response about the absence in the Bill of any serious reference to continuing co-operation overseas, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, who pointed out that there is a quite a lot of cross-coverage in what he is putting forward as probing amendments and what I am putting forward as a substantive amendment.
Amendment 488 is very simple, merely adding a further task for the UKRI in the list given in this clause. It says that,
“UKRI shall take every possible opportunity to encourage and facilitate the maximum co-operation between British higher education and research establishments and those based outside the UK, and in particular with projects and programmes funded by the European Union”.
The wording does not limit this to the EU. Although it is to some extent Brexit-related, it looks much wider than that. Clearly, it will not in itself provide the legal or policy framework for co-operation between the UK and EU when we are outside, because that will be laid down by the Government in their Brexit negotiations. I very much welcome the fact that the Prime Minister in her Lancaster House speech explicitly mentioned this as one of the areas where Britain will want to go on co-operating as closely as possible. The amendment does not provide for that. It is a task merely for UKRI, and UKRI will have to operate within the scope of whatever arrangements the Government may negotiate with the EU—on money, legal base, and all that sort of stuff.
The EU dimension is, however, very significant. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned it briefly. Since the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme began in 2014, the UK has provided 5,428 participants—more than any other member state. The UK co-ordinates around 20% of the projects. We have received 16.4% of the funding, adding up to something like £2.63 billion.
Turning to the separate European Research Council programmes, here I mention the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, whose name is on the amendment, because he was very much instrumental in setting up the European Research Council many years ago when he was working at the Commission. It is a brilliant organisation, much less bureaucratic than some of the other aspects of the European Union. In the ERC programmes, we have 699 grant-holders and are the most successful member state.
There is a lot at stake here. In addition, something like 46% of UK research involves some overseas partners. That surely demonstrates how important a part of UKRI’s work will involve this international dimension. I very much hope that the Minister will feel able, even today, to say simply that he accepts the amendment. I cannot believe that it cuts across or does anything other than complement the Government’s own objectives. So I will listen with great care when the Minister responds to this debate and I will hope to be delighted to hear that he thinks this is a jolly good amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we have Amendment 490 in this group. I echo what has been said by other noble Lords about the paramount importance of international—particularly EU—academics, scientists and researchers employed in the UK.
The Government’s own industrial strategy highlights the importance of continued investment in science and R&D, noting that the UK spends 1.7% of GDP on public and private R&D, compared with an OECD average of 2.4%. Presumably that is why the Government have committed to substantial new investment in R&D, including an extra £4.7 billion by 2020-21—a 20% increase in spending, which must be welcomed. However, the ability of this investment to pay dividends depends on ensuring that world-class people come here to carry out that research. It is no good finding the extra money if you do not have the people. Without ensuring that the best and the brightest are working here, throwing money at research will not help and will not enable UKRI to reach its strategic goals.
The curtailment of freedom of movement, coupled with an already complex visa regime for non-EU workers, threatens to undermine our scientific research base. Indeed, just the uncertainty over Brexit is already having an effect. As Dr Jo Beall, director of education and society for the British Council, told the Education Select Committee on 25 January, the UK is already losing out on vital research as academics pull out of research bids or choose not to take up posts in the UK as a result of uncertainty over their long-term future. The uncertainty over Brexit means that the viability of scientific projects that could take 20 to 30 years cannot be guaranteed, either in funding terms or, crucially, even whether the academics who start such projects will be able to live in the UK throughout that time or recruit the others they need to make a success of the projects.
The amendment does not seek to force the Government into maintaining freedom of movement, although of course this is an approach that my party favours. Instead, it seeks to ensure that the effect of such a change on the viability of world-leading science and research is recorded and understood so that it might influence government decision-making. The amendment would therefore require an annual report by UKRI on the impact of scientific academics and researchers, employed either directly through UKRI or through higher education institutions. Should the report identify a fall in the number of international researchers and academics in the UK, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of such a reduction on the ability of UKRI to deliver its functions.
The intention of the amendment is to give the Secretary of State the responsibility of understanding that failure to protect the free movement of academics and researchers risks undermining the Government’s aim of being a world leader in R&D. The very viability of this goal, identified in the Government’s own industrial strategy, depends on having such an assessment and not simply assuming that relying purely on home-grown scientists will provide the capacity or diversity needed to compete in a globally competitive field.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I welcome all these amendments. As ever, I declare my interests as outlined in the register. I am employed by the University of Cambridge and I have at various times benefited from EU funding. I am particularly keen to speak in support of Amendment 488 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and I want to stress the importance of research co-operation.
The Government have committed to keeping research funding going up to 2020 and, if we lose funding under Horizon 2020, that that can be replaced. But funding is only part of it. Research co-operation—the dynamism of exchanging ideas and being able to co-operate with partners across the European Union—is absolutely vital, whether in social sciences or hard research science. If we lose that, we will lose something that is absolutely crucial to research and innovation in this country.
I also add my support for Amendment 507ZA, which I believe is in this set. It mentions the idea of an UKRI visa department. I very much hope that when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, our colleagues from within it will not be subject to visas. But if they are, that will jeopardise co-operation with our European partners even more than would simply leaving the European Union and the single market. If that happens, something like an UKRI visa department will become even more important. A simplification of the way in which academics and others have to face visa regimes would be most welcome, because it is one of the many things that increasingly put people off coming to the United Kingdom.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (CB)
When the Minister replies, perhaps he could say something about the role of UKRI in the thinking about regulatory harmonisation. Would he like to say something to create a bit of certainty regarding medical research, clinical trials and so on?
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, today I hosted a group of education leaders from India and in our discussion, they asked: “What are your worries about Brexit when it comes to the UK education sector?”. In listing my worries, a list which is too long to talk about now, I stated that one of my biggest concerned research. It is all very well for the Government to say, “We’ll keep giving you the funding for research that we get from the European Union, even if we leave”, but it is much more important than that. That is why I support Amendment 488 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
The key to research is collaboration. Already, we are seeing EU-funded research universities in Europe not partnering with UK universities because they are worried that we will be leaving the European Union. If I may illustrate the power of collaborative research, while I was in India in November, at the same time as the Prime Minister and the Universities Minister, Jo Johnson, the University of Birmingham held a workshop with the Panjab University. There we showed the power of collaborative research: when the University of Birmingham conducts research, our field-weighted citation impact is 1.87. The Panjab University figure is 1.37. Yet when we carry out collaborative research, the impact is 5.64, or three times the Birmingham figure. When we do research with Harvard University—I am an alumnus of the Harvard Business School—while Birmingham’s impact is 1.87 and Harvard’s is 2.4, our combined impact is 5.69. This is serious. We must encourage collaborative research with the European Union and this amendment should be in the Bill.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I think we are all pretty much in violent agreement about the critical importance of collaboration across countries, but also about being able to attract the best and brightest to the UK. There is no question about that. When one hears the story from the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, about individuals who have decided not to come here for various reasons because of Brexit, it is depressing. On the other hand, only today Novo Nordisk, the big Danish pharmaceutical company and diabetes specialist, announced that it is investing £100 million at Oxford. AstraZeneca is also building its global research facilities at Cambridge. The truth is that anecdotes can be misleading and that the jury is out.
