Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
Indeed, Chris Skidmore.
Mr Speaker
I do beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. There is a minor likeness.
Chris Skidmore
It is a mistake commonly made.
The Government published on 27 December their response to the review of electoral fraud by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles). The response sets out clearly the action that the Government intend to take on each recommendation and proposes a comprehensive programme for reforming our electoral system and making our democracy more secure.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure which of the two of you is the more offended, but my apologies to the both of you.
Neil Parish
In December 2008, I was an election observer in Bangladesh. Because of previous voter fraud, photographs were taken of 80 million people, and people were clearly identifiable from those photographs when they went to vote. Have the Government considered doing that? A democracy needs as many people to vote as possible, but we do not want identity fraud when people vote.
Chris Skidmore
My hon. Friend makes a good point about international comparisons. Many countries, including Canada, Brazil and Austria, already require photographic ID to vote at polling stations, and such a scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland in 2003. The Government are taking forward pilots to look at electoral identification in the 2018 local government elections, and we are willing to test various forms of identification—photographic and non-photographic—to ensure above all that no one is disenfranchised.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Nick Smith
Yes. They are putting obstacles between people and the polling booth instead of working to boost our democracy. If voter fraud is such a problem, will the Minister tell the House how many voter fraud convictions there were last year?
Chris Skidmore
I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman for somehow claiming that this is a smokescreen. It was a Labour Government that introduced photographic ID in Northern Ireland in 2003. The Electoral Commission and all other electoral administrators have called for ID in polling stations, and we will test its use rigorously in the pilots. There were 481 cases of voter fraud reported to the Electoral Commission, and 184 additional cases were reported to the police. Above all, this is about perception. The Electoral Commission reported last year that 30% of the population believe that voter fraud is an issue in their local area, and we are determined to tackle that perception.
Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The organisations that the Minister just referred to and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe have warned that our voting system is peculiarly vulnerable to identity theft. There is no evidence of voter suppression in the countries that the Minister listed. Does he think that those who talk of conspiracy theories are at grave risk of becoming apologists for electoral fraud?
Chris Skidmore
We are determined to ensure that we have a clear and secure democracy in which voters can have confidence. We have 46.5 million people on the electoral register, and turnout increased from 26.3 million in 2001 to 30.8 million in 2015. We want to ensure that we have voter participation, but if the public perceive that fraud is an issue, that perception can be as damaging as cases of fraud.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Has the Minister made any equality impact assessment of the recommendation to ban the use of any language other than English or Welsh in polling stations?
Chris Skidmore
The issue of language in polling stations is an important part of the package of measures in our response to my right hon. Friend’s report. If electoral administrators are to do their job and be confident that no one is being put under undue pressure or influence when voting, it is important that we look at the question of language. At the same time, the Government’s announcements will be thorough and based on correct analysis, and we will be going through due process to ensure that all the impact assessments are correct.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
In our response to the review of electoral fraud by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), we outlined our intention to run several pilot schemes in a number of local authority areas in 2018, the purpose of which is to test the impact on elections of asking electors to present identification before voting.
Sir Simon Burns
Does my hon. Friend agree that voting is one of a citizen’s most important duties, and that introducing proof of ID would bring voting into line with other everyday transactions such as getting a mortgage or renting a car?
Chris Skidmore
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. When it comes to voting, there cannot be a more important transaction someone can make over five years than to democratically elect their Member of Parliament or councillor. It is right that that process is respected and that, as for so many other transactions in the modern world, we bring it up to date. It is not acceptable for someone simply to turn up at the voting booth, point out their name and claim that as their identity. That does not happen anywhere else. It is time to bring our democracy up to date.
Justin Tomlinson
Voter fraud is unacceptable, and I welcome any measure to secure democracy. Swindon Borough Council has repeatedly been commended for good election practice, so will the Minister consider us for future pilots?
Chris Skidmore
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have had a great deal of interest in the pilot process from local authorities. We are currently conducting a review to decide exactly what form those pilots will take—as I said, some will involve photographic ID and some will involve non-photographic ID. We are determined to ensure that interested local authorities can come forward in good time so that they can participate in a pilot project. On Monday, I addressed the Association of Electoral Administrators at its annual conference in Brighton, and I was struck by the fact that more than 50% of electoral administrators supported the introduction of ID in polling stations.
Henry Smith
My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right that voter identification is common practice in many sophisticated democracies around the world. What best practice have the Government been taking from those other countries?
Chris Skidmore
My hon. Friend is entirely right. We expect that by introducing the pilot schemes, we will provide invaluable learning for strengthening our electoral system, but we also want to learn from international comparisons with countries such as Canada, Austria and Brazil, which require voter identification. As I have stated, voters in Northern Ireland have had to present identification since 1985, and photographic identification since 2003. Further information is available in the Electoral Commission’s report “Electoral fraud in the UK”. We will consider the international comparisons going forward.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Government are deluding themselves if they think that personation is the main challenge to the integrity of our democratic system. The main challenge to its integrity and credibility is the fact that millions of our fellow citizens who are entitled to vote do not do so. Would it not be better for the Government to spend time and money on pilot projects designed to increase participation, such as a radical overhaul of how we teach democratic rights in schools; on pursuing online voting; and, most of all, on automatic voter registration, so that the ability to vote is not something people have to apply for?
Chris Skidmore
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising democratic participation. As I have stated, we now have a record 46.5 million people on the electoral register and turnout at elections is at a record level. Nevertheless, we can and must do more. The ideas of a clear and secure democracy and looking at voter identification pilots are just part of a package of measures. We also have another crucial strand: ensuring that every voice matters. In spring, I will set out our democratic engagement strategy, which will include further pilots of schemes to use civil society groups to encourage voter registration.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Minister give an assurance that the issue of postal and proxy vote applications, which can also be subject to abuse, will be kept under review, in terms of the accurate identification of the person who is supposed to be applying for such votes?
Chris Skidmore
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. When we published our response to the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, the top line was obviously ID in polling stations, but there was also an entire package of measures, including looking again at postal vote fraud, banning the harvesting of postal votes by political parties, and limiting the number of postal vote packs that can be handled by family members to two. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we will continue to review those matters.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Electoral Commission tells us that 3.5 million genuine, legitimate electors do not have the valid photo-identification that would be required in the trials, and risk being denied their votes. Blackburn with Darwen Council recently passed a motion to oppose the trial there, Pendle has called for a rethink, and Burnley is considering a similar motion. When will the Minister abandon his tatty copy of the Republican party’s playbook on voter suppression and listen to the sensible voice of the good folk of Lancashire?
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Lady mentioned the Electoral Commission, but she omitted to say that it has stated that it welcomes the
“full and considered response from the Government and the announcement of its intention to pilot measures to increase security at polling stations.”
The Electoral Commission is indeed in favour of introducing photographic ID for elections. When it comes to the pilots, we want evidence-based policy making, which is why we will have pilots that look at photographic ID and pilots that look at non-photographic ID. When it comes to ensuring that people will be able to vote, I am not going to be denying anyone that franchise. We are protecting those communities that are most vulnerable in casting their votes in a secret ballot. We must protect against undue influence, and I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not take the matter seriously, as the Electoral Commission does.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
The Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which govern the conduct of public procurement in the UK, apply in full to all public sector organisations, including local authorities.
Mary Glindon
Will the Minister confirm that it is perfectly legal for local authorities to be able to set their own procurement rules, taking into account additional factors, such as the suppliers’ human rights record and the environmental impact?
Ben Gummer
Local authorities must comply with European Union law, which is enshrined in the public contracts regulations. The Government provide guidance on how those regulations should be applied, and I encourage local authorities to take that guidance into account when they are framing their procurement policies.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Ben Gummer
My enormous departmental team of two comprises one person who has run several small businesses and another who is a sole trader. That is a 100% fulfilment on my hon. Friend’s request. We also have a small and medium-sized enterprise ambassador, Emma Jones, who works with the council to ensure that we do precisely what he wishes, which is to sensitise the civil service and procurement officials to the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Before he quit, a friend of mine empowered Waitrose managers—[Interruption.] I will not name him. He empowered Waitrose managers to go out and procure local product. Can we not give similar encouragement to bodies such as county and district councils?
Ben Gummer
I commend everything that my hon. Friend’s friend has done in his previous role, and I know that he will bring that expertise, in due course, to the people of the west midlands. Although councils and all public bodies cannot choose according to geographical criteria, what they can and must do is take into account the social value of their procurement policies, which is why there is considerable latitude for them to have a similar approach to the one that his friend conducted at Waitrose.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Ministers have talked a great deal about linking apprenticeships to public procurement contracts, which is a sensible use of public funds to meet both the skills agenda and to help to narrow inequality in society. However, the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission confirmed last week that only 10% of new apprenticeships are taken up by those from low-income families. Given the Cabinet Office’s unique place to promote this agenda, what is the Minister doing to tackle this unacceptable situation?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman raises a completely just point. The whole purpose behind our apprenticeship programme is to give opportunities to people who would not otherwise have them. That is why the 3 million target that we have across the economy is so important. The public sector will contribute a significant proportion of that, and I am responsible for the civil service component. We are doing very well on the civil service apprenticeship numbers. Two weeks ago, we launched a set of standards that will apply to some of the civil service apprenticeships. I hope that, in time, we will be able to fulfil exactly the aspiration that we both have in ensuring that that helps social mobility.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
The Government have outlined a variety of photographic and non-photographic types of identification that could feature in our pilot schemes, which will test rigorously the impact of ID on all aspects of elections, including turnout. I note that, in its 2016 report on Northern Ireland, the Electoral Commission said that less than 1% of voters were affected by photo ID, which is why we want to look at photo ID and non-photo ID to ensure that no disenfranchisement is taking place in our pilots.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Electoral Commission reported in 2016 that 3.5 million electors have no appropriate form of photographic ID. Why is it that the Government are ignoring recommendations to have a voluntary voter card, which would allow those 3.5 million people to vote?
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Gentleman is a fine historian who, like me, believes in looking at the facts and in evidence-based policy making. That is why we have constructed the pilots to ensure that there is photographic identification and non-photographic identification. If there happens to be anyone who has no form of identification, we will make provision for them. Rolling out the electoral ID card across the country would be tremendously expensive and we have no plans to do so.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
Workforce planning is primarily the responsibility of each individual Department, but the civil service headcount reduced by 3,390, or 0.8%, over the past year.
Louise Haigh
I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he commit to publishing an assessment of all resources moved over to Brexit priorities and what work streams have been cut as a result?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady will understand that we have worked hard since July to ensure that we have the proper resources in place so that our exit from the European Union is effective and efficient. The public versions of the single departmental plans will have the outlines that she is seeking.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend continues to modernise the civil service headcount, will he ensure that the apprenticeship strategy for the civil service continues to lead to a more diverse and skilled workforce to serve our communities?
Ben Gummer
I can assure my hon. Friend of precisely that and, as he will know, my predecessor started a programme of understanding better the social and economic make-up of the civil service so that we can have a far more targeted approach to ensuring diversity and social equality in our civil service.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
Together with Her Majesty’s Treasury, and as part of our joint efficiency review, we are seeking to find savings of £15 billion to £20 billion by 2020. We have achieved £3.3 billion in the past year.
Robert Courts
As a councillor on West Oxfordshire District Council, I have seen how the commissioning of services from one provider by different public sector bodies can drive down costs, providing high-quality services at very low cost. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are lessons to be learned for all sectors of government and that programmes such as One Public Estate are an excellent example of how collaborative working can help the public sector to deliver more for less?
Ben Gummer
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and he is right to point out One Public Estate, which is a Cabinet Office programme ensuring cross-working and efficiency savings as a result. Many of the lessons we can learn are from local government, and it is important that we all learn from each other as regards sharing services and cutting costs.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend introduce reforms so that different parts of the public sector can share data more easily, which will significantly improve efficiency?
Ben Gummer
The Digital Economy Bill, which is passing through both Houses at the moment, does precisely that.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
We are committed to improving public services through technology to transform the relationship between citizen and state. We are doing so through the use of tools such as Verify.
Jo Churchill
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he reassure the House that the Government are doing everything they can to ensure that people can access public services online, particularly hard-to-reach groups such as those in my rural constituency of Bury St Edmunds?
Ben Gummer
The Government Digital Service has a specific programme to ensure that there is full access to Government digital services for all groups. Of course, by ensuring that we have good broadband connections in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s we will enable people to access those services online in rural areas.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
The Cabinet Office is the centre of Government. The Department is responsible for delivering a democracy that works for everyone, supporting the design and delivery of Government policy and driving efficiencies and reforms to make government work better.
Joan Ryan
Will the Minister provide an update on any progress in the Prime Minister’s audit to tackle racial disparities? As so much is already known about the devastating consequences of these disparities, should not the Government be getting on with doing a great deal more about them now rather than waiting for an audit?
Ben Gummer
I find the right hon. Lady’s comments surprising. It was this Government and this Prime Minister who commissioned the racial disparity audit. When the right hon. Lady was in power, her party had 13 years to do that, but did not. I am proud of what the Prime Minister has done. We have committed to publishing the audit in the next few months, and the right hon. Lady will be excited by the possibilities it presents to make things better for everyone in the country.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
Ben Gummer
Although list X is the responsibility of the MOD and the Secretary of State will have heard that question, I have a responsibility for small and medium-sized enterprises in public procurement. I shall certainly take forward my hon. Friend’s concerns and ensure that they are represented.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Since 2010, more than 100,000 civil service jobs have gone. With 300 new recruits and funding of £42.7 million for the Brexit Department, is the Minister really serious about the fact that the UK is properly prepared to enter the most complex negotiations for generations? The reality is that it is an absolute shambles.
Ben Gummer
I have full confidence not only in that, but in the civil service and the remarkable people who inhabit the Departments across our state.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to and interest in combating voter fraud, and for taking those measures. I addressed a conference of the National Police Chiefs Council and the Electoral Commission last Friday, setting out why it is important that the police take the issue of voter fraud seriously. There have been cases where convictions have not been followed through. That is wrong and I hope that the issue will be addressed.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman knows that it was this Government who established a far more rigorous understanding of steel content in public procurement policy. I will update the House in due course to give hon. Members an idea of the progress we are making.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Ben Gummer
As of yesterday, 15,745 companies were registered with Contracts Finder, 59% of which were small and medium-sized enterprises. My hon. Friend could encourage his local businesses to sign up. It is very easy to do so, and the best he can do is to tell them that.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Ben Gummer
I owe Members an apology for this. It is true that some of the telephone numbers in the directory were inaccurate and some were general numbers. The revision is being made quarterly—the next one is in March—and I have instructed all Departments to provide private office numbers, as Members rightly expect.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Toby Perkins
The Government chose to launch the pupil premium at Spire Junior School in Chesterfield, where 70% of pupils receive free school meals. The headteacher, Dave Shaw, was going to run the great north run for a cancer charity. However, the Prime Minister’s new schools funding formula means that Spire Junior School now faces the biggest cuts in all of Derbyshire. Running for cash is now the only alternative to sacking staff. Will she go to the finish line and tell Dave Shaw how this is a fairer funding formula?
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to say that, in the local authority that covers the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, we have seen an increase of over 17,000 children at good or outstanding schools since 2010. That is down to Government changes and the hard work of teachers and other staff in the schools. For a very long time, it has been the general view—I have campaigned on this for a long time—that we need to see a fairer funding formula for schools. What the Government have brought forward is a consultation on a fairer funding formula. We will look at the results of that fairer funding formula and will bring forward our firm proposals in due course.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in praising the bravery and commitment of all those who serve in our armed forces. I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing on the Defence Committee, because, of course, he brings personal expertise to that work. Those who serve on the frontline deserve our support when they get home, and I can assure him of the Government’s commitment to that. All troops facing allegations receive legal aid from the Government, with the guarantee that it will not be claimed back. In relation to IHAT, which he specifically referred to, we are committed to reducing its case load to a small number of credible cases as quickly as possible. On the action that has been taken in relation to the individual he has referred to, I think it is absolutely appalling when people try to make a business out of chasing after our brave troops.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Nine out of 10 NHS trusts say their hospitals have been at unsafe levels of overcrowding. One in six accident and emergency units in England is set to be closed or downgraded. Could the Prime Minister please explain how closing A&E departments will tackle overcrowding and ever-growing waiting lists?
The Prime Minister
First, I extend my thanks and, I am sure, those of the whole House to the hard-working staff in the NHS, who do a great job day in and day out treating patients. Yes, we recognise there are heavy pressures on the NHS. That is why, this year, we are funding the NHS at £1.3 billion more than the Labour party promised at the last election. The right hon. Gentleman refers specifically to accident and emergency. What is our response in accident and emergency? We see 600 more A&E consultants, 1,500 more A&E doctors and 2,000 more paramedics. It is not about standing up, making a soundbite and asking a question; it is about delivering results, and that is what this Conservative Government are doing.
Jeremy Corbyn
Congratulating A&E staff is one thing; paying them properly is another. I hope the Prime Minister managed to see the BBC report on the Royal Blackburn A&E department, which showed that people had to wait up to 13 hours and 52 minutes to be seen. A major cause of the pressure on A&Es is the £4.6 billion cut in the social care budget since 2010. Earlier this week, Liverpool’s very esteemed adult social care director, Samih Kalakeche, resigned, saying:
“Frankly I can’t see social services surviving after two years. That’s the absolute maximum... people are suffering, and we are really only seeing the tip of the iceberg.”
What advice do the Government have for the people of Liverpool in this situation?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is bad enough when Members who are within the curtilage of the Chamber shout; those who are not absolutely should not do so. It is a discourtesy to the House of Commons—nothing more, nothing less. Please do not do it.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman referred at an early stage of his question to Blackburn. I am happy to say that compared to 2010 there are 129 more hospital doctors and 413 more nurses in Blackburn’s East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust. He then went on to talk about waiting times. Waiting times can be an issue. Where is it that you wait a week longer for pneumonia treatment, a week longer for heart disease treatment, seven weeks longer for cataract treatment, 11 weeks longer for hernia treatment, and 21 weeks longer for a hip operation? It is not in England—it is in Wales. Who is in power in Wales? Labour.
Jeremy Corbyn
My question was about the comments from Samih Kalakeche in Liverpool and why the people of Liverpool are having to suffer these great cuts. Liverpool has asked to meet the Government on four occasions.
The crisis is so bad that until yesterday David Hodge, the Conservative leader of Surrey County Council, planned to hold a referendum for a 15% increase in council tax. At the last minute, it was called off. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not a special deal was done for Surrey?
The Prime Minister
The decision as to whether or not to hold a referendum in Surrey is entirely a matter for the local authority in Surrey—Surrey County Council.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of social care, which we have had exchanges on across this Dispatch Box before. As I have said before, we do need to find a long-term, sustainable solution for social care in this country. I recognise the short-term pressures. That is why we have enabled local authorities to put more money into social care. We have provided more money. Over the next two years, £900 million more will be available for social care. But we also need to look at ensuring that good practice is spread across the whole country. We can look at places such as Barnsley, North Tyneside, St Helens and Rutland. Towards the end of last year, there were virtually no delayed discharges attributable to social care in those councils. But we also need to look long term. That is why the Cabinet Office is driving a review, with the relevant Departments, to find a sustainable solution, which the Labour party ducked for far too long.
Jeremy Corbyn
My question was whether there had been a special deal done for Surrey. The leader said that they had had many conversations with the Government. We know they have, because I have been leaked copies of texts sent by the Tory leader, David Hodge, intended for somebody called “Nick” who works for Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government. One of the texts reads:
“I am advised that DCLG officials have been working on a solution and you will be contacting me to agree a memorandum of understanding.”
Will the Government now publish this memorandum of understanding, and while they are about it, will all councils be offered the same deal?
The Prime Minister
What we have given all councils is the opportunity to raise a 3% precept on council tax, to go into social care. The right hon. Gentleman talks about understanding. What the Labour party fails to understand—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise. Mr Pound, calm yourself—you are supposed to be a senior statesman—and Mr Rotheram, you should reserve your shouting for the stands at Anfield.
The Prime Minister
As I say, all councils have the opportunity to raise the 3% precept, to put that funding into the provision of social care. What the Labour party fails to understand is that this is not just a question of looking at money; it is a question of looking at spreading best practice and finding a sustainable solution. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that if we look at social care provision across the entire country, we will see that the last thing that social care providers need is another one of Labour’s bouncing cheques.