We have to demonstrate to the international community that we are open for business, and persuade it that that is the case. Other countries have similar issues at the moment. I imagine that many scientists in the USA are thinking, “Should we stay in the US or move?”. Scientists in other parts of Europe will be thinking similar things. We have to demonstrate to this increasingly internationally mobile part of the community that Britain is the place to be. I was struck that at the Crick institute, some 34% of all its principal investigators are EU nationals, which illustrates that it is essential that we reassure them of their welcome here.
That is what the Prime Minister has been doing. She said in her Lancaster House speech on 17 January that we will,
“welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research, and technology initiatives”.
She went on to describe her vision of,
“a secure, prosperous, tolerant country—a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead”.
There should be no doubt that the Government are fully apprised of this issue and that we are determined to be, as the Prime Minister said, a magnet for international talent. I do not suppose that the country is going to be glued to reading Hansard tomorrow, but it worth making that point on any opportunities that we get.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
It does not do anything of the sort. The Minister has told us that the Government agree with the sentiments in the amendment, but he has not said that they accept the amendment. That is what matters. The Minister does not need to worry about whether anybody reads Hansard tomorrow. If the Government accept the amendment, it will be in the Bill, and people will not have to read Hansard. I seriously do not know why the Government cannot simply accept that amendment or, at the very least, why the Minister cannot say that he will go away and study it and reflect upon it before Report, rather than excluding accepting it. It is, quite honestly, absurd. I ask the Minister to think very carefully before he sits down after this short debate.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord stopped me in full flow. I was just getting to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, regarding visa applications. As the research councils do now, we expect UKRI, as an employer, to have a role in sponsoring visa applications for international staff on its own payroll and, in some circumstances, for particular individuals with agreed posts in universities. However, it would not be practical to make UKRI responsible for visa sponsorship for the whole sector. I think we will probably have to come back later to discuss that issue in more detail. The Government do not agree—this, I am afraid, goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—that the Bill should be amended as suggested, as UKRI will be an outward-looking organisation and will build on our current excellence. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall not echo the sentiment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I think more needs to be done, and I shall just make two points. We have to face up to a certain reality. While it is no doubt true that some people in the United States of America are considering their position, there it is a somewhat temporary measure. There it may be four years or eight years, but our exit from Europe will have much longer term implications. That is the issue we have to address.
While it is certainly true that things are coming to us—although some of the stuff that has been announced was being discussed well before Brexit, and people have taken a different view on risks—there is a human dimension here: making sure we are attracting talent. I have a corporate finance business. International companies that used to send people to the UK will now look elsewhere when trying to attract eastern European talent. London is not the only location they will now look at as the right sort of place to locate families.
It is important that we get this talent issue under control, and find a way to make sure that we fully express our ambitions and put the right sort of measures in the Bill. However, given the Minister’s comments—hopefully there will be some form of reflection—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) For the purposes of this Part, “knowledge exchange”, in relation to science, technology, humanities or new ideas, means a process or other activity by which knowledge is exchanged where—(a) the knowledge is in, or in connection with, science, technology, humanities or new ideas (as the case may be), and(b) the exchange contributes, or is likely to contribute, (whether directly or indirectly) to an economic or social benefit in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”
Lord Patel
“( ) In carrying out its functions under subsection (1), UKRI must recognise the autonomy of the Research Councils, their institutions and their partnerships and relationships, and the principle of subsidiarity in decision-making.”
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the aim of Amendment 489 is to investigate and ask what autonomy the research councils will have when UKRI is the single voice for research. Although I accept that UKRI has a very important purpose in being that voice, it must allow the individual research councils to flourish in order to identify the most promising science and, through their institutes, deliver ground-breaking insight and understanding. My amendment seeks to ensure that UKRI can co-ordinate but does not in any way crush the expertise, independence and autonomy that created organisations such as the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, an institute of the MRC often referred to as the UK’s Nobel prize factory—I think at the last count for 15 scientists.
The executive chairs and management of the councils should be allowed to decide on scientific priorities and have the authority to run their organisations in an effective way, working within the strategic framework set by UKRI, but without having to defer to the UKRI board for operational or scientific issues. Research councils need a distinct identity, and the independence and agility that goes with it, to enable them to undertake procurement and form partnerships, joint ventures and collaborations without continuous recourse to the UKRI supervisory board. In mentioning the example of the Medical Research Council, I should have declared an interest in that I have been associated with the council for a long time and until recently was a council member.
The Medical Research Council has collaborated with AstraZeneca on drug development and Marks & Spencer on food security, as well as collaborating internationally in several cases. Research councils should have the right to retain returns from the exploitation of publicly generated IPR. Such IPR will continue to be both an important source of revenue and a valuable incentive to translate scientific developments into new products and devices. Individual research councils could be encouraged to develop IPR and be able to share in the economic benefits of exploiting them, recycling them back into science and research for the good of the nation.
Furthermore, internationally renowned brand identities, such as that of the MRC, should be retained. There is clear evidence that brand identities such as the Medical Research Council’s attract some of the very best scientists to the UK. Its reputation for rigour and excellence also leverages co-funding from other research funders, often in a ratio of 10:1 or more.
The current wording in the Bill that UKRI will arrange for councils to,
“exercise such functions … as UKRI may determine”,
does not seem to sit easily with the principles of subsidiarity, autonomy and independence of research council disciplines. There is a need for greater clarity as to how the autonomy of the research councils will be maintained. I beg to move.
Lord Mendelsohn
I shall speak to a couple of amendments that are worth addressing, but I associate myself with the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which have a great deal of merit.
In Amendments 495J and 500ZA, we believe we are dealing with a drafting error that currently makes ineligible independent research organisations for financial support as well as a higher education provider. We think that that excludes museums and is probably a drafting mistake, so we would be very grateful to get some clarification from the Minister about whether museums would be incorporated.
One of my sons is a big fan of a TV programme called “The Big Bang Theory”, which is the story of some young people in America who in the main, as is the vogue of the time, are what you would consider to be “geeks”. The episodes start with the name of a scientific principle, theory or experiment, so prior to this debate my son believed that my interest in the Haldane principle was about “The Big Bang Theory” as opposed to the autonomy of research councils.
The Haldane principle is one that everyone holds dear. There has been a great deal of debate about whether a more explicit reference to it should be in the Bill, and I think there is a broad consensus towards that view. I hope the Minister considers the two amendments on that issue. I am not particularly prissy about the drafting but I am sure everyone in the research and science community would be very interested to have it confirmed by the Minister if that were something the Government were keen to do.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
My Lords, I support Amendment 489 from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and shall speak to Amendments 503A and 505A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Krebs. Amendment 503A follows on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, about the Haldane principle. At Second Reading many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Kakkar, Lord Winston and Lord Krebs, urged the Minister of State to be bold and take this opportunity to, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, put it,
“hardwire the arm’s-length, Haldane principle into the Bill”,
or, rather more to my taste, as Lord Waldegrave said more simply,
“let us at least try to put the Haldane principle on the face of the Bill”.—[Official Report, 6/12/16; cols. 624-27.]
In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, when he was Minister for Universities and Science:
“The Haldane principle means that decisions on individual research proposals are best taken by researchers themselves through peer review … Prioritisation of an individual research council’s spending within its allocation is not a decision for Ministers”.
He said the principle was,
“vital for the protection of academic independence and excellence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/10; col. 138WS.]
Its presence in the Bill would remove many of the other concerns about the autonomy and operation of the research councils in the new UKRI organisation. Amendment 503A would put a specific reference to the Haldane principle in the Bill in relation to the Secretary of State’s direction to UKRI.
Amendment 505A picks up the important issue of ensuring the continuation of the dual funding model for research. It seeks to assure that the streams of funding for research grants, distributed by the research councils, and for QR, distributed on the basis of the results of the research excellence framework by Research England, could not be redistributed or used for cross-subsidy. It is important that the two funding streams remain distinct and complementary. In addition to the eloquent support from the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Kerslake, for the dual funding systems in their Second Reading speeches, Sir Paul Nurse commented in the Nurse review, on which much of this part of the Bill is based, that having QR in addition to research grants was:
“one of the reasons behind the UK’s success in research and these separate funding streams should be preserved”.
These two streams should be evaluated and distributed in separate and complementary ways, as should other funding streams such as HEIF, as we heard earlier.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for a very thoughtful speech at the beginning of the debate. On Amendment 489, I want to make it clear that the Government agree that councils must be able to operate with autonomy and authority over decisions within their fields of activity. For that decision to be made, we must ensure that experts in their fields are involved in allocating grants. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that the objectives of his amendment are already achieved in the Bill.
The Bill ensures that UKRI cannot prevent any of the research councils carrying out their duties in their specialist areas by requiring UKRI to devolve its functions to the councils for these activities. This will give the councils the independence they need to pursue their research agendas while also being able to interact as part of UKRI. Furthermore, by bringing the councils together within UKRI, we introduce the opportunity for a strategic centre, but with responsibility to consider broader issues than any council can alone. This strategic focus is a feature that many noble Lords raised at Second Reading.
Amendment 503ZA examines the Secretary of State’s power of direction. Let me reassure noble Lords that powers of direction are rarely used, but given the very large sums of public money that UKRI will be accountable for—some £6 billion—it is proportionate. The Secretary of State currently has an equivalent power of direction over research councils, and our proposals are intended to mirror that. I can reassure noble Lords that the power will not be used day to day to steer UKRI’s operations, nor as an override to the Government’s long-term commitment to the Haldane principle. However, the Secretary of State must be able to deal swiftly with any financial issues arising, for example, from financial mismanagement.
Turning to Amendments 503A and 505C, I welcome the opportunity to restate the Government’s commitment to the Written Ministerial Statement on the Haldane principle made by my noble friend Lord Willetts in 2010 which will apply to all research funding allocated to UKRI. This Statement is carefully balanced and considers important, interrelated and sometimes conflicting factors. It is, however, a policy statement, not a legal document. Obtaining such a balance in legislation through a legal definition of Haldane is not a simple task. However I will reflect on the helpful comments made here today. I hope that noble Lords will accept that if we could write Haldane into the Bill in a non-equivocal and legal way, we would do so.
On dual support, the Bill sets out in legislation for the first time the dual support system for research referred to here as balanced funding. I hope this clarifies any potential misunderstandings about the relationship between the two. Some noble Lords have asked, not unreasonably, why a different description is used. It is because the protection of the two funding streams and the balance between them are both important, and both must be carefully considered by the Secretary of State when making grants to UKRI. I agree with noble Lords that the nature of dual support is anchored in the complementary allocation and evaluation mechanisms of the two funding streams. Amendment 505ZA would replace the need for the Secretary of State to consider both halves of the dual support with a need to consider only one part—the block grant.
Let me reassure noble Lords that Clauses 95 and 96 already put considerable conditions on the Secretary of State’s powers which protect the unhypothecated nature of quality-related funding and ensure that this will continue through Research England. These restrictions are consistent with Section 68 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. They protect academic freedom by ensuring that terms and conditions of grants cannot be framed in terms of particular courses of study, programmes of research, appointment of academic staff or admission of students.
The system of dual support sustains a dynamic balance between research that is strategically relevant and internationally peer reviewed, and research that is directed from within institutions. However, the precise modes of operation of the two streams have changed over time, for example through the evolution of the RAE into the REF. Similarly, we should not try to permanently fix what the balance should be between the two parts of dual support. Funding flows are dynamic, and there is no formula or set proportion for the balance of funding across the two parts of dual support. When considering what the balance of funding should be, as now, the Secretary of State will take advice from UKRI and consider issues such as the strategic priorities of the research base and the sustainability of higher education, research capability, and other research facilities supported through the UKRI budget.
I turn to the proposal in Amendment 495J, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, that the remit of Research England be extended to cover independent research organisations. At present, research councils accredit organisations to compete for funding if they possess the capacity to carry out research that enhances the national research base. These organisations include hospitals, museums and other public sector research establishments. Those organisations currently receive their underpinning capability funding, similar to the QR block grant from other parts of Government, and there are no plans to change this arrangement.
This debate has covered some of the most fundamental matters about how we undertake research in the UK. I have listened very carefully, seeking to draw on the experience here in this House. With the hope of further constructive dialogue, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. I was encouraged by his reassurances about maintaining the autonomy of research councils. Putting that on record is satisfactory to me. I am grateful to other noble Lords, and I hope that they have found that their amendments were responded to. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) In subsection (1)(c) the exploitation of science includes, but is not limited to, licencing for off-patent drugs in new indications.”
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as declared in the register as chief executive of a medical research charity and chair of the NCRI, as I mentioned earlier.
This is a probing amendment. I apologise that I was unable to attend Second Reading, when I would have flagged up this issue. I took a tumble over the handlebars of my bicycle, so I was not able to be here. I am recovering, although I now have a little lisp.