Jeremy Corbyn
I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that the Chancellor and the Health Secretary both represent Surrey constituencies.
There was a second text from the Surrey County Council leader to “Nick”. It says:
“The numbers you indicated are the numbers I understand are acceptable for me to accept and call off the R”.
I have been reading a bit of John le Carré and apparently “R” means “referendum”—it is very subtle, all this. He goes on to say in his text to “Nick”:
“If it is possible for that info to be sent to myself I can then revert back soonest, really want to kill this off”.
So, how much did the Government offer Surrey to “kill this off”, and is the same sweetheart deal on offer to every council facing the social care crisis created by this Government?
The Prime Minister
I have made clear to the right hon. Gentleman what has been made available to every council, which is the ability to raise the precept. I have to say to him—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. As colleagues know, I never mind how long Prime Minister’s questions take. The questions and the answers must be heard.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box making all sorts of claims. Yet again, what we get from Labour is alternative facts; what it really needs is an alternative leader.
Jeremy Corbyn
My question was, what deal was offered to Surrey that got it to call off a referendum, and will the same deal be offered to every other council going through a social care crisis?
Hospital wards are overcrowded, a million people are not getting the care they need, and family members, mostly women, are having to give up work to care for loved ones. Every day that the Prime Minister fails to act, this crisis gets worse. Will she finally come clean and provide local authorities with the funding they need to fund social care properly, so that our often elderly and vulnerable people can be treated with the support and dignity that they deserve in a civilised society?
The Prime Minister
The deal that is on offer to all councils is the one that I have already set out. Let me be very clear with the right hon. Gentleman. As ever, he stands up and consistently asks for more spending, more money, more funding. What he always fails to recognise is that you can spend money on social care and the national health service only if you have a strong economy to deliver the wealth that you need. There is a fundamental difference between us. When I talk—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but there is still too much noise in the Chamber. People observing our proceedings, both here and outside, want the questions heard and the answers heard, and they will be.
The Prime Minister
There is a difference between us. When I talk about half a trillion pounds, it is about the money we will be spending on the NHS this Parliament. When Labour Members talk about half a trillion pounds, it is about the money they want to borrow: Conservatives investing in the NHS; Labour bankrupting Britain.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am very interested to hear of the important work my hon. Friend is doing in that important area. As he knows, I think we need to put more of a focus on mental health and make progress. I am pleased to say that something like 1,400 more people are accessing mental health services every day. That is an advance, but more needs to be done. We are putting more money—£68 million—into improving mental healthcare through digital innovation, which sounds as if it fits right into what he is looking at. There will be a focus on that with children’s and young people’s mental health in mind. He might want to look out for the Department of Health and Department for Education joint Green Paper on that, which they will publish in October.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Last night, parliamentarians from across the Chamber and across the parties voted overwhelmingly against the UK Government’s Brexit plans—in the Scottish Parliament. If the United Kingdom is a partnership of equals, will the Prime Minister compromise like the Scottish Government and reach a negotiated agreement before invoking article 50, or will she just carry on regardless?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, when the UK Government negotiate, we will negotiate as the Government for the whole United Kingdom. We have put in place the Joint Ministerial Committee arrangements through various committees, which enable us to work closely with the devolved Administrations to identify the particular issues they want represented as we put our views together. We have said that we will intensify the discussions within that JMC arrangement, and that is exactly what we will be doing.
Angus Robertson
When the Prime Minister was in Edinburgh on 15 July last year, she pledged that she would not trigger article 50 until she had an agreed UK-wide approach. Given that the Scottish Parliament has voted overwhelmingly against her approach, and that all bar one MP representing a Scottish constituency in the House of Commons has voted against her approach, she does not have an agreed UK-wide approach. As the Prime Minister knows, a lot of people in Scotland watch Prime Minister’s questions. Will she tell those viewers in Scotland whether she intends to keep her word to Scotland or not?
The Prime Minister
We are ensuring that we are working closely with the Scottish Government, and indeed with the other devolved Administrations, as we take this matter forward. I would just remind the right hon. Gentleman of two things. First, the Supreme Court was very clear that the Scottish Parliament does not have a veto on the triggering of article 50—the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which is going through the House, obviously gives the power to the Government to trigger article 50. I would also remind him of this point, because he constantly refers to the interests of Scotland inside the European Union: an independent Scotland would not be in the European Union.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. Our broken housing market is one of the greatest barriers to progress in Britain today, and the excellent housing White Paper brought out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government sets out the steps we will take to fix it. My hon. Friend is right: it is the Conservatives in government who will support local authorities to deliver more of the right homes in the right places, to encourage faster build-out of developments—I am sure everybody recognises the problem of planning permissions that are given and then not built out—and to create the conditions for a more competitive and diverse housing market. We are calling for action and we are setting out the responsibilities of all parties in building the homes that Britain needs.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I find that a rather curious question from the hon. Gentleman. As it happens, last night I was out of the House between the two votes. I switched on the BBC parliamentary channel and I saw the hon. Gentleman speaking. I turned over to something else. I switched back to the parliamentary channel and he was still speaking. I switched over to something else. I switched back and he was still speaking. He is the last person to complain about filibustering in this House. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Docherty-Hughes, you seem to be in a state of permanent over-excitement. Calm yourself, man. Take some sort of medicament and it will soothe you. We must hear Mrs Villiers.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises an important point that is, I know, of concern to many people in the House and outside. We should be proud that in the UK we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world—indeed, one of the highest scores for animal protection in the world. Leaving the EU will not change that. I can assure her that we are committed to maintaining and, where possible, improving standards of welfare in the UK, while ensuring of course that our industry is not put at a competitive disadvantage.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I am proud that in this country we have strengthened the law on domestic violence and violence against women and girls. We see this as a retrograde step by the Russian Government. Repealing existing legislation sends out the wrong message on what is a global problem. We have joined others in the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in criticising that decision.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
This is obviously a very important issue that my hon. Friend has raised. I understand that on the point of basic medication it is not the fact that the NHS pays more for basic painkillers than on the high street: in fact, its prices are lower. In the case of Kadcyla and similar drugs, it is right that difficult decisions are made on the basis of clinical evidence. I understand that NICE is undertaking a comprehensive assessment before making a final recommendation, and in the meantime Kadcyla is still available to patients.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Last month, Sir Anthony Hart published his report on historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland. Given the uncertain political situation with the Northern Ireland political institutions, if the Executive is not up and running within a month, will the Prime Minister commit to implementing the report in full?
The Prime Minister
This was obviously an important review. We have our own inquiry into historical child abuse in England and Wales. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about looking ahead to the future. The elections in Northern Ireland will take place on 2 March. There will then be a limited period for an Executive to be put together. I fervently hope an Executive can be put together to maintain the devolved institutions, and I encourage all parties to work very hard to ensure that. I do not want the benefits of progress to be undone, but I am sure, looking ahead, that whatever is necessary will be done to ensure that the findings of the report are taken into account and acted on.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. When we negotiate as a United Kingdom, we will be negotiating for the whole of the United Kingdom and taking account of all parts of the United Kingdom. We have a real ambition to make the west midlands an engine for growth. That is about growing the region’s economy and more jobs. Money has been put into growth deal funding and, for example, the Birmingham rail hub. The west midlands will of course be getting a strong voice nationally with a directly elected Mayor in May. I believe Andy Street, with both local expertise and business experience, will be a very good Mayor for the west midlands.
Mr Campbell
I’m looking pretty slim as well, Mr Speaker!
I had five months of NHS treatment at the Newcastle Royal Victoria infirmary under the auspices of Professor Griffin, a marvellous surgeon. Seeing as I might have come out with palliative care, I think he has just about saved my life. That is the best side of the NHS. The service I received was absolutely wonderful, but there is a flip side. What we have today is what are called “corridor nurses”, who look after patients on trolleys in corridors. Quite honestly, Prime Minister, that is not the way we want the health service to be run. We want it to be run in the way it saved me. Get your purse open and give them the money they want.
The Prime Minister
As Mr Speaker said, I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place in the Chamber. I commend the surgeon and all those in the national health service who treated him and enabled him to be here today and continue his duties. There are, as we know, surgeons, doctors, nurses and other staff up and down the NHS day in, day out saving lives. We should commend them for all they do. The north-east is a very good example of some of the really good practice in the NHS. I want to see that good practice spread across the NHS in the whole country.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend obviously raises an issue that is of concern all across this House. As she says, it is of concern to many individuals outside the House who want reassurance about their future. As I have said, I want to be able to give, and I expect to be able to give, that reassurance, but I want to see the same reassurance for UK citizens living in the EU. What I can say to her is that when I trigger article 50, I intend to make it clear that I want this to be a priority for an early stage of the negotiations, so we can address this issue and give reassurance to the people concerned.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Just two weeks ago, Quamari Serunkuma-Barnes, 15 years old, left school, was stabbed four times and died. Three days earlier, Djodjo Nsaka, 19 years old, was stabbed to death in Wembley. Just a few months earlier, two of my young constituents, James Owusu-Ajyekum, 22 years old, and Oliver Tetlow, 27 years old, were killed in what the police say was a case of mistaken identity. Next week, I am meeting the deputy Mayor of London to discuss this and other issues. Will the Prime Minister meet me, fellow MPs and my borough commander to talk about this issue and the Sycamore project, which we would like rolled out in London and beyond?
The Prime Minister
First, may I send the condolences of the whole House to the families and friends of all those the hon. Lady refers to who were brutally stabbed and attacked in knife attacks? This is obviously an important issue, particularly in London, and we want it addressed. A lot of good work has been done. I am not aware of the Sycamore project, but I would be happy to hear more details of it.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We have been very clear that we want to bring the net migration numbers down, but we also want to ensure that the brightest and the best are still welcome here in the UK. That is why people want to see the UK Government making decisions about people coming here from the EU. We are clear, however, as I said in my Lancaster House speech, that there will still be immigration from the EU into the UK. We want to ensure that the brightest and the best can come here.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Brexit Minister claimed that Parliament would have a meaningful vote on the final EU deal. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, under her plans, Parliament will either have to accept what the Government offer or fall back on World Trade Organisation rules and that, in the event of no deal, there will be no vote at all? In reality, is this not just a case of take it or leave it? It is not a meaningful concession; it is a con.
The Prime Minister
We have been clear on this, but I am happy to reiterate what the Minister said yesterday. We have looked at this matter. I said in my Lancaster House speech that there would be a vote on the final deal, but there were a number of questions about what exactly that meant. We will bring forward a motion; the motion will be on the final agreement; it will be for approval by both Houses of Parliament; it will be before the final agreement is concluded, and we expect—I know that this has been an issue for several right hon. and hon. Members—and intend that that will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important matter that is on the minds of a number of right hon. and hon. Friends. As I said earlier, the current system of funding is unfair, not transparent and out of date. I want a system that supports our aspiration to ensure that every child has a good school place. In looking at these reforms, I can assure my hon. Friend that we want to get this right, which is why we are consulting and why we will look closely at the responses to the consultation.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Npower has announced a 9.8% increase on dual fuel bills, which even the former boss of Npower, Paul Massara, has described as “shocking”. EDF has announced an 8.4% electricity hike, and it is reported that British Gas is preparing its 11 million customers for a 9% increase. Ofgem has moved to protect those who are on prepayment meters with a cap on their energy bills, so why does the Prime Minister not demand similar protection for the majority of customers, who are being ripped off, as the Competition and Markets Authority has said, to the sum of £1.4 billion a year?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady may have missed the fact that we have said that where we think markets are not working, we will look at any measures that are needed—and the energy market is one of those we are looking at the moment.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order, I apologise for interrupting, but the hon. Gentleman must be heard.
Karl MᶜCartney
Thank you, Speaker.
Finally, does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that certain Opposition Front Benchers have not learned that disagreeing with their current party leader can cause headaches?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think all of us and everybody in the country wants to unite behind the Government’s work to ensure that we get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom as we leave the European Union, and I believe that we can get a deal that will be in the interests of both the UK and the EU. I had hoped that I would be able to welcome the shadow Home Secretary to the Front Bench in time for the vote that is going to take place later tonight. Perhaps Labour Members are starting to realise that their only real headache is their leader.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister agree with the director general of the World Trade Organisation that if Britain were to leave the EU on WTO terms, it would cost £9 billion in lost trade each year?
The Prime Minister
What we want to do is to ensure that we negotiate a deal with the European Union that enables us to have the best possible deal in trading with and operating within the European Union single market in goods and services. I believe that is possible precisely because, as I have just said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), such a deal would be good not just for us, but for the EU as well.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I set out a few weeks ago, the Government will be reviewing the operation of CAMHS across the country, because I recognise some of the concerns that hon. Members have raised about it. We want to ensure that children and young people have easy access to mental health at the right time, because of the evidence that a significant proportion of mental health problems that arise later in life actually start in childhood and adolescence. We have made more money available to support transformation in children’s and young people’s mental health, but the shadow Health Secretary—sorry, I mean the Health Secretary is on—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is in his place, as well. I hope the shadow Health Secretary will agree with me that we need to review CAMHS and ensure that we give the right to support to children, young people and adolescents with mental health problems. We will look at the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Many hon. Members have recently made the long journey up to west Cumbria for the Copeland by-election, and will all have experienced the parlous state of our roads and our local railways. In fact, it has taken a by-election for Transport Ministers to look seriously at, and show any real interest in, the situation. Is the Prime Minister planning a trip herself, so that she, too, can experience why we need proper investment from this Government in the transport infrastructure in west Cumbria?
The Prime Minister
The Government are putting more money into infrastructure throughout the country. The Labour party had 13 years in which to improve transport in west Cumbria, and did not do anything about it.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing our attention to the example of Woodall Nicholson. We are pleased to hear that it has those good plans for the future. As we leave the EU, we will be doing so from a position of strength, and my hon. Friend is right to say that skills and manufacturing are important parts of our economy for the future. That is why, in the industrial strategy, we are looking into how we can develop the excellence that we have in the United Kingdom to ensure that we have a prosperous, growing economy for the future.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Last week, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) pointed out that the Prime Minister’s aspiration to achieve barrier-free, tariff-free trade with the single market, getting all the benefits but paying none of the costs, was akin to disappearing down the rabbit hole to Wonderland. I think that the Prime Minister makes a very interesting choice for Alice, but if she does not manage to achieve that high ambition, will she produce an analysis of what trading on the basis of WTO rules would mean for our economy, so that we, too, can make a proper choice?
The Prime Minister
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) for the significant service that he has given to the House and his constituents over the years. He and I have worked well over a number of years—although I should add that, when I was Home Secretary, I used to say, “I locked ’em up and he let ’em out.”
The Government believe that it is possible, within the two-year time frame, to secure agreement not just on our withdrawal from the European Union, but on the trade arrangements that will ensure that we have a strong strategic partnership with the European Union in the future.
Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
When my right hon. Friend met Mr Netanyahu earlier this week, did she impress on him that a lasting peace settlement can only be secured if young Palestinians and young Israelis can look forward to a job, a share in prosperity and a life without fear? Does she agree that that can only be achieved through face-to-face negotiations, and will she join the Israeli Prime Minister in pressing the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority to engage in such negotiations?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend has made an important point. We continue, as a Conservative Government, to believe that the two-state solution is the right one. It means a viable Palestinian state, but also a safe and secure Israel. Of course, it is for the parties to negotiate: obviously, there are others in the international arena who are doing their work to facilitate an agreement in the middle east, but ultimately it is for the two parties to agree on a way forward.
Closure of Maryhill Jobcentre
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Glasgow North,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions' plan to close Maryhill Jobcentre and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Maryhill Jobcentre, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002005]
Close of Bridgeton Jobcentre
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The petition states:
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Glasgow Central,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions’ plan to close Bridgeton Jobcentre and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Bridgeton Jobcentre, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002006]
Closure of Anniesland Jobcentre
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The petition states:
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Glasgow North West,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions’ plan to close Anniesland Jobcentre and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Anniesland Jobcentre, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002008]
Closure of Jobcentres in Parkhead and Easterhouse
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
The petition states:
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Glasgow East,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions’ plan to close Parkhead and Easterhouse Jobcentres and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Parkhead and Easterhouse Jobcentres, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002007]
Closure of Castlemilk and Langside Jobcentres
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
In similar terms to the petitions lodged by my colleagues, the constituents of Glasgow wish to petition that the Department for Work and Pensions halt the sham of a proposal to close half the city’s jobcentres, including the two in my constituency in Castlemilk and Langside. They should get a grip of themselves and get back round the table.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Glasgow South,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions’ plan to close Castlemilk and Langside Jobcentres and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Castlemilk and Langside Jobcentres, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002012]
Construction of an A36-46 link road, east of Bath
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I am grateful to be able to present a petition to the House tonight on the construction of an A36-46 link road, east of Bath. I present the petition on behalf of residents of Bath and the wider north-east Somerset area. The petition has attracted 2,846 signatures from the concerned residents. I thank all of those who have signed the petition in support of the link road.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Bath and the wider North East Somerset Area,
Declares that transport networks in Bath need improvement to reduce congestion in the area; further that a link road between the A36 and A46 should be built; further that an A36-46 link road would provide economic benefit to Bath; further that it would improve transportation links; and further that it would reduce congestion and air pollution.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with Bath and North East Somerset Council and Highways England to bring this long discussed and much needed project of building an A36-46 link road to fruition.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002010]
Post office in Westcliffe, Scunthorpe
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Post offices are very important and are at the heart of communities. The proposals to close the post office on the Westcliff Estate in my constituency are greatly opposed by local residents.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Scunthorpe County,
Declares that residents are opposed to the closure of the Post Office branch on the Westcliff Estate in Scunthorpe.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges North Lincolnshire Council to work with residents of the Westcliff Estate in Scunthorpe to try and stop the closure of the Post Office.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002009]
Sexual Offences (Amendment)
Wednesday 8th February 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberSexual Offences (Amendment) Bill 2016-17 View all Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the circumstances in which the sexual history of a victim of rape or attempted rape may be introduced at a trial; to prohibit in certain circumstances the disclosure by the police of a victim’s identity to an alleged perpetrator of a serious sexual crime; to extend the range of serious offences which may be referred to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency of the sentence; to amend the requirements for ground rules hearings; to make provision for the issuing in certain circumstances of guidance on safeguarding to schools; to make provision for training about serious sexual offences; to place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide guidelines for the courts in dealing with cases of serious sexual offences; to require the Secretary of State to report annually on the operation of the Act; and for connected purposes.
I appreciate that today’s business is calling so I will not take 10 minutes of the House’s time. I therefore hope that Government Ministers will agree to meet me and others to discuss in detail how the matters raised might be resolved.
The Bill was drafted following discussions with senior North Wales Police officers and the force’s Amethyst sexual support centre and also victims’ support groups in Wales. The subject has been the focus of wide consultation by Harry Fletcher and Claire Waxman of Voice4Victims, who have collected a dossier of victims’ harrowing experiences.
Currently, victims of sexual abuse face the possibility of being humiliated and their credibility undermined by defence lawyers asking questions about their sexual partners, clothing and appearance. Clause 1 of this Bill would prevent such intrusive and damaging questioning, and replicate the law that protects victims in Australia, Canada and most of the United States. This rape shield ensures that a complainant’s irrelevant sexual history in relation to the issue of consent is not wrongfully used as an indicator of the victim’s truthfulness. This rape shield is a necessary legal guard against the twin myths peddled by some defence teams: first, that a woman who has sex with one man is more likely to consent to have sex with another; and that the evidence of a promiscuous woman is less credible.
A recent high-profile case in Wales has no doubt had an impact on victims’ confidence to come forward. Dame Vera Baird QC, Northumbria’s police and crime commissioner, has said: “The case is likely to encourage other defendants who claim consent to try to call evidence of their complainants’ sexual behaviour with other men.” She also said: “Fear that complainants will be accused of sexual behaviour with other men has historically been a major deterrent to women reporting rape.”
Fear to report is compounded by the failure to prosecute. During 2015-16, there were 35,798 complaints of rape to the police, but just 2,689—7.5%—resulted in convictions. Some 90% of rape victims are female, and 10% are male.
Ivy, a rape victim, was told at a ground rules hearing that her sexual history would not be used, but in court she faced questions and allegations that she was promiscuous. There was no judicial intervention.
Emma was followed by a stranger who attacked and tried to rape her. Her screams were met with the threat that she stop or be killed. Fortunately, two off-duty police officers heard her screams. The trial fixated on why Emma chose to wear a red dress on that summer evening.
Last year, 36% of rape trials overseen by the Northumbria court observers panel included questioning about prior sexual conduct of the complainant. In over 10% of these trials, in disregard of the present rules, applications were made on the morning of the trial, or after it had started, to allow such questioning. The humiliation of victims of sexual assault by reference to matters irrelevant to the case cannot be allowed to continue. The present law—section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999—was intended to do this, but it is no longer serving its original purpose effectively.
The second major step forward in this Bill would be to stop the disclosure of the name of a victim of rape or attempted rape to an alleged perpetrator by the police. This happened in Máire’s case. She was terrified that her attacker would find her via social media. She changed her name, moved house and withdrew from the electoral register. Another victim told Voice4Victims: “I am scared every day that he might find me. I would have been much safer had I not reported.” Máire was correctly told by the police that there was neither policy nor legislation on disclosure of a victim’s name when the parties were strangers; it is left to officer discretion. This clause would rightly ensure that names are not given by the police unless a Crown court judge makes an order on application from the suspect.
Clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that pupils are safeguarded in schools when there has been a serious sexual assault on one pupil by another. It follows a referral to Voice4Victims on Christmas eve. A teenage girl was raped by a fellow student at a party. He was arrested, charged and then bailed with a condition of no contact with the girl. To the family’s shock, and the victim’s distress, on returning to school she was placed in the same class as the attacker.
The Bill would also allow the Attorney General to refer unduly lenient sentences for stalking and coercive control to the Court of Appeal, introduce safeguards for rape victims in ground rule hearings and provide for guidance for criminal justice and educational staff. These much needed reforms will have limited impact, unless they are accompanied by proper training. The Secretary of State will therefore have a duty to publish and implement a strategy to provide high-quality training and advice for all relevant staff.
The provisions in the Bill are all based on the distressing experiences of victims of serious sexual crimes. These measures will help to restore victims’ faith in the criminal justice system and allow the criminal justice system to function more effectively. Who could argue that victims of rape should be re-victimised by the very system through which they seek redress? I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Liz Saville Roberts, Jess Phillips, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Sir Edward Garnier, Mr Graham Allen, Carolyn Harris, Tracy Brabin, Alison Thewliss, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Tim Loughton, Dr Eilidh Whiteford and Mr Alistair Carmichael present the Bill.
Liz Saville Roberts accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 137).
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 8th February 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 View all European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 8 February 2017 - (8 Feb 2017)
17:52 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 336 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:06 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 336 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:19 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 338 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:32 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 337 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:44 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 33 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:56 - The Committee having divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:14 - The Committee having divided: - Ayes: 496 / Noes: 111 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:33 - divided: - Ayes: 290 / Noes: 332 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:45 - divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 336 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 494 / Noes: 122 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mrs Laing. I spent a lot of time last night studying the large number of amendments that have been tabled for today, and I have to confess that I am concerned as to the admissibility of a large number of them. It is my understanding that amendments are not admissible—out of order—if they are vague or unintelligible without further amendment. As an example, I would like to bring to your attention some of the terms in new clause 2, the lead new clause in the debate. It appears to be very vague, implying that
“the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking to have regard to the public interest”
in a list of various—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but the matter that he is raising is a matter for debate. Some of the new clauses and amendments that were tabled were considered to be in order and have therefore been selected for debate. Some were not in order, and were therefore ineligible for selection for debate. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, although I have no obligation so to do, that the matter has been very carefully considered. New clause 2 is perfectly in order. He might well disagree with the points raised in it—indeed, I would expect him to—and I would expect him to make his disagreement known to the House in due course. For the moment, however, I can assure him and the House that new clause 2 is perfectly in order and that it will be debated.
The First Deputy Chairman
Further to that point of order? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to question the judgment of the Chair.
The First Deputy Chairman
No; the hon. Gentleman will resume his seat, please. [Interruption.] I thank hon. Members, but I am perfectly capable of dealing with this matter. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to ask for an explanation. That would be to question the judgment of the Chair, which is—I should carefully say—a matter up with which I will not put. We will debate new clause 2, which will be moved by Mr Paul Blomfield.
New Clause 2
Conduct of negotiations
“Before giving any notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking to have regard to the public interest during negotiations in—
(a) maintaining a stable and sustainable economy,
(b) preserving peace in Northern Ireland,
(c) having trading arrangements with the European Union for goods and services that are free of tariff and non-tariff barriers and further regulatory burdens,
(d) co-operation with the European Union in education, research and science, environment protection, and preventing and detecting serious and organised crime and terrorist activity,
(e) maintaining all existing social, economic, consumer and workers’ rights.”—(Paul Blomfield.)
This new clause sets out statutory objectives that the Government must have regard to whilst carrying out negotiations under article 50.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Conduct of negotiations—anti-tax haven—
“(1) In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the public interest in maintaining all existing EU tax avoidance and evasion legislation.
(2) In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of Crown must comply with the European Union Code of Conduct on Business Taxation.”
This new clause sets out the government’s commitment to observe the Code of Conduct on business taxation to prevent excessive tax competition and lays out the statutory objectives that the Government must have regard to EU tax avoidance and evasion whilst carrying out negotiations under article 50.
New clause 11—Tariff-free trade in goods and services—
“In the event of the exercise of the power in Section 1, Her Majesty’s Government shall seek a new Treaty between the United Kingdom and the European Union on tariff-free trade in goods and services.”
This new clause would ensure that, in the event of the exercise of the power in Section 1, Her Majesty’s Government shall seek a new Treaty between the United Kingdom and the European Union on tariff-free trade in goods and services rather than withdraw from the European Union with no alternative objective.
New clause 13—Transitional arrangements—
“Her Majesty’s Government shall seek a transitional trading agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union as part of the negotiations following notification under section 1.”
This new clause would make it an objective for HM Government to secure a transitional approach towards new trading relationships with the EU Member States following the end of the Article 50 notification and negotiation period.
New clause 15—Visa-free travel—
“On the exercise of the power in section 1, Her Majesty’s Government shall endeavour to maintain the visa policy in operation at the date of the coming into force of this Act in relation to citizens of member states of the European Union and the United Kingdom.”
This new clause would seek to ensure that HM Government has the objective of maintaining the visa policy in operation at the date of the coming into force of this Act in relation to citizens of member states of the European Union and the United Kingdom.
New clause 21—Trading rights—financial services—
“On the exercise of the power in section 1, Her Majesty’s Government shall make it an objective to secure the trading rights for UK-based financial services companies that exist by virtue of the UK’s membership of the European Union as of the day on which this Act comes into force.”
This new clause would seek to ensure that Her Majesty’s Government endeavours to preserve the existing trading rights for UK-based financial services companies as currently exist.
New clause 55—Conduct of negotiations—
“Before giving any notification under Article 50(2) of the treaty on European Union, the Prime Minister must undertake to have regard to the public interest during negotiations in—
(a) maintaining and advancing manufacturing industry,
(b) securing the interests of all the regions in England,
(c) delivering existing climate change commitments,
(d) maintaining the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland.”
This new clause sets out statutory objectives to which the Government must have regard whilst carrying out negotiations under Article 50.
New clause 70—Relationship with Europe—
“Before the Prime Minister can exercise the power in section 1, the Prime Minister must commit to negotiating a deal that allows free trade and cooperation between Wales and all European countries.”
This new clause requires the Prime Minister to commit to implementing the Leave Campaign’s pledge to negotiate deal that allows free trade and cooperation between Wales and all European countries before exercising the powers outlined in section 1.
New clause 76—Framework for transfer of data—
“In the event of exercise of the power in section 1, Her Majesty‘s Government shall promote a framework for the transfer of data between the UK and the EU to underpin continued trade in services.”
This new clause would make it the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to promote a framework for cross-border data flows to safeguard the UK services economy and its trade with European markets.
New clause 77—Trade in goods and services—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of retaining full participation in the making of all rules affecting trade in goods and services in the European Union.”
This new clause would require HM Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation on agreeing all rules affecting trade in goods and services in the European Union.
New clause 78—Europol—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Police Office (Europol) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty‘s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Police Office (Europol).
New clause 79—European Chemicals Agency—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty‘s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
New clause 80—European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty‘s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).
New clause 81—Community Plant Variety Office—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty‘s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO).
New clause 82—European Medicines Agency—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty‘s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Medicines Agency (EMEA).
New clause 83—European Agency for Health and Safety at Work—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty‘s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA).
New clause 84—European Aviation Safety Agency—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty‘s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
New clause 85—European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty‘s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop).
New clause 86—European Police College—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Police College (Cepol) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty‘s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Police College (Cepol).
New clause 87—European Environment Agency—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Environment Agency (EEA) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty‘s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Environment Agency (EEA).
New clause 88—European Food Safety Authority—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
New clause 89—European Investment Bank—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Investment Bank (EIB) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Investment Bank (EIB).
New clause 90—Eurojust—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in Eurojust on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in Eurojust.
New clause 91—European Maritime Safety Agency—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).
New clause 92—European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).
New clause 93—European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).
New clause 94—European Satellite Centre—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Satellite Centre (EUSC) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Satellite Centre (EUSC).
New clause 95—Protected designation of origin scheme—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme.
New clause 96—Protected geographical indication scheme—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the protected geographical indication (PGI) scheme on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the protected geographical indication (PGI) scheme.
New clause 97—Traditional specialities guaranteed scheme—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme.
New clause 100—Equality and women’s rights—
“Before issuing any notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking to have regard to the public interest during negotiations for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union in—
(a) maintaining employment rights and protections derived from EU legislation,
(b) ensuring that EU co-operation to end violence against women and girls, to tackle female genital mutilation and to end human trafficking will continue unaffected,
(c) the desirability of continuing to recognise restraining orders placed on abusive partners in EU Member States in the UK and restraining orders placed on abusive partners in the UK across the EU, and
(d) establishing a cross-departmental working group to assess and make recommendations for developing legislation on equality and access to justice.”
New clause 104—Agricultural Sector—Trade Deals—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to, and shall include, the agricultural sector in any new trade settlement with the European Union.”
New clause 163—Consultation with representatives of English regions—
“(1) Before the Prime Minister issues any notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the Secretary of State shall set out a strategy for consultation with representatives of the English regions, including those without directly elected Mayors, on the UK’s priorities in negotiations for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
(2) The Secretary of State shall nominate representatives for the purposes of subsection (1).”
This new clause would require the Government to designate representatives from English regions and set out a strategy for consulting them on the UK’s priorities in negotiations on withdrawal from the EU.
New clause 166—Rights and opportunities of young people—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must seek to ensure that the rights and opportunities of people aged under 25 in the United Kingdom are maintained on the same terms as on the day on which Royal Assent is given to this Act, including—
(a) retaining the ability to work and travel visa-free in the EU,
(b) retaining the ability to study in other EU member states on the same terms as on the day on which Royal Assent is given to this Act, and
(c) retaining the ability to participate in EU programmes designed to provide opportunities to young people, including programmes to facilitate studying in other EU member states.”
This new clause would ensure that the Government must seek to protect the rights and opportunities currently enjoyed by young UK nationals so that they should not become worse off than their European counterparts.
New clause 170—EHIC scheme—
“(1) In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union”.
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme.
New clause 172—Erasmus+ Programme—report
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the Erasmus+ Programme on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union”.
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the Erasmus+ Programme.
New clause 174—European Research Area (ERA)—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Research Area (ERA) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union”.
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate continue to the UK’s participation in the European Research Area (ERA).
New clause 178—European Arrest Warrant—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Arrest Warrant on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union”.
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in the European Arrest Warrant.
New clause 181—Trade agreements—
“(1) In the course of negotiations with the European Union on the UK’s withdrawal from the Union, Her Majesty’s Government must have regard to the value of UK membership of the EU Customs Union in maintaining tariff and barrier-free trade with the EU.
(2) Before exercising the power to notify under section 1 of this Act, the Prime Minister should lay before Parliament an assessment of the value of UK membership of the EU Customs Union in maintaining ongoing tariff and barrier-free trade with the EU.”
New clause 183—Membership of the single market including EU-wide reform of freedom of movement—
“(1) In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must seek to—
(a) secure reforms of provisions governing the free movement of persons between EU member states in such a way as to allow for greater controls over movement of people for member states and to enable the UK to retain full membership of the European single market, or
(b) maintain the highest possible level of integration with the European single market.”
This new clause would ensure that the Government must seek to negotiate EU-wide reforms to freedom of movement in the single market to enable the Government to seek to retain membership of the single market or as close to membership as possible.
New clause 185—Euratom—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of continuing to participate in the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) on the same basis as any other member state of the European Union.”
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation in Euratom.
New clause 193—Conduct of negotiations—
“( ) Before giving any notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking to have regard to public interest during negotiations in maintaining the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.”
Amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “may” and insert “shall”
Amendment 23, page 1, line 2, after “notify” insert “by 31 March 2017”
Amendment 7, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“if it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to continue to participate in EU Common Foreign and Security Policy”
This amendment would ensure that the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union would not affect the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to continue to participate in EU Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“but not before 1st November 2017”
This amendment would ensure that any notification of intention to withdraw from the EU cannot be made before 1st November 2017.
Amendment 9, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“and shall make it an objective for the United Kingdom to remain a member of the European Single Market.”
This amendment would ensure that the policy of HM Government shall be to negotiate the United Kingdom‘s continued membership of the European Single Market.
Amendment 29, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“after consultation with the Government of Gibraltar.”
Amendment 30, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“and its institutions with the exception of the European Defence Agency.”
Amendment 31, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“and its institutions with the exception of Euratom.”
Amendment 32, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“and its institutions with the exception of Europol.”
Amendment 33, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“and its institutions with the exception of the European Space Agency.”
Amendment 34, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“with the exception of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.”
Amendment 42, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“The power to make this notification shall not include an intention to withdraw the United Kingdom from membership or participation of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).”
Amendment 54, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has notified Her Majesty’s Government that Gibraltar consents to the process for the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union.”
Amendment 89, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) the intention to withdraw the United Kingdom from membership of, and participation in, the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), until replacement treaties with other EU Member States and relevant third countries have been agreed.”
Amendment 35, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
‘(3) This section does not apply to Gibraltar.”
Amendment 38, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
‘(3) Before the Prime Minister issues a notification under this section, Her Majesty’s Government has a duty to lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper identifying new oversight, accountability and enforcement mechanisms replacing the role of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice to ensure an equivalent level of compliance with EU-derived environmental regulation upon withdrawal from the European Union.”
This amendment would ensure that the UK judicial system is prepared and ready to effectively perform the enforcement duties currently undertaken by institutions of the EU with regards to environmental regulation.
Clause 1 stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 12—International trade—
“Her Majesty’s Government shall endeavour to incorporate into UK regulation the international trade policies that apply to the UK as a consequence of its membership of the European Union and European Customs Union on the date of the exercise of the power in section l.”
This new clause would make it the policy of HM Government to endeavour to “grandfather” existing trade policies currently applicable to the UK by virtue of UK membership of the EU Customs Union.
New clause 32—Social Chapter rights—draft framework—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must set out a draft framework for the future relationship with the European Union which includes reference to the maintenance of Social Chapter rights.”
New clause 34—Free trade—draft framework—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must set out a draft framework for the future relationship with the European Union which includes reference to the maintenance of tariff and barrier-free trade with EU member states.”
New clause 35—Environmental standards—draft framework—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must set out a draft framework for the future relationship with the European Union which includes reference to the maintenance of environmental standards.”
New clause 36—Climate change—draft framework—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must set out a draft framework for the future relationship with the European Union which includes reference to how this will deliver UK and EU climate change commitments.”
New clause 37—Research and Development—draft framework—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must set out a draft framework for the future relationship with the European Union which includes reference to the maintenance of international collaboration on research and development by universities and other institutions.”
New clause 38—Common travel area—draft framework—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must set out a draft framework for the future relationship with the European Union which includes reference to the maintenance of the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland.”
New clause 39—Crime and security—draft framework—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must set out a draft framework for the future relationship with the European Union which includes reference to the maintenance of international collaboration on tackling crime and strengthening security.”
New clause 40—Economic and financial stability—draft framework—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must set out a draft framework for the future relationship with the European Union which includes reference to the maintenance of economic and financial stability.”
New clause 50—Commencement—
“This Act shall not come into effect before Parliament has sat for one month following the first General Election that takes place after 31 March. 2017.”
New clause 133—Commencement—
“This Act does not come into force until the Prime Minister has certified that it is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government that on leaving the European Union the United Kingdom should as soon as possible accede to the European Economic Area Agreement as a non-EU party.”
New clause 141—Extent—
“This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom and to Gibraltar.”
New clause 186—Report on future participation in Euratom—
“Within 30 days of the Prime Minister exercising the power under section (1), a Minister of State shall publish a report on the United Kingdom’s intended future participation in and engagement with the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), and shall lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with Euratom, following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.
New clause 192—Nuclear Collaboration—
“(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the UK’s membership of the European Atomic Agency Community (Euratom).
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act, Her Majesty’s Government shall treat the process of leaving Euratom as separate to that of leaving the European Union.”
Paul Blomfield
I rise to speak to new clause 2 and the other new clauses that stand in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends, which have been judged to be in order. Over the past two days, we have had a series of important debates, primarily on the process that we face over the long period ahead. Today, we move on to new clauses and amendments on the substance of the Government’s negotiations. The debate on process was important precisely because it is about enabling the people of this country, through this elected Parliament, to hold the Government to account on the issues that matter to them: their jobs; the conditions under which our businesses operate; how we keep our country safe and secure; how we protect our environment for future generations; and how we ensure that we remain at the cutting edge of science and research and that we have an economy that is able to fund our NHS and all the services that are vital for our social fabric.
In the foreword to the White Paper, the Prime Minister claims that
“the country is coming together”,
but we are not there yet, and those portraying anyone with a different approach to Brexit as attempting to frustrate the will of the people—as some have done over recent days—does not help. Today, however, we can take an important step, because new clause 2 addresses many of the concerns not only of the 48% but of many of the 52%—those who voted to come out but did not vote to lose out. It is, in fact, a manifesto for the 100%. It puts at the front of the Government’s objectives a duty to maintain a stable and sustainable economy through having trading arrangements with the European Union for goods and services that are free of tariff and with non-tariff barriers. We on this side of the House have been clear that, in the negotiations, it is the economy and jobs that should come first, but the Government have decided otherwise. They are taking a reckless gamble with people’s jobs and living standards by walking away from the single market and the customs union.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The shadow Minister is making his case very clearly. As I understand it, Labour’s position is that the economy should be at the heart of the negotiations and that if, for instance, we could not get rid of free movement, so be it, because the economy is more important.
Paul Blomfield
No, that is not what I said. I said that the economy should be at the heart of our negotiations, that the advantages of the single market are significant, as the then Prime Minister pointed out before 23 June, and that we should have reasonable management of migration through the application of fair rules.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that both sides of the House completely agree that we want the maximum possible access to the single market for our exporters and that we will offer the single market the maximum possible access to our market? Does he further accept that we therefore do not need to argue about that? The answer to whether we get that or get most favoured nation status through the WTO lies not here in Parliament, but the hands of the other 27 EU member states.
Paul Blomfield
I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is wrong—and not for the first time. We have made it clear that the economy comes first, but the Prime Minister has said that her red lines are the European Court of Justice and immigration.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend takes a big interest in science and technology and universities, so does he agree that it is important for Coventry and the west midlands economy that we get a proper agreement in relation to the single market? Does he also agree that the Government have guaranteed resources only up to 2020 should we pull out?
Paul Blomfield
That is an important point, and my hon. Friend will note that it is highlighted in new clause 2.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Duncan Smith
I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but I listened carefully to what he said about his new clause. He said, when pressed, that the Labour party’s view was that control of migration—sustainable through whatever arrangements—was important. However, I note that new clause 2 is missing any reference whatsoever to that being an important matter. Whether it is as important as the economy or of secondary importance, it will remain an important issue when the balance of negotiation comes down. What is his position? Why has he left migration control out of the new clause, which is currently unbalanced and makes no sense?
Paul Blomfield
The right hon. Gentleman misrepresents my observations, but then I know that the leave campaign strongly supported alternative facts. Moving on to his specific point—[Interruption.]
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This point is rather important: will he confirm whether the Labour party no longer supports the principle of free movement—yes or no?
Paul Blomfield
We have said time and again that we believe in the reasonable management of migration through the application of fair rules, and I will talk about that specific issue if hon. and right hon. Members will give me the opportunity.