My amendment probes whether UK Research and Innovation could have a role in ensuring that a particular avenue of research in which I am concerned—research into new indications for off-patent drugs—is fully exploited for public benefit, for patients and the NHS where appropriate.
Research into new indications for off-patent drugs can be funded by medical research charities, research councils or the National Institute for Health Research. It is often driven forward by clinical academics. There is rarely a commercial incentive for pharmaceutical companies to support such investment once a patent has expired on a drug. There is then little commercial incentive for a pharmaceutical company to fund the regulatory activities needed to promote the availability of off-patent drugs in new indications, such as licensing them to be sold and advertised for such a new purpose. Therefore, the new indication, if identified, can remain off-label—or even unlicensed.
Where a treatment is off-label or unlicensed, a number of barriers prevent it being used routinely, and prevent the public investment in that research being exploited. Clinicians can prescribe for this new indication without a licence, but, if they do, they will take on more personal responsibility and, potentially, a greater administrative burden. This can create disincentives to prescribing, even where there is evidence to support the new indication.
There is no timely system in any of the UK nations for these repurposed drugs to find their way, if appropriate, into baseline commissioning. This results in confusion and patchy access across the UK. There are a number of examples, but I will pick up only two. The first example is bisphosphonates. They were originally licensed for the prevention of bone fractures in adults with advanced breast cancer, and subsequently licensed for osteoporosis. This class of drug is now off patent. However, bisphosphonates have been shown to be effective in reducing the risk in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer of developing metastatic breast cancer, which is incurable.
Because bisphosphonates are off patent, they have not been licensed for this use and there is no clear national commissioning policy. We are all worrying about the really expensive drugs out there but, when used to prevent metastatic breast cancer, these cost about 43p a day. The treatment could save around 1,100 lives if given to the entire eligible population of about 35,000 women a year. If this treatment was commissioned routinely, as has been suggested, it could save the NHS about £5 million per annual cohort of patients.
Another good example of this would be simvastatin, a drug which may represent a real breakthrough for patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. It is a type of statin which was originally licensed for treating high cholesterol and preventing cardiovascular disease, and the patent ran out in 2004. In a recent phase 2 clinical trial it was shown to be effective in slowing brain atrophy in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis by over 40%. More evidence is needed, but phase 3 clinical trials of this drug could show that this is the first treatment able to slow or stop the deterioration seen in that condition. There are estimated to be about 65,000 people living with this form of MS in the UK. The first patented disease-modifying therapies for progressive forms of MS are likely to carry significant price tags, but this off-patent drug would cost the NHS pennies.
So there is clearly a gap—one could say a market failure—here. There could be a role for UKRI to fill this and promote the public interest by the exploitation of publicly funded research into new indications for old drugs. Studying repurposed drugs with public funding is an area of great interest. If we do not get it right it is a double waste of taxpayers’ money: once because of the public expenditure on research and twice because the benefits of that research do not reach the patients, resulting in an opportunity cost for the NHS. I am interested in probing whether there is an opportunity for the new institution to take forward this publicly funded research which would not otherwise be exploited commercially. I beg to move.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The repurposing of off-patent drugs is an important and interesting area, not least because it can be great for patients. We are also looking at medicines which are a fraction of the cost of new ones that are still under patent. So the noble Baroness has raised an important issue. She also asked a question earlier about the regulatory aspects of Brexit which I failed to address. Without wanting to duck out of a debate with the noble Baroness, I suggest that she should meet my successor at the Department of Health, my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, to talk about both these important issues.
The Department of Health is working with medical research charities and other stakeholders to examine how evidence showing new uses for existing drugs can be brought safely and more effectively into clinical practice to treat patients. This work applies across a whole spectrum of clinical conditions. The group has made significant progress in designing a drug repurposing pathway to help charities and others to navigate a route through the NHS so that they can see how research can be shared at a national level and then picked up locally, where it can reach the patient. It is probably better if the noble Baroness talks with my successor about the role of NICE and the MHRA and how the changes to the EMA might affect this. It is not something that we would like to include in the Bill. Would the noble Baroness be happy to withdraw her amendment?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. My concern is that the Bill states clearly that UKRI will be responsible for exploitation. I was interested to explore how widely that could be interpreted. I am concerned about inertia in this regard. There is potential here for that exploitation to be delivered more effectively and for public funds to benefit from that. A bit of momentum would be great. However, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment and take up the Minister’s suggestion.
“( ) In exercising the power under section 87, UKRI and the Research Councils must operate fair, open and transparent competitions for funding.”
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
My Lords, Amendment 490B stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Krebs.
Both Amendment 490B and the other amendment in the group, Amendment 505D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, seek to ensure that UKRI and the research councils operate “fair, open and transparent” funding and assessment processes. Such processes would ensure that the principle of supporting excellence wherever it is found is maintained, allowing for change and supporting strong competition and new entrants in areas of research—the very focus of much of the Bill. It aligns with the following description by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, of the Haldane principle:
“Ministers should not decide which individual projects should be funded nor which researchers should receive the money. This has been crucial to the … success of British science ... Overall, excellence is and must remain the driver of funding decisions, and it is only by funding excellent research that the maximum benefits will be secured for the nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/10; cols. 138-39WS.]
This amendment is about ensuring that we fund excellence in our university research system wherever it is found. I beg to move.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for raising this issue. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
The vast majority of research council grants are allocated through open and rigorous competition between all eligible institutions, which ensures that the principles of fairness and good use of public money are upheld. While I agree with noble Lords about the importance of open competition, the precise mechanism of how this is put into operation is a matter for the current and future independent funding bodies. This is consistent with the important principles of subsidiarity of decision-making and Haldane, which we have committed to defend through this Bill.
Further to this, these amendments would place an undue restriction on UKRI and the research councils by requiring that all their financial support must be allocated through open competition. This is not always suitable. For example, research councils also have an important role in providing core funding to support unique underpinning infrastructure, such as institutes and facilities. While I agree that the majority of council funding should be allocated through open competition, I feel that such a strict requirement is not consistent with the important principles of subsidiarity of decision-making and would hamper other important areas of council activity. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
I thank the Minister for his response and for his commitment to the principle behind the amendment. I also thank him for his earlier strong support for the Haldane principle and for perhaps setting a challenge to the team of determining whether it is possible to encapsulate this in law. In the light of these reassurances and the very strong commitment we have heard today to Haldane, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, I will speak to Clause 88 stand part.
Ministers are prone to deflecting arguments with the warning that they might contain “unintended consequences”. We have heard that several times, and I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, followed that trend this afternoon in his response to the first amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Therefore, when a Bill or part of a Bill contains a provision which might have unintended consequences, logic suggests that Ministers should be willing to take that argument on board and act on it—surely that is consistency.
Clause 88 is one of the most closely associated with an issue which is of concern to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and myself. It relates to the position in which the Bill will place a world-leading scientific organisation based in Scotland: the James Hutton Institute. At this juncture I should declare an interest of sorts. The institute has its headquarters on the outskirts of Dundee in the village of Invergowrie, which happens to be the place where I spent my childhood—the village, that is, not the institute—and which is reflected in my title. By way of clarification I should say that I have not lived in Invergowrie since 1972, and although the institute, then the Scottish Crop Research Institute, was there during my childhood, I have never entered its premises—not even as a minor, although I may well have attempted it on occasion.
The institute was one of many which sent briefings to noble Lords on the Bill and, as I have done with representatives of many other institutions that made contact, I arranged to meet with its chief executive and chief of science, Professor Colin Campbell. The tale he had to tell is a worrying one, concerning funding eligibility criteria which the Bill may leave in place, and the consequent effect on the James Hutton Institute.
The institute encompasses a distinctive range of integrated strengths in land, crop, waters, environmental and socioeconomic science, and is the biggest independent research institute in this area in the UK. Approximately 60% of its funding comes from the Scottish Government and the remainder is from the EU, international, UK and Scottish agencies, and some from private industry. Its research has been shown to make a significant contribution to the UK economy, with £12 returned for every £1 invested. It recently became one of the most successful institutes in the UK in winning EU money from the Horizon 2020 funding programme. That is the source of the dilemma facing the institute. While EU funding is open to all institutions and research providers and encourages collaboration with industry and especially small and medium-sized enterprises, as constituted, the Research Councils UK is not open to all and has eligibility rules which exclude the James Hutton Institute and others.
The institute is currently ineligible for direct access to RCUK funding due to a rule that states that no organisation receiving more than 50% of its funding from a single funder is eligible. The rule was introduced more than 20 years ago, apparently to avoid a situation whereby veterinary and surveillance labs, as fully funded government agencies, could not attract additional research funds from RCUK—which is not unreasonable. The James Hutton Institute is not a surveillance lab, although, as I said, it receives 60% of its funds from the Scottish Government. A significant amount of that funding is for centralised science facilities and national capability, which it is fully open to other institutions to use. The institute is not a public sector research establishment, and is currently the only independent research institute not eligible for research council funding.
The main concern is that with the restructuring of the RCUK and the establishment of UKRI, not only will the 50% eligibility rule carry over but there may be unintended consequences if such matters are unintentionally overlooked or if any new arrangements encompass rerouted EU funding once the UK leaves the EU. This would be very serious for the James Hutton Institute, as there is a risk that it could go from being one of the most successful research providers in gaining European funding to having next to no access at all.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said when speaking to his amendments, Scotland punches above its weight in research terms. Universities Scotland said in one of its briefing papers sent to noble Lords that on the basis of competitive excellence, Scottish universities win around 14% of project funding from research councils but only around 7% from Innovate UK. Scottish research in all forms was able to win more than €200 million in the last year for which figures are available. Scottish institutions are naturally concerned about what the future will hold once the UK ceases to be a member of the EU. Not all EU funding will be lost, but it will become much more difficult to achieve when bidding is done from a standalone UK.
That, therefore, is the context within which the James Hutton Institute finds itself. It will have much of its EU finding closed off—perhaps all of it if in future it is all channelled through UKRI, to which the institute will have no access because of the 50% rule to which I referred.
It seems that there was no vehicle in terms of a detailed amendment to the Bill that would have achieved what is necessary for the institute to be able to have access to a level playing field—the scrapping of that 50% rule. I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to tell me—after a suitable period of reflection, of course—what can be done. However, the rule has applied since the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, one of the seven research councils that work together, was founded in 1994, and that is funded by BEIS, so surely the Government can exercise their influence in this matter. Would the civil servants working in RCUK—or UKRI, as it will become—have the final say or can they be told to change what is clearly an anachronism?
This matter has been raised directly with the Minister for Universities and Science and with Sir John Kingman, and it seems that a misconception may have emerged. It appears that there are plans to run pilot trials in which PSREs in England Wales may be given access to RCUK, but this does not help the James Hutton Institute because, as I have already mentioned, it is not a PSRE and it may in any case suffer if it has to await the outcome of trials.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister, “Over to you”. This is a Catch-22 situation in which the James Hutton Institute finds itself through no fault of its own. The 50% rule is a barrier that can be dismantled if the will is there. Surely it must be.
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on this. I assure noble Lords that I have entered the premises of the James Hutton Institute, which is held in high regard not just in this country but internationally.
Here we have a situation where government departments are, very reasonably, keen to try to live within their means, and there is a suspicion among the research councils that public sector research establishments might be unloaded on to research council funding. When I wrote to my noble friend Lord Younger, having raised this matter at Second Reading but without referring specifically to the James Hutton Institute, he was good enough to admit that that was the concern. Those who were concerned did not want departments to get rid of their responsibilities by passing the funding over to research councils.
This is a typical government spat, with public sector research establishments not being allowed to apply for research council funds. As I understand it, this is a ruling made through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, pointed out, the irony is that the James Hutton Institute is not even a PSRE, so it gets caught by a sort of collateral fire. It is an international institute but, through this ruling that any institute that gets funding of more than 50% cannot apply for research council funding, it cannot apply for international funding either, whether at an EU or an international level. This is a clearly pernicious ruling that has no bearing on the James Hutton Institute. As I said, it is there to prevent PSREs being unloaded on to research councils. It lies within the power of the Minister, standing at the Dispatch Box today, to say that Clause 88(4), which says that,
“UKRI must have regard to the desirability of not discouraging the person from maintaining or developing funding from other sources”,
can be put into operation immediately. Forget the rather infelicitous double negative; it is saying, “We encourage people working in research to look for funding wherever they can”, but of course that must be based on the quality of the science—supporting excellence, as the previous amendment referred to. No one doubts that the James Hutton Institute is a centre of excellence that should be encouraged to apply for international funding and indeed for research council funding. It needs this pernicious ruling to be abolished, and that could be done here and now.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who, along with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, originally tabled his opposition to the clause, is not able to be here today, and I regret that I can claim no connections at all with Invergowrie.
As has been explained, the Bill in its current form risks acting as a catalyst, which, under Brexit, may magnify and exacerbate the negative impact of the 50% rule on research organisations such as the James Hutton Institute. Of course, it may, as has also been explained, cause these long-established, highly respected organisations to downsize or close operations. It is already having an impact on attracting and retaining staff. It also creates an unequal playing field because, conversely, there are no restrictions on organisations that are majority funded by research councils. It seems a very unfair and archaic rule. I add my voice to those of the two noble Lords who have already spoken and urge the Government to work with Research Councils UK to remove the rule to ensure a fair and sustainable funding environment.