Paul Blomfield
I have probably been a little unbalanced, so I should give way to somebody on my side of the House.
Mike Gapes
I am grateful. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the easiest way to cut migration would be to crash the economy?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend should wait and hear what I am about to say on migration.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way to someone from my part of the House?
Paul Blomfield
Not just yet. I should make some progress because I am conscious of the many amendments and the many people who want to speak.
The Opposition accept that concerns about migration were a significant factor in the referendum—probably a critical factor. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) is not paying attention at the moment, but leave campaigners talked it up relentlessly—[Interruption.] He is still not listening. The Prime Minister has also talked up migration, both as Prime Minister and in her previous job. That created huge expectations, which the White Paper then begins to talk down. The Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee last week that she had not been consulted on that part of the White Paper. This is one of the main red lines defining the Government’s approach and the Minister responsible was not consulted—it is absolutely extraordinary.
For months, echoing the leave campaign, the Government have talked about control, but they have had control over non-EEA migration for six years and the White Paper reveals the facts: no significant change since 2010.
Caroline Lucas
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that free movement has massively benefited our economy, both economically and socially? While Governments may have failed to ensure that those benefits have been shared equally, we should not sacrifice our economy to anti-immigration ideology. Securing the continued free movement of people should therefore be a priority in the UK negotiations.
Paul Blomfield
Indeed, the White Paper points out the benefits of migration.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on non-EEA migration?
Paul Blomfield
I think the right hon. Gentleman has had more than his fair share of speaking time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Blomfield
Let me continue. There has been no real change to non-EEA migration since 2010, for good reasons. When the Government start to disaggregate the EEA numbers, what will they find? Doctors, nurses, academics, care workers, students, and those bringing key skills to business and industry. On lower-skill jobs, Ministers have already made it clear to employers that agricultural workers will still be free to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Blomfield
I will make some progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) pointed out, the only real way to reduce numbers substantially is to crash the economy; that may be the effect of the Government’s negotiations, but assuming that that is not their plan, they need to come clean to the British people. As the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) argued last week, and as the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) argued over the weekend, they need to come clean about this red line. What is their plan? If taking control of immigration defines this Government’s approach to Brexit, the Minister needs to make the Government’s intentions clear in his closing remarks.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that UK trade delegations to China and India have made it clear that any trade deal with those countries will almost certainly involve a relaxation of the visa regime, so all we are doing is displacing migration, not cutting it?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think the Prime Minister was quite shocked to discover, when she went to India seeking a trade deal, that one of the first things that the Indian Government wanted to put on the table was access to our labour markets and for students. My hon. Friend was right to cite other countries, but he missed Australia off his list. Australia is much heralded as a future trading partner, but it also wants to make the movement of people part of any settlement.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the value of migrant workers and others who come here. Does he recognise that local jobs, particularly in rural areas, are anchored by people’s ability to move here? Our public services and local businesses, and the jobs of the indigenous population, also depend on the freedom of movement, which is such an important part of our single market membership.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Lady; she is absolutely right. That is one reason why the Government’s White Paper is so much more nuanced, caveated and realistic than some of the rhetoric that we have heard.
Paul Blomfield
As I said, the right hon. Gentleman has had lots of time during Committee of the whole House. I want to move on to a different topic, and I am sure that he will want to get in later. [Interruption.]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Mr Blomfield rightly wishes to speed up his introduction of the new clause; Members will be pleased about that when we come to the end of this debate and they find that they have had a chance to speak.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
Paul Blomfield
Probably not, after Mrs Laing’s words.
Our approach is different: it is to put the economy and the jobs of British people first, and to get the right trading relationship with the EU. There may be lots of graphs in the White Paper, but there is little clarity about the Government’s ambitions. However, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was much clearer when he told the House a couple of weeks ago:
“What we have come up with…is the idea of a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have”—[Official Report, 24 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 169.]
I am delighted that the Secretary of State has just joined us. He is promising us the exact same benefits that we have inside the single market. That is a benchmark that he has set for the negotiations—a benchmark against which we will measure his success. To help him, in a positive and collaborative spirit, we have tried to embed that in new clause 2, because livelihoods depend on it.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that trying to get exactly the same access to the single market without paying any of the costs is like disappearing down the rabbit hole into Alice’s Wonderland? It is important that we have an assessment of what World Trade Organisation rules would cost, if we had to fall back on them.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is precisely why we have been pushing for proper economic assessments.
I acknowledge that that negotiation target is ambitious, but it is the one the Secretary of State has set, and against which his performance will be measured. It is all very well to speculate on trade deals that might or might not come to pass. The White Paper may tell us that the United States is
“interested in an early trade agreement with the UK”,
but there is no indication of how “America first” protectionism will give better market access for UK-manufactured goods. Given the uncertainty, the Government need to do all they can to secure the jobs that depend on trade with our biggest and closet partner: the European Union.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Why does he think that the European Union would not seek a free trade arrangement with the United Kingdom, given our balance of trade with the EU?
Paul Blomfield
I am sure that the European Union will be interested in securing the trade agreement that we seek, but the question is whether the Government can secure it on the ambitious terms that the Secretary of State has himself set.
Paul Blomfield
No. I have made it clear that the right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of floor time. I shall press on.
On the trade deal, it really did not help for the Prime Minister to threaten our friends and neighbours with turning this country into an offshore tax haven if she did not get her way. [Interruption.] Government Members may not like it, but that was the clear threat. It was not a threat against the European Union; it was a threat against the British people. Those voting to leave the EU did so on the understanding that the NHS would receive more money, but that will not be possible if we slash taxes, and this House should not allow that. That is the purpose of new clause 7.
Paul Blomfield
I will make progress, because I am mindful of Mrs Laing’s comments.
New clause 7 should command support across the House. The Government have been working with our partners in the OECD on efforts to avoid a race to the bottom on corporation tax, and new clause 7 endorses that work, while new clause 2 would commit the Government to
“maintaining all existing social, economic, consumer and workers’ rights”,
as well as to continuing to collaborate on environmental protection. The Government have paid lip service to those things, but they should understand people’s scepticism about their intentions, because although the White Paper boasts of increasing enforcement budgets for compliance with the national minimum wage, it fails to mention the appallingly low numbers of prosecutions for non-payment of the national minimum wage, or the rife abuse in the care sector, of which the Government are perfectly aware, but on which they have failed to act.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest for around 20 minutes. What does what he is saying have to do with article 50?
Paul Blomfield
I guess the right hon. Gentleman has spotted that triggering article 50 will signal our departure from the European Union; he can intervene if I have got that wrong. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) is not going to get a chance. Our departure puts at risk the many benefits—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean, knows better than anyone how business is conducted in this Chamber, and he knows what happens to people who do not do what they are meant to.
The First Deputy Chairman
Mr Bone asks me to tell the House; there is no need.
Paul Blomfield
Thank you, Mrs Laing. To continue my point, our departure will clearly have implications for the many environmental, employment and consumer rights that have been won over the past 43 years.
Rachael Maskell
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Government have been dragged to court on three occasions for failing on the air quality targets set by the EU, and have been negotiating behind the scenes to drop the European standards, means that it is really important that we discuss environmental protections as part of the negotiations?
Paul Blomfield
I do indeed, which is why environmental protection is embedded in new clause 2, which also—
Paul Blomfield
No; I shall try to make progress. I think Members will acknowledge that I have been fairly generous with my time.
New clause 2 would also make co-operation with the European Union on education, research and science, environmental protection, and the prevention and detection of serious and organised crime and terrorist activity, guiding negotiating principles in the negotiations. The Prime Minister talks the talk on research and science, but will she really commit? There is lots to talk about, but I shall take just one example, which is the basis of new clause 192. Tucked away in the explanatory notes is the revelation that the Bill will trigger our exit from Euratom—the European Atomic Energy Community. Whatever else can be claimed of their intentions, and much has been, I am pretty confident that on 23 June the British people did not vote against our leading role on nuclear energy, safety and research. It certainly was not on the ballot paper.
Euratom was established by a distinct treaty, and it would fly in the face of common sense to throw away membership of an organisation that brings such unequivocal benefit, yet the White Paper is as ambiguous on the Government’s intention as the Secretary of State was last week; it talks simply of “leaving Euratom”.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a compelling argument about that aspect of scientific research. I do not know whether he attended yesterday’s event held by the all-party group on medical research, which is looking at the impact of Brexit on life sciences. If he did, he will know that it was made absolutely clear that we need to maintain the closest possible ties with the EU in relation to Horizon 2020 funding, collaboration and the free movement of people. Does he not agree that the Government need to listen if we are to preserve our wonderful scientific research base in this country?
Paul Blomfield
I absolutely do. I was not at that meeting yesterday, but I was at a meeting of medical research charities and other stakeholders in the field of medical research on Monday, at which they made precisely that point. Indeed, they mentioned that we needed to ensure that we had the right relationship, starting, ideally, with membership of the European Medicines Agency.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I thank the shadow Minister for so generously giving way. He probably knows that the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy is in my constituency. People there told me how concerned they were about this issue, but they decided that the amendments to the Bill were not helpful. They said that it was much better to deal with Ministers directly, and to put pressure on the Treasury to achieve their objectives.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. A very effective way of applying pressure to save that Joint European Torus centre, which is a hugely important facility, is by agreeing to new clause 192.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The shadow Minister makes a very important point. These hugely important research projects in nuclear and nuclear build have long lead-in times. My concern is that if we trigger notice to leave Euratom, no agreement will be put in place at the end of the two-year period. That could seriously delay those projects and impact on future investment in this country. Does he agree that, at the very least, we need a transitional arrangement, if not continuing membership?
Paul Blomfield
Yes, I do agree; my hon. Friend makes a very important point. I press Ministers to give greater clarity on their intentions, because the Secretary of State has so far been ambiguous.
Paul Blomfield
No, I will not. I should respond to Mrs Laing’s appeal for us to make progress.
It has been suggested that the Government’s reservations about Euratom stem from the fact that the European Court of Justice is the regulatory body for the treaty. If that is so, their obsessional opposition to the Court of Justice leads them to want to rip up our membership of an organisation on which 21% of UK electricity generation relies and that supports a critical industry providing 78,000 jobs; that number is projected to rise to 110,000 by 2021. That membership led to us hosting the biggest nuclear fusion programme in the world in Culham.
Paul Blomfield
I will not give way, because I wish to make progress.
The organisation also helps to ensure nuclear safety. Before the Secretary of State leaves the Chamber, let me tell him that it would be helpful for the Government to explain their intentions. I will give way to him or to the Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union, because the people in this country deserve to know what is happening in relation to Euratom; people voting in Copeland in a couple of weeks’ time want to know, as their jobs are on the line. I give the Secretary of State or indeed the Minister the opportunity to intervene on me to make an unambiguous statement that it is the Government’s intention to remain in Euratom.
Paul Blomfield
I was providing the opportunity to those who can make a useful commitment. Their silence says everything.
Paul Blomfield
No, I will not.
Clearly, there is much more to be said about our future relationship. There are many more people who wish to speak and many more amendments to be moved. I will draw my remarks to a close—[Interruption.] It is disappointing for me, too.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Committee must allow the shadow Minister to draw his remarks to a close, or no one else will have an opportunity to speak, and it will not be my fault.
Paul Blomfield
Thank you, Mrs Laing. I draw my remarks to a close with the simple point that our new clauses provide a basis for bringing people together around plans that address the concerns of the 100%; supporting them would be a good first step.
John Redwood
I find myself in agreement with new clause 2, which makes perfectly sensible statements about what our negotiating aims should be. I have even better news for the Opposition Front-Bench team: it is a statement of the White Paper policy. Of course we wish to maintain a stable, sustainable, profitable and growing economy, which we have done ever since the Brexit vote. Of course we wish to preserve the peace in Northern Ireland, to have excellent trading arrangements with the European Union for goods and services free of tariff, to have lots of co-operative activities with EU member states and institutions in education, research and science and so forth, and to maintain the important rights and legal protections enshrined in European law. As I understand it, the Government have made it crystal clear in the White Paper and in many statements and answers to questions and responses to debates from the Front Bench that all those things are fundamental to the negotiating aims of the Government.
Having excited the Opposition with my agreement, I need to explain why I will not vote for this new clause. I have two main reasons, which I briefly wish to develop. First, I am happy to accept the promise and the statement of our Front-Bench team, and I advise the Opposition to do the same. Secondly, although the words do not explicitly say, “This is what has to be delivered”, the fact that it is embedded in legislation implies that all these things must be delivered, and some of them are not in the gift of this Government or this Parliament. I return to the point that the Opposition never seem to grasp: we are all united in the aim of ensuring tariff-free trade, but it will be decided by the other 27 members, not by this Parliament or by Ministers.
John Redwood
That is a very powerful point. I could add others. It is a great pity that it does not mention the opportunity to have a decent fishing policy. It certainly does not talk about having a sensible immigration policy. The Opposition still do not understand that we have to remove the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice if this Parliament is to be free to have a fishing policy that helps to restore the fishing grounds of Scotland and England, and to have a policy that makes sensible provision for people of skills, talent and interest to come into our country, but that ensures that we can have some limit on the numbers.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I heard the right hon. Gentleman’s wish list at the beginning of his speech. Has he grasped the fact that that wish list is actually encapsulated in two words: single market?
John Redwood
No, it clearly is not. The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying. The whole point about the single market is that it does not allow us to have a sensible fishing policy or a sensible borders policy, which are two notable omissions from the list, which, fortunately, were not absent from the White Paper or from the Government’s thinking.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to reconsider what he just said. He said the whole point about the single market is that it does not allow us to have a sensible fishing policy, but Norway is in the single market in the European economic area, but not in the common fisheries policy. It controls its own fisheries policy, which he would know if he had read this excellent document, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”.
John Redwood
Well, why have we not had a sensible fishing policy for the past 40 years? It is because we have been a full member of the EU and its single market. What is agreed across this House—even by some members of the Scottish National party—is that we want maximum tariff-free, barrier-free access to the internal market. However, what is not on offer from the other 27 members is for us to stay in the single market, but not to comply with all the other things with which we have to comply as a member of the EU. There is no separate thing called the single market; it is a series of laws that go over all sorts of boundaries and barriers. If we withdraw from the EU, we withdraw from the single market.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman’s example was of fishing policy, so does he agree as a point of fact that Norway is in the single market but pursues its own independent fishing policy? Yes or no?
John Redwood
I agree that Norway decided to sacrifice control of her borders to get certain other things from a different kind of relationship with the EU, but we do not wish to join the EEA because we do not wish to sacrifice control over our borders. That is straightforward.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. Norway was part of the Nordic free movement area with Sweden, Finland and Denmark way before the European Union was even invented.
John Redwood
Norway is now part of a freedom of movement area far bigger than that, and that was part of its deal. It also has to pay in a lot of money that British voters clearly do not wish to pay, so why would we want to do that?
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Opposition Members are serious about the flourishing of our economy, 80% of which is services, they should accept that we need to be able to do trade deals on services, which means that we have to leave the EEA so that we can negotiate about regulation?
John Redwood
That is quite right, and they also ignore the whole of the rest of the world. It so happens that we have a profitable, balanced trade with the rest of the world. We are often in surplus with the rest of the world overall and we are in massive deficit in goods with the EU alone. There is much more scope for growth in our trade with the rest of the world than there is with the EU, partly because the rest of the world is growing much faster overall than the EU and partly because we have the chance to have a much bigger proportion of the market there than we have, whereas we obviously have quite an advanced trade with the EU that is probably in decline because of the obvious economic problems in the euro area.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman note that although the shadow Minister made no mention of the importance of controlling immigration, his new clause 2 mentions “preserving peace in Northern Ireland”, although he never mentioned one word of it? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the shadow Minister perhaps understands that Brexit has no implications for peace in Northern Ireland? It is not a cause of increased terrorism. Indeed, the terrorists never fought to stay in the EU; they fought to get out of Britain.
John Redwood
The hon. Gentleman has made his own point, and we all wish Northern Ireland well.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
First, let me congratulate my right hon. Friend on recognising that there is nothing in new clause 2 that is remotely objectionable to either leavers or remainers as an objective for the country in the forthcoming negotiations. If tariff-free access to the single market is desirable, does he accept that access to any market is not possible without accepting obedience of that market’s regulations? Otherwise, there are regulatory barriers. We need some sort of dispute procedure. If we start to reject the European Court of Justice and say that all the regulations must be British and that we are free to alter them when we feel like it, we are not pursuing the objectives in new clause 2 with which my right hon. Friend expresses complete agreement.
John Redwood
Of course there is a dispute resolution procedure when we enter a free trade agreement or any other trade arrangement. There is a very clear one in the WTO. We will register the best deal we can get with the EU under our WTO membership and it will be governed by normal WTO resolution procedures, with which we have no problem. The problem with the ECJ is that it presumes to strike down the wishes of the British people and good statute law made by this House of Commons on a wide range of issues, which means that we are no longer sovereign all the time we are in it.
Mr Bailey
The right hon. Gentleman argues that our membership of the EU inhibits our ability to trade with the expanding economies of the rest of the world. If so, will he explain why Germany exports nearly four times as much as we do to China and exceeds our exports to both India and Brazil, the other fast-growing economies, and why France also exports more to China and Brazil than we do? What is it that they do in the EU that we will do when we come out?
John Redwood
It is quite obvious that Germany will export more at the early stages of development in an emerging market economy, because it tends to export capital equipment of the kind that is needed to industrialise, which is what China bought in the last decade. Now that China is a much richer country, she is going to have a massive expansion of services and that is where we have a strong relative advantage, in that if we have the right kind of arrangement with China we will accelerate the growth of our exports, which China will now want, more rapidly. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the EU imposes massive and, I think, dangerous barriers against the emerging market world for their agricultural produce. The kind of deals we can offer to an emerging market country, saying that we will buy their much cheaper food by taking the tariff barriers off their food products in return for much better access to their service and industrial goods markets where we have products that they might like to buy—[Interruption.] I hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) express a worry about British farmers, and British farmers, would, of course, have a subsidy regime based on environmental factors, in the main, which we would want to continue.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
What impact does the right hon. Gentleman think that that would have on Welsh agriculture and the rural economy in Wales?
John Redwood
I just explained that it should boost it. I am sure that more market opportunities will open up for Welsh farmers, but we will also debate in this House how to have a proper support regime. I hope that it will be a support regime that not only rewards environmental objectives but is friendly to promoting the greater efficiencies that can come from more farm mechanisation and enlargement, which will be an important part of our journey to try to eliminate some of the massive deficit we run in food with the rest of the EU, while being more decent to the emerging world—the poor countries of the world to which we deliberately deny access to our markets.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
May I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that in any free trade deal with New Zealand he will continue to ensure that sheep farmers in this country are not sacrificed in the interests of getting good access to the New Zealand market for our financial services?
John Redwood
I am sure that that would be a very appropriate part of the discussions our country holds with New Zealand and Australia. I broadly take the view—I thought Labour was now of this view—that getting rid of tariffs was a good idea. Labour has spent all of the past six months saying how we must not have tariffs on our trade with Europe, but now I discover it wants tariffs on trade with everywhere else in the world. It is arguing a large contradiction.
Dr Murrison
My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Does he not agree that it is truly remarkable that Germany makes three times as much money on coffee as developing countries because of tariffs and that we are noticing a problem with out-of-season fruit and vegetables in our supermarkets, in part because of the pressures applied to producers in north Africa? It is no good colleagues on the Opposition Benches having a go at those who are concerned about international development assistance if they are prepared to tolerate such tariff barriers, which act against the interests of developing countries.
John Redwood
I think that we have teased out something very important in this debate. The Opposition want no barriers against ferocious competition from agriculture on the continent, which has undoubtedly damaged an awful lot of Welsh, Scottish and English farms, but they want maximum tariff barriers to trade with the rest of the world so that we still have to buy dear food. That does not seem to be an appealing package.
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend might be interested to know that just last week I visited Randall Parker Foods in my constituency, a company that slaughters and processes several hundred thousand Welsh lambs every year and that is salivating at the chance of opening up the US market, in particular, where Welsh lamb is under-represented and where there is huge potential for us to export more than we do.