Lord Willetts
My Lords, I recall receiving the letter about the James Hutton Institute, but after so many Members of the House have spoken so eloquently about that case, I would like to make a wider point about the clause. There is a long-standing problem that the Minister will wrestle with of departmental R&D budgets being cut back and attempts always to put on to the science budget policies and budgetary responsibilities that should lie with individual departments. I am sure that that is the back-drop to this case. But with the new UKRI, there is an opportunity to look more widely at the kind of research institutes that are funded out of public money and on what terms.
We have heard examples this evening of the dual funding structure, on which we pride ourselves. However, the dual funding regime actually has some significant omissions, because it is research council funding for research institutes belonging to the councils and specific projects, and, secondly, a funding stream for universities. Those that miss out are research bodies that are not part of universities, and quite possibly not even part of the conventional public sector, that particularly need capital funding. Agencies such as the Welding Institute, now called TWI, or NIAB, the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, are charitable bodies that may get individual funding from a research council for a specific project, but they have not historically been able to receive significant capital support for growing their facilities. These are the kinds of issues that UKRI will wrestle with.
It would be helpful if the Minister could say that as UKRI is set up with its new scope, it will be within its power to look at these sorts of issues. It may find excellent research institutes for which, because of the size of its capital budget, UKRI can provide some kind of capital investment in a way that does not fall neatly in the dual funding arrangements that came before. That is a good example of what one might hope will be extra flexibility in the new arrangements, just as we have heard from the Bench opposite about the need for flexibility in another way.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I have to start with the confession that the James Hutton Institute is just a name to me. I confess my appalling ignorance on this subject. I need to research it. If I could, I will investigate the particular circumstance relating to the James Hutton Institute and then write to the noble Lord. I hope that that will be acceptable to him. I am sure it is a world-leading institution but, as I said, I have not visited and am not familiar with it.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
The Minister is very new to his post and there is absolutely no question of reproach here. What he has suggested is acceptable. However, the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is an important one. He has identified a particular issue with the clause, and if the Minister could refer to that in his reply, it would perhaps open up an avenue for the matter to be returned to on Report.
Lord Prior of Brampton
Let me give the noble Lord my response. If it does not cover exactly the points that it should, I will pick it up outside here and write to my noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Lord. I will also try to set my response in the context of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Willetts.
The clause will make sure that UKRI is able to carry out one of its primary functions: to provide individuals and organisations with financial support to carry out research and innovation.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised questions about other research organisations’ eligibility for funding. Many of these organisations are currently not eligible to receive Research Council funding as their research activity is already separately funded from outside the science ring-fence by other government departments or the devolved Administrations.
The rationale is to keep a clear separation between government funding and challenge-led Research Council-funded science and the capability of science funded directly by government departments. This is compatible with funding excellent science and maintaining the integrity of the funding ring-fence.
Noble Lords have argued that the wording in Clause 88(4) relates to this eligibility policy. I can reassure noble Lords that the clause does not establish or steer UKRI’s eligibility criteria. The wording is intended to ensure that UKRI does not spend public funds unnecessarily where this might result in crowding out private sector investment or funding from other sources. It is one safeguard to ensure that UKRI spends public money wisely. It also enables collaborations and partnership working, as already debated, around research charities.
The Nurse review recommended that research councils should refresh their eligibility criteria to pilot an approach allowing PSREs to become eligible for funding where they put forward high-quality research proposals relevant to their capability in collaboration with a university partner. In response to this, Research Councils UK is looking to pilot ways to include PSREs in a second call for the global challenge and research fund, with funding to start in financial year 2017-18. While the Government agree that we should be making the most of the excellent science being done in PSREs, they also agree with Sir Paul Nurse that government departments should remain the principal funders of capability and funders of last resort for PSREs. I am not sure to what extent that addresses the point made by my noble friend Lord Willetts.
The Earl of Selborne
The whole point is that the James Hutton is not a PSRE. We want to deal with independent research institutions which get more than half their money from a government source.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I shall have to write to the noble Earl on that matter. I do not have the answer with me and it would be foolish to hazard a guess. The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, need a full response as well. On that basis, I beg to move that Clause 88 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, this is a short but important point. Schedule 9 paragraph 8(1) states:
“UKRI may … appoint employees, and … make such other arrangements for the staffing of UKRI as it considers appropriate.
Sub-paragraph (2) states:
“The terms and conditions of appointment as employees are to be determined by UKRI with the approval of the Secretary of State”.
That is the general provision. However, there is an extraordinary provision in Clause 89. After listing the research councils—it is interesting that the arts and humanities are separate although the arts include humanities, although that does not matter too much—subsection (2) states:
“Arrangements under this section may, in particular, provide for the exercise by the Council concerned of UKRI’s functions under paragraph 8(1) and (2) of Schedule 9”—
those are the paragraphs I have just read—
“in relation to relevant specialist employees”.
In other words, the council is going to get, possibly, a chance to make arrangements in regard to relevant specialist employees. Who are these?
“A ‘relevant specialist employee’, in relation to a Council, means a researcher or scientist employed by UKRI to work in the field of activity of that Council”.
It is quite obvious that the term “scientist” is fairly ambiguous. For example, would it include a specialist doctor working for the MRC?
The other obvious question is whether this applies to technicians in laboratories. Is a technician a scientist? I would think they certainly are, but it cannot be taken as a certainty that the construction of the term “scientist” in this Bill would necessarily include a technician because sometimes we distinguish between them in the terminology. So far as researchers are concerned it is, vague in the extreme. Is a person who organises research but does not do any himself or herself qualify as a researcher? I thought that there must be some principle behind the selection of the terms “researcher” and “scientist”, and that is what my amendment ventures to suggest. It provides that, for a specialist employee,
“after ‘scientist’ insert ‘, or other person whose knowledge or experience is important to the operation of that Council”.
That is the only way to avoid ambiguity.
I have the impression from my discussions with the department that the general view is much in accordance with mine, but the officials seem to think that the terms “scientist” and “researcher” would include them all. I would like to say that they do not, but it is certainly not clear at all and I see no reason why it should not be. The easiest way to put it clearly is not to set out a list of all the people we can think of, because there would quite a number; rather, it is to set out the principle on which the relevant specialist employee as a characteristic is determined. That is what I have tried to do in my amendment, and I am happy to seek a better formulation if the Minister wishes it. I raised this point when I wrote to my noble friend’s predecessor and to the Minister in the Commons. I hope that we might be able to get an answer to this question tonight and I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this is an interesting amendment and it has been well trailed since the noble and learned Lord made it clear in a couple of our Committee sittings that he intended to speak on this issue. We are glad finally to get the benefit of his words expressing concern about the current drafting and the need to unpick it. I think the Minister will be at a slight disadvantage because we have been making this point throughout the six days of our deliberations in Committee. We have tried to draw the attention of the noble Viscount to the fact that wherever there is an opportunity, in our view, for the Bill to inflect a sensibility within the structures and operations of the various bodies being established under the new architecture, towards an inclusive way of treating those employed within these structures, it has always been rebuffed. That might be too strong a word, but although it has been played back to us as something the noble Viscount would think about, we have not even managed to get him to reflect on it.