John Redwood
Like my hon. Friend, I think that there are some great English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish agricultural products, and that with the right tariff system with the rest of the world we could do considerably better with our quality products.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his great speech, but I want to ask him one question that goes to the merits of the new clause. It says that the Prime Minister “shall give an undertaking”, which is clearly a mandatory requirement under statute, and which itself calls for judicial review if somebody decides to do that. However, in all my time in this place, I have never seen a clause proposing the preserving of peace in Northern Ireland as a matter of public interest and of judicial review. It is unbelievably unworkable and completely contrary to all the assumptions that one might rely on for a decent provision.
John Redwood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing me back to my central point. He kindly said that I have made a good speech, but I have just responded to everybody else making their own speeches and riding their own hobby horses. I hope they have enjoyed giving those hobby horses a good ride.
To summarise my brief case, the aims of the new clause are fine. They happen to be agreed by the Government. However, it is disappointing that the Opposition have left out some important aims that matter to the British people: taking back control of our borders and laws, and dealing with the problem of the Court immediately spring to mind, but there are many others. They leave out, as they always do, the huge opportunities to have so many policies in areas such fishing and farming that would be better for the industry and for consumers. They have now revealed a fundamental contradiction in wanting completely tariff-free trade in Europe, but massive tariff barriers everywhere else, and do not really seem to think through the logic.
My conclusion is that there is nothing wrong with the aims. We need the extra aims that the Government have rightly spelled out. It would be quite silly to incorporate negotiating aims in legislation. I believe in the Government’s good faith. We are mercifully united in wanting tariff-free, barrier-free trade with the rest of Europe. It is not in the gift of this House, let alone the gift of Ministers, to deliver that, but if people on the continent are sensible they will want that because they get a lot more out of this trade than we do. They must understand that the most favoured nation tariffs are low or non-existent on the things we sell to them, but can be quite penal on the things they have been particularly successful at selling to us. The aims are a great idea, but it is silly to put them into law.
Joanna Cherry
This group of amendments is about the UK’s priorities for the negotiations on withdrawal from the European Union. I will talk about Scotland’s priorities. The Scottish National party has tabled amendment 54 and new clause 141 on the situation of Gibraltar, in which we deal with the fact that the Bill has omitted to include Gibraltar in its remit, which is rather curious given the great love and affection that Government Members have for Gibraltar.
Those of us who are members of the Exiting the European Union Committee were very impressed by the evidence given to us a couple of weeks ago by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo. He emphasised that Gibraltar’s main concern is to preserve its sovereignty and connection with the United Kingdom. Unlike some of us, he is very happy to be part of the red, white and blue Brexit that the Prime Minister talks about. It is important to take Gibraltar’s concerns into account.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman, to whom I will give way in a moment, has a long and admirable commitment to the people of Gibraltar and their interests. He has also tabled amendments on the matter, including amendment 29, which I am sure he will tell us about in detail in due course. It would put upon the British Government a requirement to consult Gibraltar before triggering article 50.
Mike Gapes
I will not make a speech now, as I hope to be called later. I just want to emphasise that there is an important need to protect the interests of Gibraltar. As the hon. and learned Lady said, the Bill does not refer to Gibraltar, but it was specifically mentioned in an amendment when the legislation to hold the referendum was agreed. The people of Gibraltar voted in the referendum. Surely the Bill should be amended to reflect the need for Gibraltar’s interests also to be considered.
Joanna Cherry
Absolutely. I have with me a letter from the Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who says that he
“can confirm that the clause on the application of the Article 50 Bill to Gibraltar would be politically useful to us here. It would also follow on logically from the original consent that we already gave to the extension of the actual UK referendum Act to Gibraltar.”
I will come back to that in more detail in a moment.
Mr MacNeil
Before my hon. and learned Friend moves on, I think it is important to back up the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). Gibraltar’s connection to the United Kingdom and being British should be reflected in this House. I have visited Gibraltar, and hon. Members should think seriously about supporting his amendment because it would send a signal to Gibraltar that it is respected here, and by Members on both sides of the House. Please listen to the hon. Gentleman.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed. I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar also said in his letter:
“I understand that this amendment mirrors a number of others which have also been tabled seeking to make clear its application”—
that is the application of the Act—
“to Gibraltar in the same way. This would strengthen Gibraltar’s case to be mentioned in the Article 50 letter.”
Of course, Scotland shares with Gibraltar a desire to be mentioned in the article 50 letter.
The big priority for Scotland is that the British Government take into account the Scottish Government’s request for a differentiated deal for Scotland. We tabled new clause 145, which would require the British Government to commit to such a differentiated deal before triggering article 50. That amendment has been held over until today, but we will not push it to a vote because we are prepared to give the UK Government one last chance to respond to the document “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, which was laid before the British Government before Christmas, some seven weeks ago.
Joanna Cherry
I will when I have finished my point. No formal response to “Scotland’s Place in Europe” has yet been received. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) is a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee, as I am. We heard detailed evidence about the document this morning from the Scottish Government Minister responsible for negotiations with the United Kingdom. It is a far more detailed document in its proposals than anything the British Government have been prepared to produce so far.
Karl MᶜCartney
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way; as a fellow member of the Brexit Select Committee, I hope that she would treat me as a friend, rather than as just an hon. Member sitting on the opposite side of the House. I do not disagree with her when it comes to Gibraltar and maybe even Scotland, but we are acting on behalf of the whole UK. If there were to be a list in the article 50 letter, are there any other places, such as the Isle of Man or Jersey, that she would like to see included on it? Would she like to see a long list of places?
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that the arrangements that apply to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are rather different than those that apply to Scotland, because they are not in the European Union. Perhaps he would like to read “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, which would explain that to him. Some differentiated agreements do, in fact, exist within the wider UK and Crown dependencies. Gibraltar is in the European Union, but not in the customs union. I will return to the matter of Gibraltar in due course.
Alex Salmond
My hon. and learned Friend will remember this direct quotation from The Daily Telegraph:
“Theresa May has indicated that…she said she will not trigger the formal process for leaving the EU until there is an agreed ‘UK approach’ backed by Scotland.”
Surely Government Members do not intend the Prime Minister to break her word of 15 July last year.
Joanna Cherry
I am sure that Government Members would be loth to encourage the Prime Minister to break her word—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are shouting, “No veto.” We are not asking for a veto. This document is a compromise whereby Scotland could remain in the single market while the rest of the UK exits it. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches who are shaking their heads and mumbling about vetoes would like to get their iPads out and look up the difference between a veto and a compromise; it is rather a radical difference.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joanna Cherry
I will make some progress and then I will take some more interventions, perhaps from people who have not yet spoken.
The Scottish Government have made a proposal, and we are waiting for it to be taken seriously. The signs that the compromise put forward by Scotland will be taken seriously by the Government and, indeed, by this House have not been promising so far this week. Not a single amendment to the Bill has been accepted, despite the numerous amendments tabled by all sorts of different groups of Members, many with significant cross-party support. Even yesterday, when the Government were forced into announcing a significant concession, they were extraordinarily reluctant to commit that concession to writing. We all know that it is because they do not want to amend the Act: they have fought tooth and nail through the courts and in this House to avoid the sort of scrutiny that those of them who seek to leave the European Union have been trumpeting for years. They tell us how fantastic this wonderful, sovereign mother of Parliaments is, but we are berated for having the effrontery to attempt to amend a Bill. It is preposterous.
Joanna Cherry
No, I will not give way. We heard ample from the right hon. Gentleman the other day.
This Bill is being railroaded through this House with scant regard for democratic process. Here is an example: on Monday, when we were debating the proposals that concerned the devolved Administrations, including Scotland, only one of my hon. Friends got to speak. When I attempted to double that tally, I was told to sit down, shut up and know my place. I do not mind being insulted and affronted in this House, but what people need to remember is that it is not just me; it is the people who elected me who are being insulted and affronted when I am prevented from speaking about proposals on which my name appears.
Government Members are extraordinarily relaxed about the effect this sort of thing has on Scottish public opinion. I do not know whether they take the Herald newspaper—it is rather difficult to get hold of in the House of Commons—but if they do, they will see that today’s headline is “Support for independence surges on hard Brexit vow” .
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?
Joanna Cherry
No, I will not.
Backing for a yes vote in another independence referendum has risen to 49% on the back of the hard Brexit vow, and that is when no referendum is even on the table and we are still seeking our reasonable compromise. Hon. Members should make no mistake—it gives me great pleasure to say this—that the barracking by Government Members and the preventing of SNP MPs from speaking in this House play right into our hands and result in headlines saying that support for independence is surging.
Mr Harper
On a point of order, Mrs Laing. On Monday, I spoke about the amendments on devolution arrangements. I seem to remember that I took many interventions, including from the hon. and learned Lady. She was not, therefore, prevented from speaking; indeed, I seem to remember that the person in the Chair at the time—[Interruption.]
Mr Harper
Opposition Members should let me finish making my point of order to the Chair. The person who was in the Chair made great efforts to facilitate the hon. and learned Lady’s speech, but there was then a kerfuffle when she objected to the amount of time she got. How can we put the record straight about the fact that she had a fair opportunity on Monday?
The First Deputy Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman does not need to put the record straight, because it is a matter of record. I have myself looked in Hansard, and by the simple use of my arithmetical powers, I have worked out how many people managed to speak, for how long they spoke and what contributions they made. Now, the hon. and learned Lady is asserting that she was prevented from speaking. Because there was a time limit on the debate and the hon. and learned Lady came quite late in the debate, there was not an awful lot of time left in which she could speak. But I think that, in saying that she was prevented from speaking, the hon. and learned Lady is making a rhetorical point rather than an arithmetical point, because her contribution to the debate has been considerable. She will note that she has been given the opportunity very early in today’s proceedings to speak, and I look forward to hearing her speak to the amendments to which she has put her name, and that is what we should stick to.
Joanna Cherry
I am very grateful, Mrs Laing, for your clarification. Indeed, I am speaking early today, because I am leading for the third party in this House, and it is my right to speak early in the debate.
Joanna Cherry
The right hon. Gentleman is terribly anxious to make an intervention. In order to put him out of his misery, I would very much like to hear what he has to say now.
Mr Harper
I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Lady. She was waxing lyrical about the importance her party places on Gibraltar, but when I was listening to the evidence from the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, he was rather more committed to the continuance of the United Kingdom than the Scottish National party, which does not seem to be committed to it.
Joanna Cherry
That is called democracy. The people of Gibraltar vote for parties that wish to remain part of the United Kingdom; the people of Scotland vote for parties that wish to be independent—that is a statement of fact. I am very happy to endorse Gibraltar’s right to self-determination—just as I am happy to endorse Scotland’s, or indeed any nation’s, right to self-determination.
Mr MacNeil
Just on a point of clarity, it should be understood by both sides that Gibraltar is not in the United Kingdom. Gibraltar does not want to be in the United Kingdom. It wants an association with Britain, which is very different. The United Kingdom dates only from December 1922. Britain is little bitty older than that. Gibraltar does not have a Member in this Parliament because it is not in the United Kingdom. It has an association with the United Kingdom. It is independent of the United Kingdom. That is something I would quite like for Scotland: British, but not in the UK.
Joanna Cherry
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who, like the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), has a long association with Gibraltar, for clarifying the situation for those who appeared not to be aware of it.
Joanna Cherry
I will not at the moment, thank you.
I will come back to Gibraltar in a moment, but I want to continue on the subject of Scotland’s priority in these negotiations. The document I am holding—“Scotland’s Place in Europe”—puts forward a highly considered and detailed case to the British Government. As I said, we are still waiting for any kind of considered or detailed response. This morning, the Exiting the European Union Committee heard evidence from a number of Scottish legal experts, in addition to the Minister, Mike Russell. We were told by Professor Nicola McEwen that the proposals in this document are credible and merit examination.
What the Scottish Government are asking for from the British Government is no more than the British Government are asking for from the other 27 member states of the European Union, and that is for there to be consideration in negotiations of our position, and our position is somewhat less substantial than the position the British Government want to put forward in Europe.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?
Joanna Cherry
I am going to make a little progress, and then I will give way.
The Scottish Government are looking for a response to this document, and that is why we are not going to push new clause 145, which has been held over to today for a vote. A meeting is taking place this afternoon of the Joint Ministerial Committee, and we are still prepared for the time being to put faith in the promise the Prime Minister made, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has just reminded us of, about Scotland’s wishes being taken into account. However, Members of this House should make no mistake: we will expect the Prime Minister to deliver on that promise. We will expect—just as Gibraltar does—to have our position put forward in the article 50 letter. If that does not happen, and the Prime Minister breaks her promise, we will hold another independence referendum, and on the back of the Herald headline, things are looking pretty good for that at the moment—we are at nearly 50%, and not a single word has been uttered yet in the campaign for a second independence referendum.
Joanna Cherry
I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman for the time being, but the hon. Lady was going to raise a point.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. and learned Lady referenced the evidence session we had this morning with her colleague from the Scottish Parliament. Does she agree, however, that there were a number of unanswered questions in the Committee, including on what regulations Scotland may be subject to if it were in the European economic area; what the impact might be on the trade relationship with the rest of the UK; what the controls at the border might be, and what they might need to look like if Scotland had free movement but the rest of the UK did not; and what payment might need to be made by Scotland, including how much that would be and where it would come from? There was some confusion over those points.
Joanna Cherry
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The transcript will be available shortly, and when hon. Members read it they will see that my colleague who is a Minister in the Scottish Government repeatedly told Members that the answers to the questions they were asking were in this document. It was rather surprising that one member of the Committee admitted that he had not read the document but berated the Scottish Minister for not having answered questions that are answered in the document he has not read. I hope that the British Government are studying this document, as there is perhaps quite a lot to learn from it.
John Redwood
The hon. and learned Lady very touchingly says that her document is a compromise document. Do not she and her party understand that a compromise document is one on which she and I agree, and I do not agree with it?
Joanna Cherry
I have got some news for the right hon. Gentleman: when the United Kingdom Government go to negotiate with EU’s 27 member states about exiting the EU, they will be looking for a compromise. At the moment, the UK Government are looking for things that the EU member states are not willing to give, but that is not preventing them from going into a negotiation—that is how negotiations work.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to read this document. If he had read it, he would know—I had to correct him on this earlier—that although Norway is in the single market, it is not in the common fisheries policy. What Scotland is looking for in this compromise document is an arrangement similar to that of Norway. I visited Oslo recently. The Norwegians seem to be doing pretty well on the back of that arrangement—it looks as though they have a prosperous and successful economy.
Alex Salmond
If the right hon. Gentleman had made the same pledge as the Prime Minister made, I would expect him, as a right hon. Member, to have kept to it. I saw the evidence this morning, and I heard the Scottish Parliament Minister, Mr Russell, give the example of Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Liechtenstein is in the European economic area; Switzerland is not. They have a frictionless border—let us put it that way—just like the border the Prime Minister promises for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed.
Many of the questions that hon. Members in this House raise with the Scottish Government and with the Scottish National party about how these matters might be managed are answered in this document, which is the product of research and consultation that has been going on in the many months since the Brexit vote. While the British Government have been going round in circles trying to decide whether they want to be in the single market or in the customs union, the Scottish Government have been looking at a considered compromise and answer to the dilemma in which we find ourselves whereby the majority of the people of Scotland wish to remain part of the EU but the rest of the UK wishes to exit.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford
A few minutes ago, my hon. and learned Friend made a really important point about Norway and the benefits that could accrue particularly to my constituency from a Norwegian-style deal that would help our fishing interests, but also protect the interests of our fish processors and all the people who depend on export markets, most of which are in the EU at the present time.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed. It is no secret that of the minority of people in Scotland who voted to leave the EU, a significant proportion was made up of people working in the fishing industry, including fishermen, because, as we heard earlier, they have received such a bad deal over the years as a result of inept negotiations by the British Government on the common fisheries policy—negotiations that Scottish Government Ministers have been kept out of. The great advantage of this compromise proposal for fishermen is that, while coming out of the common fisheries policy, they would still have access to the single market. When I was in Norway, I saw a presentation about how the Norwegian fishing industry is progressing on the back of such an arrangement, and, believe you me, it is doing significantly better than the Scottish fishing industry.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joanna Cherry
I give way to the Chairman of the Committee on Exiting the European Union.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Is not the fundamental difficulty with the document’s proposal about the possibility of Scotland remaining in the single market the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that I have seen thus far—perhaps the hon. and learned Lady has—that any one of the other 27 member states, never mind the British Government’s view, has indicated that it would consent to such an arrangement, given that all the other parallels, the Faroes aside, relate to countries, which is not the case in relation to this proposal?
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, because it highlights the reason I am labouring this point. For Scotland to get the compromise deal that we are proposing, the United Kingdom Government first need to accept it as something they would then put forward to the other 27 member states. The other 27 member states are waiting for the United Kingdom to put its money where its mouth is and come to the table and negotiate. They need us to put our own house in order before we do that. [Interruption.] Government Members may not like it, but the Prime Minister made a promise to involve Scotland in the negotiations and to look at all the options for Scotland. We are withholding our right to force our amendment to a vote today in the hope that the Prime Minister will be as good as her word. People in Scotland are watching and waiting.
This document has widespread support. It has the merit of uniting leavers and remainers because it has a compromise that appeals to both sides.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that in the event that Scotland was in the single market and England, Wales and Northern Ireland were not, industry would move from England and Wales to Scotland to have tariff-free access to the single market? Similarly, industry would move from Northern Ireland to southern Ireland, ripping open the peace process, which, although it was denied earlier, will indeed be ripped open.
Joanna Cherry
The SNP’s position on the peace process has been made very clear in this House: we would wish to do everything to support it.
Moreover, we do not wish the rest of the UK to suffer as a result of coming out of the single market. That is why the principal suggestion in this document is that the whole United Kingdom should remain in the single market. I am terribly sorry on behalf of Members representing English and Welsh constituencies that the Prime Minister has now ruled that off the table, but I am sure those Members will understand why we, representing Scotland, must try to see whether we can get a compromise deal for Scotland.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does the hon. and learned Lady recognise that if the Government did accept that they could negotiate a separate place for Scotland within the single market, that could equally read across in respect of Northern Ireland, and would be particularly compatible in terms of the strand 2 arrangements and upholding the Good Friday agreement? In many important ways, it would go to the heart of upholding the peace, not upsetting any basis for it.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed. As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes his point with great force and great clarity. The difficulty is that in the Committee on Exiting the European Union this morning we heard from experts who have been observing the process of so-called negotiations between the British Government and the devolved nations in the Joint Ministerial Committee that these negotiations lack transparency and have not really made any significant progress. That is a matter of regret not just for Scotland, but for Northern Ireland and for Wales.
Dr Whiteford
Is my hon. and learned Friend as surprised as I am, given the apparent suggestion that it would be to Scotland’s economic advantage to be in the single market, that we are debating leaving the EU in the first place? Surely what is good for Scotland would be good for the whole UK in this respect.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed. We made it clear in this document that we felt it would be to the advantage of the whole United Kingdom to remain in the single market. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon has described as a very foolish negotiating tactic, has ruled that out from the outset.
Joanna Cherry
I am going to make a bit of progress because I am conscious that a lot of other people are wishing to speak, and, as I said, I want to move on to deal with our amendments on the topic of Gibraltar.
As the hon. Member for Ilford South pointed out, Gibraltar was covered by the European Union Referendum Act 2015. Section 12(1) of the Act extended to the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. There was an over-whelming vote in Gibraltar to remain. When Fabian Picardo, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, gave evidence to the Committee on Exiting the European Union, he explained that Gibraltar already has a differential agreement whereby it is in the EU but not in the customs union. This has been working well for the people of Gibraltar. They would like to be involved in a Brexit deal that guaranteed continued access to the single market. They do not want to be forgotten. In the letter I quoted earlier, the Gibraltarian Government support these amendments to get Gibraltar brought within the ambit of the Bill so that Gibraltar’s interests can be taken into account in the triggering of article 50.
Will the Minister tell us why Gibraltar was omitted from the Bill? Was it, God forbid, an oversight—if so, the Government now have the opportunity to correct that, with the assistance of the SNP—or was it a deliberate omission of Gibraltar from the ambit of the Bill? If it was a deliberate omission, how does that sit with assurances that the British Government have been giving to Gibraltar that its interests will be protected?
The hon. Member for Ilford South will speak with greater knowledge than I can about Gibraltar. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that Gibraltar is not forgotten. We feel that there may have been an oversight, so we are attempting to provide assistance. However, if there has not been an oversight and the omission is deliberate, we need to know why and hon. Members need to consider whether it is appropriate to rectify the situation.
A number of other amendments would ameliorate the Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke ably from the Front Bench about new clause 2 and other amendments. I find new clause 2 to be slightly disappointing, because it does not enumerate the interests of Scotland as a particular consideration to be taken into account. We are not going to push new clause 145 to a vote, because we are hopeful that today’s Joint Ministerial Committee might have a fruitful outcome.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for taking Scotland into account. I hope that the promise made by the Prime Minister on 15 July will have greater gravity than that made by the previous Prime Minister on 10 September 2014, when David Cameron said on “Channel 4 News” that if Scotland voted to remain in the UK, all forms of devolution were there and all were possible. Yet when it came to the Scotland Bill—by this time, my hon. and learned Friend was a Member of Parliament—none of the amendments were taken, showing that none of the forms of devolution were there and none were possible. We have had one broken promise by the previous Prime Minister; let us hope that this Prime Minister can keep her word.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I give the hon. Gentleman a lot of leeway, but it is this Bill that we are discussing right now. We cannot go on to previous Prime Ministers and previous Bills. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), whose legal expertise is among the best in the House, will find a way of saying what she wants to say.
Joanna Cherry
I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion, Mrs Laing, because I am conscious that others wish to speak. I want to make it clear that the SNP broadly welcomes many of the amendments, including new clause 100, which would secure women’s rights and equality. We believe that the EU is about more than just a single trading market; it is also about the social ties that bind us and the social protections that it guarantees.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
On equality and protection, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that what we have seen since we were elected to this place does not fill us with any hope that this Government, when they have their great power grab, will uphold the protections that the EU has brought? We will fight for our citizens’ rights.
Joanna Cherry
I agree with my hon. Friend. That concern is shared by Members of many parties in this House. We support any amendments that would underline the social aspects of the EU. For example, new clause 166 centres on the rights of young people, who benefit so much from the important ability to live, work, travel and study across Europe. Of course, the SNP fought for 16 and 17-year-olds to get the vote in the referendum, but that was not to be. Perhaps the result would have been different if it had been allowed.
Later today, we will vote on amendments carried over from earlier in the week, including the SNP’s new clause 27, which would protect the rights of EU nationals. I think that the widely shared view in the House is that we ought not to trigger article 50 until we have given EU nationals living in the United Kingdom some assurance on their rights. Furthermore, the Exiting the European Union Committee has received evidence from representatives not only of EU nationals in the UK, but, perhaps more importantly for some Members, of UK nationals living abroad. The witnesses felt that a unilateral declaration of good will from the British Government—who, after all, caused the problem by holding the referendum and allowing the leave vote to happen—to guarantee the rights of EU nationals in the United Kingdom would be met by a reciprocal undertaking from other member states, as opposed to using individual human beings as bargaining chips. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) wants to intervene I will be happy to take that intervention, but he obviously does not; he just wants to shout at me from a sedentary position.
Finally, before Second Reading, I raised a point of order about the Secretary of State’s statement on section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. He said that, in his view,
“the provisions of the… Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.
I am not usually in the habit of giving out free legal advice, but I am happy to do so on this occasion. If the Bill proceeds and we trigger article 50 without taking any steps to protect the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, the British Government could find themselves facing a challenge—and possibly claims—under the Human Rights Act on the Bill’s compatibility with articles 8 and 14 of the European convention on human rights. I know that many Government Members do not have any great affection for the ECHR, but when we exit the EU we will still be signatories to the convention and the British courts will still be bound by it. I offer the Government a helpful word of warning: if they want to save taxpayers’ money, they might want to think carefully about addressing that issue before they are met with a slew of legal claims.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
EU-national workers in science and research are key to research and industry in our society. We should be begging those world-class researchers to stay. We should be bending over backwards instead of using them as bargaining chips, because we are damaging good will and how they feel valued in our society.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed. My hon. Friend takes great interest in teaching, research and science, which was her own field before she came to Parliament. Many Scottish universities, including Herriot-Watt and Napier in my constituency, are extremely concerned about the brain drain that could occur as a result of the failure to reassure EU nationals living in the UK about their rights. With that, I repeat my support for the SNP’s amendment 54 and new clause 141 in relation to Gibraltar.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), whom I gather felt that she had not previously had the opportunity to put her points. She has taken about 10% of the time allocated to debate this group of amendments, so I hope that she feels that she has now had the opportunity to make her case, and she did so extremely eloquently.
I want to cover a few bases. [Interruption.] There is a lot of noise coming from the Opposition Benches; it is quite hard to think or speak, but I will plough on. I feel extremely strongly about the rights of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom. I had a meeting in my constituency on Friday, in which I discussed Brexit with about 150 people, including a lot of people from different EU countries, because there are a great many scientific research and high-tech international companies based in my constituency.
These are people who contribute. I note that people love to talk about the economic contribution made by citizens from Europe, but I also deeply value their social contribution. They are incredible people who not only provide world-class expertise to many businesses and science, but make a huge contribution to the communities in my constituency. They are obviously devastated by what has happened and they seek reassurance from the Government.
I am not going to support any particular amendments, because I think that would mess up the Bill and that they would not necessarily achieve what they seek to achieve. I am also deeply reassured by the Home Secretary’s letter, which was circulated earlier, and by the Prime Minister’s repeated comments about how she is going to make it an absolute priority to get clarity on the rights of EU citizens.
Helen Goodman
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a letter from the Home Secretary. Was it a letter for Conservative Members only? Now that he has referred to it in the House, is it not appropriate to put it on the Table or in the Library for all hon. Members to see?
Mr Vaizey
I may have made a faux pas. It was addressed “Dear Colleague”, and may have just been sent to me. It might be private correspondence between me and the Home Secretary, for me to circulate to my European constituents, who are among the most talented Europeans living in this country.
Helen Goodman
On a point of order, Mrs Laing. Is it appropriate for an hon. Member to refer to a document that is not available to the whole House?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I believe it is appropriate for an hon. Member to refer to whichever document he or she might care to quote. It would be a matter for the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) whether he makes any more of the immediate quotation he wishes to use from any particular correspondence. We all have private correspondence.
Alex Salmond
Further to that point of order, Mrs Laing. Would I be in order to say that the custom and practice is that a ministerial letter about a debate should be circulated to Members and placed in the Library?
The First Deputy Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, as ever—[Interruption]—or as often. If a letter or any document was produced by a Government Minister in his or her capacity as a Government Minister that was intended for the information of the whole House, it would indeed have to be placed in the Library or the Vote Office, or distributed on the Benches. Hypothetically, if there is a letter—I do not know whether there is or not—addressed privately to an hon. Member, it is a matter for the hon. Member.
Mr Harper
My right hon. Friend has been here only as long as I have, so we are clearly both still learning the ropes. I wanted to assist him. The Prime Minister has been clear on the record that she intends to take a very generous approach. To go back to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), part of the roadblock is that some EU member states will not negotiate with us until we have triggered article 50. In fact, the quicker we get the Bill on the statute book and get article 50 triggered, the quicker we can get that arrangement in place and reassure EU nationals in Britain and British citizens overseas.
Mr Vaizey
That is an excellent point. A difficult road lies ahead and we will have to make some pretty unsavoury compromises. They are understandable compromises, but we should make no mistake that the mood of the House among many colleagues who supported Brexit is to move as quickly as possible to provide reassurance to European citizens in this country. I wanted to use this opportunity, before I got mired in a procedural quagmire and moved closer to the Chief Whip’s tarantula, to make it as clear as possible that I stand four-square behind European Union citizens living in this country and their contribution.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
We have heard much talk in the House, particularly from the Prime Minister, about the idea of global leadership. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain precisely his definition of global leadership if it does not mean being a leader and standing up for EU nationals living in this country?
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point and allows me to segue to the next issue, which is Britain’s global leadership in free trade.
Hon. Members who were lucky enough to hear me speak on Second Reading know that the constant talk of free trade treaties is driving me round the bend. As a Minister, I took part in the state visit from President Xi, and as a Member of Parliament I was in Westminster Hall to hear the address from President Obama—I know I should not stray on to the subject of presidential addresses in Westminster Hall, which is a dangerous road to go down—and I fail to understand those who cite the lack of British influence that has existed while we have been members of the European Union. Heads of State and Presidents from countries all over the world are only too happy to come and visit.
I am a loyal Conservative Member, but the point made about Germany’s trade with China was well made. People refer constantly to free trade treaties. I hope we will be able to negotiate them within a matter of days of leaving the European Union, but it strikes me that people are unaware of what happens in the real world if they think that our farmers, who are the best example, will simply sign up without a murmur to free trade treaties with countries such as the United States, which has very different welfare standards from ours. I understand the arguments of those who support free trade with, for example, developing nations, and I understand people who say that we should open our markets to them and support our farmers in different ways, but our farmers will have severe concerns. We also have to wonder whether developing nations have the same welfare standards as us.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I entirely agree and support my right hon. Friend on his first point. On his second point, does he agree that many hon. Members, while wishing the very best, worry that those deals and transactions will take a long time to fulfil, particularly in the case of the farmers, and that there is therefore the great danger of being in limbo-land?
Mr Vaizey
That worries me, and I thank my right hon. Friend for making the point.
This is obviously a remoan. I know it is a remoan. I am a remainer just getting things off my chest. It is probably not very constructive, but it strikes me as bizarre that we have given up extraordinary influence over a market of 500 million people to sail off to negotiate free trade deals that will not be without controversy.
Mr Lilley
I would not dream of correcting my right hon. Friend, but I would ask him this question. When it appeared that we were going to stay in the EU, was he concerned about the terms of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and what that would have done to British farmers? Was he concerned about the trade agreement with the Canadians, of which we have today voted to take note? Was he concerned about those things, or is he concerned only when it feeds his remaining remoan tendencies?
Mr Vaizey
I did not accept the argument that TTIP would undermine our NHS, and I did not receive any representations from my farmers about its impact on them. I was concerned about the French introducing cultural protections, but felt that we were getting close to a free trade agreement thanks to the negotiating power of the European Union.
Kit Malthouse
Further to the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), I wonder whether the logical extension of the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) is that we should withdraw from the World Trade Organisation. For example, is it fair that the textile workers of Leicester were exposed through our WTO membership to the textile industry in China, which has largely meant a transfer of that industry to that country?
Mr Vaizey
My argument is simply that it will be very difficult to negotiate the free trade agreements that people talk about. It is a very unconstructive and unhelpful argument and will not take us very far. It is more therapy on my part because I feel so frustrated that the tone of the debate since the referendum has been so awful and unpleasant; that we forget that 48% of the country voted to stay in the European Union; and that we are unable to build a consensus on the way forward. The remain part of the House and the country has, by and large, accepted that the referendum result is clear and decisive, and that it will take us out of the EU. We want to work extremely constructively to make that happen, despite my earlier remarks. We are urging all sides to have a realistic assessment of how difficult it will be so that we can work together in the national interest.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I agree with his point about trying to reach consensus for the sake of the country. Is he as concerned as I am about the protectionism of other countries and the dangers it presents in international trade? After a change of leadership in Nigeria, the Nigerians, on a whim, wrote a list of imports that they would no longer accept, which cut off all existing trade with UK companies, including one in my constituency that exported to Nigeria.
Mr Vaizey
I agree with the hon. Lady and that example reinforces my belief that free trade deals will not be easy to negotiate.
What I am really saying, I suppose, is that my constituents who voted to remain—especially those who come from other European countries—have a great deal of anxiety and want a realisation that we cannot wave a magic wand but that this will need hard pounding. I stand foursquare with the Government on ensuring that we get the best deal possible.
Mr Baker
I want to cheer my right hon. Friend up a little and apologise to him as I may have inadvertently failed to invite him to meet the Legatum Institute special trade commissioners who visited Parliament on Monday. The Mexican trade commissioner, who was one of the original North American Free Trade Agreement negotiators, explained to us the danger that NAFTA may need a major renegotiation under President Trump. With talk of the need to get the substance right and then get it through three Parliaments, it sounded as if it would take a terribly long time, but they think it can be concluded by October 2018. The experience of actual trade negotiators who have negotiated such agreements is that they can be done quickly.
Mr Vaizey
I will visit my hon. Friend’s constituency in April, so we can discuss the matter at length as I turn his leave association into a remain one. I know the Legatum Institute well because the chap who has become flavour of the month for his knowledge of trade deals, Shanker Singham, was at school with me, which automatically makes him a dangerous member of the liberal metropolitan elite. It is important that we are aware that one of the Brexiteers’ great champions is a member of the dangerous liberal metropolitan elite—
John Nicolson
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the danger is that we will be caught between a rock and a hard place? If our farmers lower their standards to compete with American imports under free trade, those standards may then be too low for the foodstuffs to be admitted to the European Union. It would be a difficult place to be.
Mr Vaizey
That is just one of many factors we must take into account.
I have tested the patience of the Committee with my wisecracks, and I now want to talk about my main, very serious issue—the withdrawal from Euratom, which will directly affect my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who is no longer in his place, represents the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, where the main research into nuclear fusion—the holy grail of sustainable energy—takes place. In 2014 we signed an almost €300 million contract to run the Joint European Torus on that site until 2018. We are now negotiating to take the programme forward. The JET, based in Oxfordshire, accounts for a quarter of the European fusion programme budget. Other money comes from ITER, the global fusion project. It will take place in France but still provides financial support for British projects including, for example, €40 million of remote handling equipment awarded to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority—based in Oxfordshire—as part of a wider consortium.
Coming out of Euratom would present some difficult issues, including a requirement to conclude new bilateral co-operation agreements with the United States and approximately 20 other countries to maintain our access to intellectual property and nuclear technologies; removing the requirement for the UK to comply with Euratom’s safety regimes, which would prevent other countries from collaborating with us; and further potential delays and cost increases to the nuclear new build programme. I am extremely unhappy that the Bill will take us out of Euratom—and I was also unhappy that I had no warning of that—but I am grateful to Ministers, some of whom are in their places, for their reactions on this issue. I have been able to have discussions with Ministers from the Departments for Exiting the European Union and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I am grateful to the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who has personally met the Culham chief executive, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who has also spoken to the chief executive. I am also delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), is due to visit Culham. Every effort is being made to ensure that at its all-staff meeting tomorrow proper reassurances can be given.
Mr MacNeil
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that all the conversations he has had are equal to the €300 million subsidy for Oxfordshire?
Mr Vaizey
As far as I understand it, that subsidy is not going away, and certainly shortly after the referendum the Science Minister guaranteed science funding up to 2020. I am sure that we will find some way to be a member of Euratom and to benefit, because British—and European—scientists working in Culham are vital to that project.
Charlie Elphicke
It is welcome to hear that Ministers have been so heavily engaged with my right hon. Friend following the concerns he raised on Second Reading. Does he agree that Euratom is so closely linked with the European Union that it would be difficult for the United Kingdom to continue to be a member of Euratom while leaving the European Union?
Mr Vaizey
I will answer by saying that I agree that that is the Government’s position. I also understand that the Government will act to minimise any further legal challenge to the Bill. I reiterate that I cannot fault Ministers for their response since I raised the issue on Second Reading, in terms of engaging personally with me and with Culham.
I do not know whether I am walking into a point of order quagmire, but I hope that Ministers will publish a document that will explain their strategy for taking forward Euratom as soon as they are able to do so. The key point is that the Government have no intention of walking away from Euratom because they somehow disagree with the principle of Euratom’s existence or the work that it does. It may sound trite when talking about people’s futures, but this is a technical withdrawal and I have been impressed by the energy of Ministers in engaging on this issue.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
A constituent of mine who is an employee of the National Nuclear Laboratory has told me he is concerned that an exit from Euratom would impair his ability to collaborate with leading scientists and engineers across Europe, to the detriment of science and technology in this country. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that point?
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Lady makes exactly the point about why people are concerned. As I hope I have made clear, Ministers are putting in a great deal of energy—I am full of terrible puns today—to ensuring that the implications of our technical withdrawal from Euratom are minimised, and that we can restore our de facto membership in the coming months.
Alex Salmond
The right hon. Gentleman is making a considered speech, as I would expect, but has he considered the possibility that if the Bill passes unamended, his position and point of influence will pass with it? It might be better to have something in writing in the Bill, rather than all these warm words, cups of tea and assurances.
Mr Vaizey
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I have known the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for many years and shared many warm cups of tea with him, so I accept his warm words. I fully expect him to be in his post for several years to take this forward.
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend is concerned about Euratom. Has he considered the alternative? Given that in the last funding round Euratom had to fight very hard to try to maintain its funding, a position it is unlikely to be able to maintain in future, and the fact that the largest single contributors to Horizon 2020, the Germans, have taken the decision to phase out their civil nuclear programme all together, is he not concerned that over the next couple of decades continued membership of Euratom might expose us to diminishing research funding? Exit from the EU could provide us with the opportunity to partner bilaterally with other countries, as we do already with India and South Korea, and therefore expose ourselves to a wider pool of research.
Mr Vaizey
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. In fact, in answering him I may slightly contradict my earlier rant. I have significant concerns that our exit from the EU could potentially damage British science because of our close collaboration with the EU, but some scientists in my constituency have pointed out that there is a danger of our becoming too inward-looking in only seeking European scientific collaboration. Whatever one thinks of other issues, China is certainly becoming a much more important player in scientific research. There may be a silver lining to the withdrawal from Euratom.
My hon. Friend is also right to point out that securing funding for nuclear fusion is no easy task. In some respects, nuclear fusion is always the gold at the end of the rainbow. Nevertheless, it is extremely important research and I support it 100%, both in general and for the impact it has on my constituency.
I have taken so long that Mrs Laing has turned into Mr Howarth. Having made a gentle jibe earlier at the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, I see that I have taken up an inordinate amount of the Committee’s time, so I will sit down. I simply reiterate that I stand foursquare behind EU citizens living in our country. Please do not keep banging on about how easy free trade is going to be and please secure our nuclear relationships as far as possible.
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
I now have to announce the results of today’s seven deferred Divisions. On the motion relating to trade unions and education, the Ayes were 327 and the Noes were 264, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to trade unions and transport, the Ayes were 328 and the Noes were 263, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to trade unions and health, the Ayes were 323 and the Noes were 263, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to trade unions and border security, the Ayes were 323 and the Noes were 263, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to trade unions and fire, the Ayes were 323 and the Noes were 262, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to trade union political funds, the Ayes were 322 and the Noes were 254, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to the comprehensive economic trade agreement between the EU and Canada, the Ayes were 409 and the Noes were 126, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Mike Gapes
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I do not want to go on for too long, but nine amendments in my name have been selected, though I will not speak to all of them. Amendment 31 relates to the implications of leaving Euratom. I agree very strongly with the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). He also talked about the implications of the decision to leave the European Union for British citizens overseas. I declare an interest as the honorary president of Labour International, which represents the interests of Labour party members who live in other countries, many of whom were able to vote in the referendum. However, those living in the EU for longer than 15 years did not have a vote in the referendum, even though many still have very close connections to this country.
Mike Gapes
It was a disgrace. We are not dealing with that issue in this debate, but I wish to place on the record the messages of concern I have been sent by people living in other EU countries. They remain very worried about their access to healthcare, education services and support in the communities they live in, whether they are in Spain, France, Bulgaria, Greece or one of many other countries. This issue should have been resolved already, but the Government have chosen to use these people as a bargaining chip, to use the Government’s own words. Frankly, that is unacceptable.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mike Gapes
Yes, I am happy to give way to my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr Baron
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have raised the issue of the importance of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living here, perhaps unilaterally, and I have received assurances from the Prime Minister that this will be top of her list in the negotiations. Also, does the hon. Gentleman not accept in good faith that the issue could be resolved very easily if the EU reciprocated our intention of guaranteeing those rights? The issue could be put aside very quickly if the EU guaranteed the rights of British citizens living in the EU.
Mike Gapes
The hon. Gentleman has been around long enough to know that the negotiation will start after article 50 has been triggered. The reality is that the British Government could have provided reassurance to families in this country—perhaps families with one British and one French parent, whose children are born in this country—who are uncertain about their long-term future if a family member has retained citizenship of another EU country. Frankly, in the interests of those families in this country, the issue should be resolved today, not delayed until the negotiation. That is in our own interests as a country of values, high morals, justice and fairness.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chairman (Mr George Howarth)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is indicating that he does not intend to give way—certainly not at this stage. I do not think it is conducive to the good order of the business of the Committee if people keep pressing. I am sure that he will signal if, at some point, he wants to give way.