So the Minister is not able to take responsibility for the omissions of the earlier sittings of the Committee, but this is a great opportunity to pick up the point. Given that he has come from a department which must have responsibility for employees—indeed, in his last outing he was dealing with trade union reform and related issues—he will be well aware of the sensitivities that these matters can give rise to. He might want to reflect on the need to respond positively to the noble and learned Lord, who has made such a fine point.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I am going to respond but I will have to let the noble Lord draw his own conclusions as to how positive the response is. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has raised an interesting point and I thank him for that. In the interests of discipline and autonomy, and respecting the Haldane principle, it is right that the council should have special delegated authority to appoint and to set terms and conditions for specialist academic and research staff within that council and its institutes. There are particular cases where it may be necessary for councils to directly appoint and set terms and conditions for scientists, researchers and other technical staff involved in a research endeavour. In such cases, authority to do so will be delegated to the councils, as per subsections (2) and (3). A relevant example is the Medical Research Council’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge. There is no intention to change such long-standing and effective relationships.
I am sympathetic to the concern raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and agree that there are many other persons whose expertise is of great importance to the successful operation of a research council. As such, I reassure noble Lords that the Bill enables the continuation of existing practice to hire staff. Such persons will become employees of the councils through UKRI. Therefore, I ask my noble and learned friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
If I thought I had received an answer I would be happy to do so, but surely we need to defend these people. I quite understand that this will carry on and I hope it will, but I should like to know what it is that will carry on.
Lord Prior of Brampton
To quickly interject, I will look at the issue my noble and learned friend raises. As the noble Lord opposite said, I will reflect further on the matter and write to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I am grateful for that. I am just sorry that the reflection has not taken place between the time I raised the issue and now, but there we are. We cannot do anything about it.
My noble friend mentioned a letter. I was at a meeting last week with a number of people interested in the Bill and its progress. They mentioned the letters referred to in Hansard. They asked where they could see them. I was not certain, but I assume they are in the Library.
(a) the undertaking of research into science, technology, humanities or new ideas by eligible higher education providers receiving financial support which is within subsection (2), or(b) the undertaking of knowledge exchange in relation to science, technology, humanities or new ideas by eligible education providers receiving such financial support.”
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 503, 505 and 506, to which I added my name. All simply assert the importance of having regard to the principle of institutional autonomy, which we have raised at various times throughout the Bill. It seems appropriate to reassert the principle of the autonomy of higher education institutions in these three places. I beg to move.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, as with similar amendments regarding the OfS, I assure noble Lords that the Government agree that institutional autonomy is of the utmost importance, and that we are actively considering how to address the concerns that have been raised.
On Amendment 503, Clause 95 already protects institutional autonomy by stipulating the unhypothecated nature of Research England’s funding allocations—and it does so in stronger language than that proposed.
It is unnecessary to make Amendment 505 as the same protections given to Research England’s funding in respect of grants also apply to the Secretary of State’s power of direction. As I have already stated this evening, the power to give directions is limited to financial matters; it is not a power to direct UKRI more generally. This power is similar to that currently afforded by the Science and Technology Act 1965 and does not reduce the autonomy of institutions.
Amendment 506 would be overly restrictive and could also undermine the dual-support system. It would blur the distinction between the two funding streams of dual support and erode, if not end, grant funding awarded on the basis of peer-reviewed project excellence. UKRI and its councils need to retain strategic oversight of the research that they fund, just as the research councils do now. Unlike Research England, UKRI’s remit will not be limited to higher education institutions. UKRI will have a strategic vision for research and innovation across the UK. It will fund and engage with research institutes and facilities, as well as businesses, both domestically and internationally. The principle of institutional autonomy does not apply in the same way to many of these organisations. As such, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I thank the Minister for his reassurances and explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
““knowledge exchange” has the meaning given by section 87;”
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
“( ) Where a decision to be made by the OfS or UKRI relates to—(a) the power to award research degrees; or(b) research students;the OfS and UKRI must make the decision jointly.”
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I mentioned this amendment in an earlier group. However, because of the way these things are structured, I did not get an opportunity to reply to the Minister. This is a vital matter. I cannot see why the Office for Students, with no particular qualification in relation to research, should be solely responsible for the decision to award research degrees.
The Minister indicated that there is a general power for the Secretary of State to order co-operation and so on. In the Bill the power to make a joint decision is very restricted indeed and would not apply in this connection to the power of the Office for Students to award research degrees. It certainly would not enable UKRI to take part in that.
I can see that there may be a difficulty about research students. I do not mind too much about that. It seems to me that that is also a question about research, but it may be that it is very routine and therefore the Office for Students would need to be involved in that. But giving the Office for Students the power to award a research degree power to a higher education provider while there is a body standing by—created by the Bill, with all the expertise of research—but not taking part at all, does not make any sense. I say this with the greatest possible respect.
The Minister suggested that it might work against the interests that were being talked about but I really cannot see why these research degree-awarding powers should be a matter for the Office for Students alone. I can see that it may have a legitimate interest in the provider as a whole but it certainly does not have the full expertise of research that UKRI can give. This seems to be an ideal situation for joint decision-making. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I add my support to the amendment. It seems extraordinary to imagine the Office for Students unilaterally making a decision that an institution should have the power to award research degrees. Surely it is quite essential that a research organisation—particularly, in this case, UKRI—should be heavily involved. Equally, I do not think that UKRI can make the decision alone because it relates also to the capacity of university departments to receive and look after research students.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, briefly, I put my name to this amendment because it raises quite a big issue in relation to the respective powers, which the noble and learned Lord explained very well. We have almost a surfeit of expertise around and it needs to be picked through very carefully. I invite the Minister to respond after due reflection, perhaps in writing, because this is something that we will need to come back to when we look again at the powers of the OfS on Report. This is not his current responsibility; it will probably be for the noble Viscount the Minister to respond.
This is a question of what powers the Secretary of State feels need to apply to which institution, not just in relation to the power to award research degrees—which is in itself an important decision—but in relation to, for instance, the quality of the teaching that might be involved.