Mike Gapes
Thank you, Mr Howarth. I referred to my nine amendments, two of which are minor and drafting amendments. Amendment 23 states that we should, “by 31 March 2017”, notify the country’s intention to leave the EU. I was surprised at the lack of a date in the Bill, given the Prime Minister’s commitment to triggering article 50 by 31 March. I would have thought all Government Members would be prepared to support the amendment, given that it is entirely in line with what the Prime Minister said. For some reason, however, it does not seem to be acceptable to them; I do not know why. Perhaps a Minister could explain that later.
I mentioned amendment 31, on Euratom. Amendment 30 refers to the European Defence Agency. Defence co-operation within the European Union is vital. There is a large number of major defence projects with a components arrangement, whereby parts from one country are assembled in another. For many years, there have been such collaborative arrangements. Frankly, the British defence industry is unable to compete without international involvement. Some companies have moved offshore, in the sense that they have moved across the Atlantic, while others in this country are joint collaborative arrangements. Thales, originally a French company, is now very much a British defence manufacturer. For many reasons, if our defence industry is to be competitive and provide jobs for tens of thousands of highly skilled people in this country, we have to keep that defence industrial base, but that will be possible only through joint collaboration; otherwise, European manufacturers will be swept aside by the United States or other parts of the world. We have seen that already in the way that industries have shifted to Asia.
Anybody who wants to see the whole manufacturing process of a motor vehicle has to go to South Korea, where they press the steel, have the paint shops and engine plants, and fit out the vehicles. When I was a young man in the 1960s, I went on a school visit to Ford Dagenham. I was struck by the noise and the smell of paint. I was 17 years old. I had never been in a place like it. At that point, I realised that making cars was a massive, complex process. The only time I have seen a place like it subsequently was when I went to Hyundai motors in Korea, where I saw the sheets of steel to be pressed. When I more recently visited the Ford Dagenham plant, which is not far from my constituency, all I saw were men in white coats walking around, adjusting things in a complex process, with lots of robots and diesel engines. That is the contrast. We need to think about this. When we leave the EU, we have to make sure that our manufacturing industry, and within that, the defence sector, is maintained and strengthened.
Mike Gapes
I will give way briefly. I will not take too many interventions, though, because I am conscious that other people wish to speak.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but will he accept that our membership of the EU has seen a transfer of industries and factories from the UK to eastern Europe and others parts of the EU? Not least of those is Cadbury, which transferred manufacturing to other parts of the EU.
Mike Gapes
The hon. Gentleman will find that globalisation and the expansion of the wealth of the world, led by regional trading blocs such as the EU, have led to a significant change in the types of industries located in particular countries. Hundreds of millions of people have been taken out of poverty because of industrialisation in China. The same thing is happening in Vietnam, the Philippines and India. Globalisation is affecting everyone. He refers to eastern Europe. Yes, the days when the polluting Trabi cars were being made in the German Democratic Republic, and when Škoda vehicles were regarded as a joke, have gone.
There is now high-quality manufacturing in many countries throughout Europe, but they often have integrated supply chains, which is why Ford Dagenham makes diesel engines for cars also manufactured in Belgium, Spain and other European countries. That is the nature of modern capitalism and the global world. The danger in our leaving the EU is that we could make those industries in this country less successful and put tens of thousands of jobs at risk.
Mr Baron
I have good news for the hon. Gentleman: courtesy of our leaving the EU, sterling has fallen and manufacturing in this country is having a field day, as he can see from the export orders and factory output orders. Does he agree that that has been a boon to the manufacturing industry, particularly in the north?
Mike Gapes
Sterling has indeed fallen. As a result, foreign holidays and Marmite are more expensive and chocolate bars are getting smaller. There are all kinds of consequences coming through.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mike Gapes
I want to make some progress. I referred to my nine amendments. Amendment 34 relates to the common foreign and security policy. The EU does not do enough on defence. It needs to do far more, particularly, as President Donald Tusk pointed out, given the dangers from outside the EU—from Daesh terrorism, Russia and its territorial grabs in eastern Europe, and the uncertainties surrounding the other Donald, President Donald Trump, and the future of NATO. We all need to recognise that Britain, with France, is the backbone of the European pillar of NATO. The co-operation on the common foreign, security and defence policy that we have established so far needs to be sustained, whether or not we are in the EU.
It would be very foolish if, on leaving the EU, we weaken defence co-operation arrangements that date back to the Saint-Malo agreement with France, or the co-operation with our EU partners, which is limited but nevertheless important, on common peacekeeping, security and policing missions; we make a big contribution there. Some people have said that that could be used as an asset in the bargaining process, but that is the wrong approach. Regardless of what happens to agriculture or on financial contributions, it is in our national defence and security interest to have excellent relations with our neighbours—our French, Dutch and German neighbours—on the defence and security of this country. If we do the opposite, we will cut off our nose to spite our face, and that is not very sensible.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that we should go further? Now that we are leaving the federal project, we have an opportunity to create a confederal project, in which we strengthen co-operation on defence, social rights, science, international development and climate change. The Prime Minister says that we might be leaving the EU, but we are not leaving Europe. In that case, let us see the plan for strengthening our relationships across a host of areas of work across the continent.
Mike Gapes
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I hope that he gets a chance to enlarge on it when he makes his contribution.
I wish to highlight two of my other amendments. Amendment 29, to which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) referred, and amendment 35 both relate to Gibraltar. Anybody who, like me, has seen the occasional attempts by the authorities in Madrid to cause trouble in Gibraltar will know that there might suddenly be hundreds of vehicles and dozens of people queueing at the border between Gibraltar and Spain, the special police sent down from Madrid at a moment’s notice having imposed a rigorous check on everyone going to Gibraltar. A few hours later, there will be no queue—and then it can come back again.
Between 10,000 and 14,000 people living in southern Spain, in Andalusia, travel across the border each day to work in Gibraltar. Gibraltar has a population of about 32,000 people, many of whom are children. There is an economic base there now that cannot be sustained simply by employing residents of Gibraltar. Also, there is not enough land to house the number of workers it needs, so it is dependent on 10,000 or more workers crossing daily to work in Gibraltar—about 40% of the total workforce in the Gibraltar economy.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about Gibraltar, which I understand. I want to take him back to the words of the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who spoke just before him and said that he was afraid that an amendment would mess up the Bill. I fail to see how the addition, at the end of clause 1, page 1, line 3, of the words
“after consultation with the Government of Gibraltar”
could possibly mess up the Bill. Amendment 29 is a sensible amendment that the whole House should support, and that Gibraltar wants us to agree to.
Mike Gapes
The hon. Gentleman must be a mind reader, because I was just coming to that point. When the Government proposed the European Union Referendum Bill in 2015, after the general election, they did not initially include any wording relating to Gibraltar. That came in only because of the strenuous efforts of a number of Conservative Back Benchers, including my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is very active on the British overseas territories all-party group, and of Labour and other MPs who were concerned to ensure that Gibraltar was referred to in the Bill, and that Gibraltar’s citizens, even though they are not part of the United Kingdom but are part of the European Union and can vote in elections to the European Parliament, had a vote in the referendum. It is therefore strange, is it not, that although the Bill to set up the referendum, which triggered this process of leaving the European Union, explicitly mentions Gibraltar and the right of Gibraltarians to vote, there is no reference to Gibraltar at all in the Bill to trigger article 50?
I understand that one day after the referendum on 24 June 2015, the then Foreign Minister of Spain, who is fortunately no longer that Minister, as a result of which I gather things are a little bit smoother, made very inflammatory remarks about how Spain would “have Gibraltar” because of the referendum result. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West said, when the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, spoke before the Brexit Committee, which looked into this issue on 25 January, he made it absolutely clear that Gibraltar had not just voted overwhelmingly to remain, but had voted by an even bigger margin—by 98%, as opposed to 93%—to be British.
The self-determination of Gibraltar is important. Culturally, the people of Gibraltar include people with Spanish, Italian, Moroccan, Genoese, British and many other roots. These people were British; they are British; they will remain British. That is not in question. As I said earlier, however, the day-to-day relationship between Gibraltar and Spain can, at the whim of some official or politician in Madrid, be made difficult. The people who suffer most from that are trade unionists, and workers in the Andalusia region who are working in Gibraltar. I have met them here in the House of Commons.
Interestingly, the socialist-led local authorities in the south of Spain want excellent relations between Andalusia and Gibraltar. While we are in the EU, our Government can ensure that there is no funny business and that no silly things emerge from some draft document produced somewhere about territorial waters, environmental issues, flights and trade matters. As soon as we leave the EU, however, we no longer have the ability to argue that case and block it if a particular Government in Madrid decide to up the ante to make life more difficult for Gibraltar.
Given the importance of this issue, it is surely necessary that the people of Gibraltar are, through their elected government in Gibraltar, made aware of these matters as we leave the EU. Surely, then, to be consistent with what the Bill said when we voted here to have a referendum, Gibraltar should also be mentioned in the current Bill. That is why I shall press my amendment 29 to the vote. I hope that Members of all parties, particularly those who have an interest in the British overseas territories and who believe strongly and firmly that Gibraltar should remain British, will consult their consciences and their own voting history and beliefs, and support this amendment.
Finally, I must say that it is unfortunate that so many Members wish to speak and that there is so little time for them. This whole process has been a disgrace; setting aside just three days for the Committee stage is an absolute disgrace. Clearly, we have seen complicity and collusion—
Mike Gapes
A stitch-up, as my right hon. Friend says, which John Smith certainly did not agree to. When I first entered this House in 1992, I had many happy hours and late nights debating the Maastricht treaty. I can recall—some of the faces on the other side of the Chamber are still there—taking interventions from seven or eight Conservative Members late at night on that issue. For that Bill, we had five, six or seven—[Interruption.]—eight times as much time as we have today.
Mr Bradshaw
Does that not make it even more important for the House of Lords to take its time to consider everything that we have not been able to discuss here, and indeed much of what we have?
Mike Gapes
I do not wish to give advice to the other place, because it is possible to get into trouble if we do that. I simply say that it is fortunate for democracy and accountability that there is an opportunity for the other place to give more consideration and time to these matters, without being subjected to programme motions in the same way as we are.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to these amendments. I shall support new clause 2 and a number of other amendments, but particularly my amendment 29.
Kit Malthouse
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), and more particularly to hear the intervention from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). That is the spirit; that is what we want to see; that is what we want for the future.
May I first offer an apology, Mr Howarth, to the previous incumbent of the Chair for having the temerity to challenge the opening of the debate. The infallibility of the Chair has been on display in this House over the last three or four days, and I was mistaken to think that I should join the chorus of doubts about the Chair’s decisions.
I have listened very carefully to the debate over the last two and a half days, both within the Chamber and while sitting in my office watching the television. Sadly, what I have heard is, broadly speaking, a three-day ululation by those who voted to remain about what is to come. We seem to have lost sight of the fact that, as far as I can see, we are trying to make the law in this Chamber, rather than debating the merits or otherwise of the decision that was made by the people on 23 June. That has resulted in some very poor drafting of amendments and new clauses, a huge number of which have been tabled to this very simple Bill.
I want to expand on my earlier point of order, and to explain why I cannot support the vast majority of the new clauses and amendments. Let me deal first with those tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and various other Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). They constitute a large shopping list of things that Members would like the Prime Minister to take into account, but there are a number of omissions. Other Members have included some of the missing provisions, but they have also missed one or two. For instance, they seem to have forgotten to compel the Prime Minister to breathe or keep her eyes open.
When we add up the list of things that Members are demanding that the Prime Minister take into account during her negotiations and discussions with our European friends, we see that her scope would become extremely limited if we were to pass any of these new clauses. My main objection to them relates to their vagueness. New clause 2, for instance, contains plenty of material that gave me reason for thought. It states that
“the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking”.
To whom should she give that undertaking? Should she give it to her husband, or to the House? It is very imprecise. It also does not specify the form of the undertaking. Should it be written on the back of an envelope? We are writing legislation in this House, and it is incumbent on us to be precise. I raised the point of order about the new clauses being vague and therefore out of order because that is exactly what they are.
Geraint Davies
On a point of order, Mr Howarth. The hon. Gentleman made a point of order saying that the new clauses were out of order, and was ruled out of order. Now he is saying that his point of order was in order, so I suggest that he is out of order.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr George Howarth)
The hon. Gentleman’s point of order, although very entertaining, was not a point of order.
Kit Malthouse
Thank you, Mr Howarth. The previous occupant of the Chair corrected me, and said that my point of order was a matter for debate in the Chamber and not, in fact, a point of order. Debating it is therefore exactly what I am attempting to do.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman said that he could not support the “vast majority” of the new clauses and amendments, which presumably means that he can support some of them. I wonder whether he is able to support amendment 29, which was tabled by Labour Members but is backed by the SNP, and which would insert the words
“after consultation with the Government of Gibraltar”.
It is quite simple. Will the hon. Gentleman stand with the people of Gibraltar, or will he not?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I did say “the vast majority”. I should not have said that until I had managed to read them all, but I must confess that even my enormous stamina started to wane at one in the morning when I was two-thirds of the way through them. I have not read them all, which is why I am sitting here listening, so I shall have to mull over that decision over the next few hours.
As I was saying, we do not know what the form of the undertaking is to be, we do not know to whom it is to be made, and, critically, we do not know what the sanction is. If the Prime Minister says “Do you know what? No”, what are we to do? Are we to send her to the Tower? Is she not to participate in the elections?
Mr Harper
According to my reading of the new clause, the sanction is that until the Prime Minister has given the undertaking, she cannot proceed with giving notice under article 50, which I suspect is the intention of those who tabled the new clause. These new clauses are festooned with mechanisms for not giving notice under article 50, which is the entire purpose of the Bill.
Kit Malthouse
I think that my right hon. Friend is being quite generous. As far as I can see, the huge number of new clauses and amendments is designed purely to waste time and to delay, and to send political signals rather than trying to achieve anything. The hon. Member for Ilford South complained about the programme motion. If the opponents of the Bill, or those who wish to amend it, had collaborated and focused on three or four critical changes that they wanted to see, rather than throwing a lot of flak in the air and causing all these problems, they might have made some progress.
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is making a number of extremely good points, but is not vagueness the virtue as far as the drafters of the new clauses and amendments are concerned? If passed, they would turn a simple one-page Bill into an absolute monster that would be subject to a lawyers’ beanfeast and would be judiciable at every turn, thus kicking the Bill into the long grass.
Kit Malthouse
I agree, although the word I would use is “simplicity”. With simplicity comes clarity, and we need clarity from the Prime Minister, as she enters the negotiations, about the motivations of the House and its support for her.
My other reason for objecting to new clause 2 is that it abrogates to the Prime Minister decisions that will rightly become the decisions of the House in the future. Paragraph (e) states that the Prime Minister should have regard to
“maintaining all existing social, economic, consumer and workers’ rights.”
Apart from anything else, I am not sure what my social or economic rights are. They are undefined in the Bill. But, in future, those decisions will presumably become decisions of the House. If there are to be any changes in those rights, undefined as they are, they will have to be the subject of primary legislation.
Caroline Lucas
I do wish that the hon. Gentleman would inform himself before making his points. We already know from the White Paper that the Government have said that it will be possible for plenty of these measures to be reformed in secondary legislation. In other words, it will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman may not care about his own economic, social and environmental rights, but Opposition Members have constituents who do care. We are trying to do our job properly; it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman is not.
Kit Malthouse
Perhaps she did. I admit that I am a relative newcomer to the House, but, as I understand it, even secondary legislation can be forced into debate on the Floor of the House by the Opposition parties. They can table motions, and there can be Back-Bench debates. All sorts of scrutiny of secondary legislation is possible. Indeed, there are ways in which the Opposition can strike down such legislation once it is before the House, if they wish to do so. It is not as if we were without powers in such circumstances.
Mr Harper
May I help my hon. Friend and, in particular, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)? It is made clear in the White Paper—an undertaking that the Prime Minister has already given to the House—that any significant policy changes will be underpinned by primary legislation, which means that the House can be given a full opportunity to debate them. It is also clear that secondary legislation, under the great repeal Bill, will be used only to address deficiencies in the preserved law, which will relate to the fact that we will not, for example, be able to use EU institutions. I think that that is very clear, and preserves the rights and privileges of the House to protect our constituents.
Mr Lilley
Is my hon. Friend not puzzled about why the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and others now want to be able to vote on and control legislation on whole swathes of which, for the last 40 years, they have been content to have no vote—no vote before negotiations, no vote during negotiations, no vote at the end of negotiations—and no power to destroy an EU regulation even if every Member voted against it.
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend has neatly drawn attention to the fundamental paradox that sits at the base of all remainer arguments.
When we come to new clause 77, I think we have reached what I would call peak nonsense. The new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East, states:
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of retaining full participation in the making of all rules affecting trade in goods and services in the European Union.”
That effectively means remaining members of the Commission, members of the Parliament, and members of the Council of Ministers, or else not leaving the EU. As far as I can see, that is indeed peak nonsense. Yet again, we see bad legislation and bad law.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman should perhaps take another look at new clause 77. It makes the point about the need for the UK to retain its role around the table as a rule maker in our tariff arrangements for trade. There are some serious issues to do with our position in the customs union and so forth, and I suggest that Britain should retain its role around the table. Does the hon. Gentleman disagree?
Kit Malthouse
No, that is not what it says. If the hon. Member reads the Member’s explanatory statement to the amendment he will see that it says:
“This new clause would require HM Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation on agreeing all rules affecting trade in goods and services in the European Union.”
My understanding is that those rules are made by the Commission and agreed by the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, so we would have to stay around all those tables.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Should we pass this new clause, will the Act of Parliament therefore be binding on the other 27 members, who will therefore, because we willed it, be forced to accept our presence at their table, despite our having left all the organisations that we have left? Does my hon. Friend think that this is in any way enforceable? If not, is it not slightly fallacious even to debate it?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend rightly points out that, as with all of these amendments, even if this does not happen, there is nothing to be done. There is no sanction; there would just be a shrug of the shoulders, and we would have to turn our back and ask the hon. Member for Nottingham East what we are supposed to do next if we cannot manage to comply with his amendment. It really is nonsense. I know the hon. Gentleman has ambitions within his party, but he will have to do a little bit better than produce stuff like this.
Again, new clause 179 on protecting current levels of funding states:
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of protecting current funding from the European Union.”
Funding to whom? Which funding? All funding? The funding that we send? The funding that comes back? Defence spend? Funding to us, or funding to other countries? The vagueness of these new clauses is extraordinary.
Again, new clause 183 on membership of the single market including EU-wide reform of freedom of movement states:
“secure reforms of provisions governing the free movement of persons between EU member states in such a way as to allow for greater controls over movement of people for member states”.
That is all very vague, as is
“maintain the highest possible level of integration with the European single market.”
What does that mean? What is the highest possible level of integration? Perhaps that means membership.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I think my hon. Friend is being a little uncharitable. He seems to be assuming that these new clauses are without purpose, but, as was recently pointed out, they have a very definite purpose: were they to be passed, it would be impossible for the Government to proceed with article 50. It would be in the courts certainly for years, possibly for decades, and maybe even for centuries. A very conscious policy of great intelligence is being followed here. My hon. Friend is underestimating the ingenuity of the Opposition.
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
Order. While the hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to debate the quality or otherwise of any amendments or new clauses, he needs to acknowledge that the Chair has deemed all of them to be within scope. So whatever the purpose or otherwise behind them, they are within the scope of the Bill.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to you for that direction, Mr Howarth, but the previous incumbent of the Chair told me that that was a matter for debate on the Floor of the House, and that we were allowed to debate the merit—
Kit Malthouse
Anyway, I have come to the end of my peroration on that particular point and I have a couple of other points.
Quite a lot of these amendments are unenforceable and nonsensical and cannot be supported. I will listen to the rest of the debate and discover whether there are any substantive ones in this potpourri that has been thrown up in the air, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) says, to try to fog the issue or create legal difficulties in the future. But for the moment I am afraid I am not able to support the vast majority of them, although I have not read every single one yet.
I wish to make two further points. First, I want to reiterate what I said earlier about Euratom and the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry is of course incredibly important not just to the UK, but to the rest of the world. The UK is a serious nuclear power; there is serious, deep research going on here into the future of nuclear fission and fusion. But we have to recognise that things are changing in the EU nuclear research landscape, and be aware of those decisions, and take them into account when we consider our future association with Euratom.