We are hearing a lot about the way in which the department feels strongly that a measure must be introduced that will allow it to assess the quality of teaching. As far as we understand it, at the moment that is at an institutional level—although it will go down to departmental and, possibly, to course level. If it goes to course level, or even to departmental level, presumably it would be an imperfect measure if it did not also look at the research degrees that were awarded by that department or by the staff involved. We therefore have to know a lot more about this before we can make a decision about whether the powers are allocated correctly and whether the responsibilities lie in the right place. I look forward to having responses in due course.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay for raising this important matter. I hope that I do better in response to this amendment than I did in response to his earlier amendment. It is absolutely right that UKRI and the OfS should work together in relation to research students and research degree-awarding powers.
Let me first reassure noble Lords that, while the responsibility for all degree- awarding powers will sit with the OfS, UKRI will play an active role in matters relating to research degree-awarding powers. It will be instrumental in developing the criteria and process by which applicants for these powers are assessed. For example, it will work with the OfS to identify suitable expert scrutinisers of RDAP applications. This collaboration will safeguard standards and ensure that assessors with the appropriate skills are core in decision-making. Likewise, on research students the OfS will be the regulator for all students, including postgraduate students, but UKRI will of course work with it when appropriate to provide expert advice in relation to postgraduate students.
As an example, as I said previously in this debate, each year thousands of research students in the UK are supported by research council funding. Putting a legislative requirement on the OfS and UKRI to make such funding decisions jointly would not add value; it would add only bureaucracy. However, having both organisations working together to develop a strategy that ensures that the pipeline for good research students is healthy would add value. The current legal provisions, subsequent government guidance and a healthy co-operative culture within the organisation will ensure that this happens. As the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned earlier, one cannot sledgehammer a culture into shape between two organisations through legislation. That is why the joint working provision in the Bill has been drafted to be permissive. It will be a key aspect of UKRI and the OfS’s missions to co-operate with each other.
The Government will issue guidance to both organisations that will set out where we expect them to work together. There will be a memorandum of understanding between UKRI and the OfS to set out the detail. The executive teams and the boards will be responsible for ensuring that this important joint working is achieved. The advert for the UKRI board includes the duty of,
“ensuring strong, collaborative relationships are put in place to aid joint working with the Office for Students, the devolved HE funding bodies and other key partners”.
I recognise the strength of feeling on this matter and the Government have listened carefully to the issue raised by noble Lords here today. It is with the assurances that I have given that I ask my noble and learned friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Yes, I certainly propose to withdraw the amendment now, but this is an extremely important point and I do not really think that government guidance can take the place of an Act of Parliament. The idea of granting research degree-awarding powers is an important matter for the national interest. I do not think that it can be left to guidance from the Minister, however wise that guidance may be. It is the responsibility of Parliament to set the structures under which that should happen. I cannot see at the moment how it can be right that the responsibility for that should be in the Office for Students when, standing alongside it in the administration, is UKRI, with all the technical qualifications for research which that implies. I will withdraw the amendment with happiness but in the hope that we can progress this matter further before we have the next session on the Bill. In the meantime, and with regard to the time, I am glad to finish.
Baroness Deech
“( ) an order under section 43(1) (variation or revocation of other authorisations to grant degrees etc.);”
Baroness Deech (CB)
I shall speak to this amendment although my name is not on it. As we got to the end of this Committee stage, this group of amendments struck me as a chance to give Parliament more oversight into fleshing out the Bill. The Bill—and now we are nearly at the end—is not much more than a framework, albeit a very heavy framework, on which later policy is to be hung. We have no detail on the metrics in the teaching excellence framework or the detailed criteria that the Office for Students may use to establish or abolish universities. It is not clear how a lot of this Bill will work in practice. Over and over again we have been asked to take matters on trust and have been told that details will follow. We do not know how much of a light touch or not the Secretary of State will be using in guidance to the UKRI and the OfS. We do not know what providers will do to the market or how the status of the sector will hold up. We do not know how much there will be a fracture between teaching and research to the detriment of both. Now that we have reached the end of the Committee with so many gaps in the Bill, can the Minister assure us that there will be some process of post-legislative scrutiny to ensure that this experiment is working? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I take this opportunity simply to congratulate the Minister on having taken over this intricate and important part of the Bill. He has discharged his responsibilities with great skill.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, as this is the last group of amendments, most of which were not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I shall respond briefly and particularly take note of the general comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I shall make a short concluding comment. If there are matters in this group of amendments that require some writing, I will write to all noble Lords and put a copy of such letters in the Library of the House.
I shall make some concluding comments about this quite long Committee stage. I record my appreciation of the whole Committee and of all noble Lords who have taken part in all the debates for the quality and constructive nature of the discussions we have been having in the past few weeks. I am very pleased that noble Lords recognise that Committee stage is about discussing the Bill, probing the detail and, importantly, giving all sides an opportunity to listen to other noble Lords’ points of view. As a result, noble Lords have not felt the need to divide the Committee beyond the first amendment on the first day. For that, I am grateful.
Now we have some time before the Bill enters its Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has challenged me on the meaning of different verbs used on occasion by me on and around the word “reflect”. I hope I can leave a smile on his face—or perhaps not—by saying that I am actively working with my honourable friend in the other place, Jo Johnson, to reflect on these discussions and consider the best way forward. On a serious note, I hope the noble Lord and the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Mendelsohn, realise that I have given much warmer words than that at certain points. In that spirit, I want to be sure that he understands that we are looking very carefully at Hansard and reflecting generally on all the debates. I am looking forward to Report. In the meantime, I would just say that I have very much appreciated the debates and look forward to future ones.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, because of the invitation to reflect, I will take a slight liberty and make two points. The worst time of my life was when I occupied a post in the British film industry and was involved in trying to get decisions for funding for films. We were often engaged in trying to deal with larger, richer and often foreign bodies, which were prepared to tantalise us with the thought that they might invest in our films. It became well known in that process that the worst decision you could get was the slow maybe. I am afraid we are in that situation. The Minister has said that he is reflecting and thinking, but we have not been able to get clarity. It is easier to have a straight, “No, we are not taking this forward”, than it is to have variations on “thinking hard about” or reflecting. I appreciate the gesture that he has made, but it has been a bit of a frustrating period, and I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, will also say that sometimes it has been very hard to understand where the Minister has wanted to get to with a particular issue because we did not get clarity about it.
However, that is all past. We are now into a period of calm waters, and perhaps we can pick up the threads of some of what we are doing and try to take forward the ideas for Report and possibly onwards from then. I hope that that will be a fruitful time, and I look forward to it.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but given that this is such a massive Bill with so many unknowns in it, I and probably others will be calling on Report for some sort of post-legislative scrutiny and checking. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) Section 83(2)(ba)(ii) and (3) come into force, in relation to Wales, on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.”