There is now only one serious nuclear power in the EU, which is France. Germany has taken the decision to withdraw completely from the civil nuclear programme. Belgium is the only other country with a significant number of reactors, but France, with 58 reactors, is the only country truly putting effort into nuclear research, and of course we are fortunate in this country in having a bilateral nuclear collaboration agreement with France.
Angela Smith
Sheffield’s Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre is the heart of nuclear technology research in this country. The hon. Gentleman ought to think again about his statement.
Kit Malthouse
I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady thinks I said. I said there were broadly two serious nuclear powers in the EU at the moment, the UK and France, and that we are fortunate in having a bilateral agreement signed in 2010 with the French to deepen and widen our collaboration on nuclear research. Our exit from Euratom, which looks like it is going to happen, will not affect that at all. Those bilateral relations and that research will continue. In particular, our participation in the Jules Horowitz Reactor project in southern France can continue, not least because there are a number of non-EU members in that fantastic materials testing programme at the moment.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my concern. I think that the threat to the UK nuclear industry is not this Bill but the fact that the Leader of the Opposition wants to shut down the nuclear industry in this country, including, of course, Sellafield.
Kit Malthouse
That is a very good point, which will no doubt be taken into account by the good voters of Copeland in the next couple of weeks.
Albert Owen
I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned the good voters of Copeland, because they will be looking after the nuclear workers whose pensions are under threat from his Government.
The agreement between France and Britain comes under the umbrella of Euratom, and the people who know—the academics and the industry—are lobbying us to maintain that link.
Kit Malthouse
I am not sure the hon. Gentleman is right legally; my understanding is that it is an intergovernmental treaty between the two countries and will not necessarily be affected.
We have bilateral treaties with lots of other countries. Just before Christmas, we signed yet another agreement with the Japanese to deepen our research into the civil nuclear programmes. We also have bilateral arrangements with India and South Korea. These are really where the innovations are happening in nuclear research, so the idea that somehow by coming out of Euratom we are going to close ourselves off from the rest of the world is totally untrue. If anything, it might free us to do more work across the rest of the globe in developing what I think is going to be the future of British energy.
Finally, I want to say a few words on EU nationals. As Front Benchers will know, I have expressed my doubts about the Government’s approach to this matter over the past few months, and I am firmly of the belief that we should give those people some reassurance. However, I am willing to give the Prime Minister the space she needs in the negotiations to ensure that she can secure the fate of British nationals overseas. On the basis that the question of EU nationals will come back to the House—as will so many other things—and require primary legislation if their status is to change, I will be voting with the Government on this new clause, as I know many others will for the same reason.
Kit Malthouse
No, I must finish now.
I therefore encourage Members to look at these new clauses and amendments and decide whether we would be putting good, enforceable law on to the statute book by accepting them. I suggest that, in most cases, we would not, so I urge Members to vote with the Government.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Howarth. I listened carefully to the contribution from the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I believe that it is part of our job in the House of Commons to raise questions about important decisions that affect all our lives and, through the use of amendments and other means, to open up the discussion and seek answers from the Government of the day. That is important in the debates that we will have today and in the future. The Government have refused on numerous occasions to accept contributions from those on my own Front Bench and others, but they have then gone away and thought about the issues and decided, “Maybe there’s something in that.” We seem to be pushing at the Government, although they do not want to accept some of the amendments, some of which I have put my name to. Part of the purpose of having these debates in the public arena is to hold the Government to account and make them look again at the important subjects that are being raised at the moment and that will, I have no doubt, be raised in the next two years and beyond.
Caroline Flint
I will make a bit of progress, then I might take a few interventions.
In the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech, she pledged that the UK would keep workers’ rights after Brexit. She also pledged to avoid a cliff edge by seeking a period of stability after we leave, while our trading arrangements with the EU single market are sorted out. She pledged to seek good access to the single market with no extra tariffs or bureaucracy. There might be some disagreements on my own side of the House about what all that should look like, but none of us should be in any doubt about the importance of our trading arrangements—not only for exports, but for imports.
This is not just about our cities; it is about places such as Doncaster and the other towns and communities around the country in which these arrangements are vital for jobs. When I did a survey of my constituents after the referendum campaign, I asked them what my three priorities should be. Jobs and investment came first. Tackling immigration came second. The £350 million a week that was apparently going to come back to the NHS came third. We heard about that in yesterday’s debate. I am not sure what I can do about that last one, but the first two are certainly going to get my full attention.
I believe that we have to look at freedom of movement. I have been saying for many years that immigration has not been attended to, by my party or by others, in the way that it should have been. The Prime Minister has said that she wants the negotiations to guarantee that EU workers currently living here can stay. I agree with that. Many of my constituents have particular issues about freedom of movement and they want them to receive attention in a way that they have not done before. However, the Prime Minister could lead her MPs through the Lobby today and vote to guarantee the rights of EU nationals here. As others have said, she could make it clear that they will not be used as a bargaining chip and could end their uncertainty. Likewise, we also want to safeguard the rights of Brits living in Europe, and by adopting a positive approach today we would make it more likely that Brits living in the EU were treated fairly.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Lady touches on EU nationals. It has been misunderstood several times in this House, not just today, that Europe should make the first step. Which European state did those people mean? Should it be Bulgaria, Sweden, Portugal or wherever? The reality is that the UK is making a move with Brexit, so the UK should be leading and showing good will to the citizens of all European countries. We are talking not about two places—the UK and the EU—but about the UK and 27 other places.
Caroline Flint
The tone of the debate as we move forward is crucial not only to how we in this country work together for the best deal, but to how we are perceived in the other 27 member states. Something will have to be done about EU nationals living here and Brits living in the other member states. That is a fact. There will have to be a deal. There are those on the Government Benches—remain voters and leave voters—who cannot understand why the Prime Minister is not stepping up and a making a decision to make that clear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Caroline Flint
I am going to make progress.
I also want us to be open to EU students. I understand the concern in parts of our country—maybe not so much in London, but certainly in Scotland and the north of England—about the continuing brain drain from our communities that is hindering our ability to grow our economy. My constituents do not have much of a problem with that, just like they do not have much of a problem with having the ability to travel for their two weeks in the sun maybe once a year, which will be important for Doncaster Sheffield airport in my constituency. However, they do know that we have to think about some rules to manage migration, because the net benefits of migration, of which there are many, have not been shared equally across the country. In some communities in some towns, the rate of change with people coming in, particularly from eastern Europe, has had economic and social effects—with no blame accorded to those individuals. When a factory finds, perhaps over a matter of weeks or even overnight, that the number of people from eastern Europe outweighs the number of people from the local community, it cannot be denied that that creates worries, problems and pressure on services.
The debate over the next few years cannot be just about migration from the EU. Over the past seven years, the Tory Government’s policies on migration and immigration have failed. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is not here, but I remember when he caused a by-election on the basis of getting rid of ID cards. I supported ID cards then and I support them today. In the world in which we live, and given identity fraud, crime and needing to know who should have access to what, they could have been part of the solution to some of the problems we have seen since he caused that by-election.
Dr Murrison
I have been following the right hon. Lady’s remarks with great interest. She has reiterated the shadow Minister’s abandonment of her party’s long-standing principled commitment to free movement. Given that she wants the House to control migration in the future, how would that be possible without leaving the EU?
Caroline Flint
We have failed to raise that issue under successive Governments and influence how the change should happen, and I believe that discussions are happening across the other 27 member states about what freedom of movement has meant for them. Unfortunately, we have not attended to that issue for too long. As a result of not doing so, when David Cameron tried to negotiate a deal, he did not leave enough time to broaden the scope for some real reform, so we hurtled into a referendum of his choosing on the date that he set and the consequences are there for all to see.
Liam Byrne
Mr right hon. Friend is making a brilliant and honest speech. When I was the Immigration Minister in 2007, it was clear to me that there could have been a consensus throughout Europe on the reform of free movement. If only the Labour party had pursued it then, when we were in government—indeed, if only the Conservative party had pursued it with care and forensic detail when they came to office in 2010—the Government would not have been forced to offer a bargain-basement deal to the British people when the Prime Minister’s back was against the wall.
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
Order. I do not want to stifle interventions, but it occurs to me that some people who are intervening and are still hoping to speak will have nothing left to say by the time they get to speak.
Caroline Flint
I absolutely agree with that statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). We should be having a more grown-up discussion about the mistakes that have been made and how we navigate what is for us all uncharted territory. A little humbleness in all that would not go amiss.
Caroline Flint
I will be two seconds. [Interruption.] Okay, I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is making a very serious speech. Does she agree that as part of the grown-up discussion to which she refers, Members on both sides of the House need to have the courage to explain that migration of many kinds is beneficial to our economy and our society, in a way that we have not done so far?
Caroline Flint
I totally agree with that, but perhaps part of the problem is that often we talked about that a lot, to the exclusion of sometimes talking about the ways in which communities were feeling that it was not working for them. That is part of the problem. We in politics all know that we create white noise, but how much of it actually gets through to the public? Let us remember that every single region in England, outside of London, voted to leave. If we avoid these important issues, we do so at our peril. For me, the biggest danger is that we let the extremes of the far right occupy ground that allows them to influence the debate, and I hope none of us would want that.
I wish to make some progress and address briefly some of the amendments and new clauses that are important for both sides of the House to consider. Whether or not they are passed tonight, we will see, but I hope that their content and some of the contributions that are made will be taken seriously by Ministers and given some attention when they respond.
It is important, and in the UK’s interest, that we present ourselves not as a nation retreating from a successful international union, but as a nation that remains determined to uphold that union’s best values. New clause 7 speaks to that aim, as it would commit the Government, in advance of any negotiations, to having regard to the legislation shared throughout the EU on preventing and tackling tax avoidance and evasion—a matter to which I have given considerable time over the past few years.
In September last year, the UK put itself at the forefront of the international debate on public country-by-country reporting. Our stance should be, as it was then, that the best and biggest international companies with any substantial presence in the UK should have no fear of openness, and no fear of publishing where they do business and pay taxes. In that spirit, the UK should pledge, ahead of the negotiations, to comply with the EU code of conduct on business taxation. We should do so not because we are required to, but because we want to uphold the standards on which, in many ways, the UK has been leading. It is unfortunate that some of the Prime Minister’s comments seem to rail against some of the positive efforts that have been made to tackle tax evasion and avoidance and some of the issues relating to tax havens. It would be a huge step backwards if we were seen to step away from something important and on which we could be leading the world.
New clause 100 is a modest provision on equality and women’s rights, yet its values reach to the core of what modern Britain should be about. It is modest because it simply asks that during negotiations the Government have regard to the public interest in maintaining employment rights and co-operation against trafficking, domestic violence and female genital mutilation. It suggests a cross-departmental—it could be cross-party, if we want—working group to recommend appropriate legislation on equality and access to justice. The values are clear: it asks only for what we already have, but it also asks the House to embrace the things we value and to make it clear that none of them will be sacrificed during our departure from EU membership.
New clause 163 is about consultation with the English regions. We have heard much in this Chamber about the importance of a meaningful dialogue with the devolved Administrations, and I endorse that approach. I have argued publicly that the best way forward is for the Government to acknowledge that we are in uncharted waters, and that the Prime Minister should be seeking cross-party agreement and having regular meetings with other party leaders. I should not need to remind her that, like me, her Government argued to remain. The decision of the British people on 23 June was an instruction not just to the Prime Minister and a handful of Ministers, but to all of us in this House.
Albert Owen
My right hon. Friend is right to press the Minister, because we have had some very thin talk on this important matter. The industry wants this working party, and it wants Government to give some clear assurances. I make my appeal to the Minister, through my right hon. Friend, to do that tonight. I am sure that he is listening.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)
indicated assent.
Caroline Flint
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
As a remain campaigner, I saw many positive benefits from our membership of the European Union. I am determined that this House will respect the referendum outcome and seek the best for my constituents from our new relationship.
Some in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet talk as though Brexit will be nothing but boundless prosperity. Some remainers talk as though Britain is hurtling off a cliff and they are all doom and gloom. The reality is likely to be something in between. After a long and sometimes difficult marriage, we are getting a divorce. During that process, we need to leave behind some of the false promises and distortions of the referendum campaign. Dramatic false claims only damage trust. We need to replace the rhetoric with honest discussion and honest endeavour to achieve the best outcomes from the path that our country has chosen. That is how we rebuild trust and secure a deal that most leave and most remain voters can accept. That is the way I will be approaching the discussions in the months ahead.
Mr Baker
In rising to support the Government, I wish to consider new clause 2, and amendments 5 and 42 and new clause 185 relating to Euratom.
I am enormously encouraged by today’s debate not least because I take new clause 2, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) explained, as an endorsement of the Government’s position. I look forward to a very full aye Lobby on Third Reading. Paragraph (e) talks about
“maintaining all existing social, economic, consumer and workers’ rights”.
That is something to which the Prime Minister is committed. Along with other Members, I look forward to seeing her succeed in guaranteeing reciprocal rights as soon as possible. I think we know from the press why that has not been done already. It is because the German Chancellor and various figures within the EU institutions have stood in the Prime Minister’s way. We know, from what we have read in the press, that the Prime Minister has a clear framework for guaranteeing reciprocal rights and she has sought to deliver it, but, because our negotiating partners have insisted on no negotiation before notification, she has not made progress on it. None the less, I have full confidence in her intent and in the solidity of her work, and I will certainly vote with the Government tonight.
Of course, looking at the character of this sheaf of amendments, I think many right hon. and hon. Members have indicated why they have been tabled. They are undoubtedly meant to draw within the jurisdiction of the courts a wide range of issues that would keep us mired in the courts for ever, putting off the inevitable day of leaving. I think it is far better to be strong, confident and committed and to act with a constructive and positive spirit to take us out of the EU successfully.
With that in mind, having dramatically curtailed my remarks on the new clause in the light of what colleagues have said, I want to turn to Euratom. What is it? It is a legal framework for civil nuclear power generation, radioactive waste management, arrangements for nuclear safeguards and movement of and trade in nuclear materials.
The first point I want to address is the suggestion that this issue was not on the ballot paper. I suppose that if we had put all the issues that are of concern to hon. Members on the ballot paper, it would have been very long indeed. The question on the ballot paper was perfectly adequate and if the fault can be laid at anyone’s door for Euratom’s not being discussed in the course of the campaign, it lies with the pro-EU Britain Stronger in Europe campaign.
The Euratom treaty is a separate treaty, signed in 1957 by the founding members of the EU. The UK joined it at the same time as it entered the EEC, and the European Communities Act 1972 gives effect to that treaty as well as to the EEC treaty. Section 3(2) of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 makes it clear that any Act that refers to the European Union includes a reference to the European Atomic Energy Community. It is absolutely clear that conferring on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the power to notify that we are leaving the European Union gives her the power to take us out of Euratom.
That leaves a couple of questions. The first is whether the Government are seized of the importance of nuclear safeguards, which are an extremely important issue for the House. My experience of working with nuclear systems is, I admit, distant and limited. I joined the Royal Air Force at a time when we still had tactical nuclear weapons and I was trained to certify aircraft nuclear weapons electrical installations. I must say that it was neither rocket science nor magic; it was about using the finest components to the highest quality standards. From my experience of that work, I would say that I have complete confidence in British scientists and engineers to do everything necessary to ensure that safeguards continue.
I particularly observe that we will continue to be part of Euratom throughout the negotiation period. Since Euratom brings into effect in Europe the provisions made by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and since we will continue to be members of that agency, we can expect not only to continue to comply with Euratom but to continue as members and put in place appropriate arrangements as we move forward.
In addition to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) about the French bilateral, I point out that the Trident system is evidence that we can collaborate on nuclear issues outside the framework of Euratom. I know from experience that anything to do with a nuclear system focuses the mind like nothing else, and I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are seized of the issues and will prioritise this point.
Albert Owen
The hon. Gentleman says that Euratom was not on the ballot paper, and he is right, but it was not even mentioned by the Government until they produced the Bill. If it was such a big and obvious issue, why did the Government not raise this important point while the European Union Referendum Bill was going through this House, or at another opportunity? Secondly, and finally, he talks about the two years. Is he suggesting that if there is no agreement after two years, there should be a transitional period, or we will lose our place in the world?
Mr Baker
I thought that I had explained that carefully, but I will say it again. Section 3(2) of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 makes it clear that any Act that refers to the European Union includes a reference to the European Atomic Agency Community. It is very clear that Euratom was included in the scope of the referendum. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the transition, the Government will make it a priority, as I have just explained at some length, and I have absolute confidence that those on my Front Bench are apprised of the importance of the issue and will take it extremely seriously. We will continue as a member of the agency. In the highly unlikely situation that no deal were reached, I expect that we would continue to maintain nuclear safety under the auspices of the international agency.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Euratom, much like Europol, is one of those organisations from which the other EU member states would have absolutely no interest in excluding the UK and that, therefore, a quick agreement is likely?
Mr Baker
That is an important point. About half of Business for Britain’s 1,000-page “Change, or go” report went through, section by section, all the areas on which we currently co-operate with other nation states through the European Union and its agencies. In each case, it explained that there were bases on which we could co-operate internationally. During the Prüm debate, I made a point particularly in relation to Europol: in a globalised world of cheap, fast air travel, and the internet making just about everywhere milliseconds away, we need global co-operation on police, judicial and security matters. We need to escape the mindset that the only way to do that is through the hierarchical arrangements of the European Union. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) will not mind if I dilate slightly on his point.
I remember being told back in 2010 by Members across the House, particularly by the then leader of the Liberal Democrats, that politics was changing and that we were seeing a realignment of politics. I thought of Ronald Reagan’s words on choice:
“Up to the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism”.
That reorientation of politics is happening.
The availability of the internet and air travel means that the old hierarchical structures that were necessary for communication in the absence of the internet are no longer appropriate for the world in which we live. It is quite right that we should seek, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton suggests, to co-operate on a global basis on all these issues under new arrangements that allow us to act with far greater agility.
Sue Hayman
The hon. Gentleman talks about international and global relations. If it is so straightforward, why is the Nuclear Industry Association saying,
“Given the international nature of the nuclear industry the biggest risk in leaving Euratom is an interruption to normal trade both in the European Union and overseas.”?
Mr Baker
On that point, I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) is back in his place. He devastated all those arguments in a straightforward intervention by making the point that the Joint European Torus project over at Culham does not want these amendments. That is not to say that people do not want collaboration; of course we all want that. However, the question today is whether these amendments should be made. The clear answer coming from Culham—I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley is indicating assent—is that the amendments should not be made.
John Howell
My hon. Friend’s point is absolutely clear. The management at Culham do want to co-operate, and they want a much larger project. We should do that not by making amendments, but by having discussions with Ministers.
Mr Baker
Indeed. In emphasising how committed the Government are to the issue, it might well assist the Committee to return to the Secretary of State’s comments on Second Reading, where he pointed out:
“The Bill also gives the Prime Minister the power to start the process to leave Euratom…This is because, although Euratom was established in a treaty separate from the EU agreements and treaties, it uses the same institutions as the European Union, including the European Court of Justice.”
He went on, in response to an intervention, to say
“Euratom passes to its constituent countries the regulations, rules and supervision that it inherits, as it were, from the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which we are still a member. When we come to negotiate with the European Union on this matter, if it is not possible to come to a conclusion involving some sort of relationship with Euratom, we will no doubt be able to reach one with the International Atomic Energy Agency”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 819-20.]
The point I am making is that this is a crucial issue and the Government understand that. We are fully committed to making progress on nuclear matters in research, development, implementation, safety and global collaboration, but we need to leave Euratom as we leave the European Union. The Government are entitled to do so, and it is quite right that the Bill stands as it is as the Government move forward. I will certainly be voting for the Bill as it stands. The amendments are unnecessary and counterproductive. I commend all the Ministers’ work on Euratom.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I feel the need to say that I will be brief and then just talk for as long as possible, just because I would not like to revert to type. I wish to speak specifically to new clause 100, which is principally in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). I would like to start by saying how grateful she and I are to the 64 colleagues who have added their names in support of it. That shows the real strength of feeling and concern in the House on this issue. It has already been mentioned by some of my hon. Friends, and I shall go into it in more detail.
Caroline Lucas
I certainly pay tribute to the role that Labour has played in those rights. Does the hon. Lady agree, though, that the EU does actually take us further in some respects—for example, on equal pay for work of equal value? Would she also agree that the real risk here is that when that EU legislation becomes UK domestic legislation, it can be unpicked through secondary legislation, and what we have heard is absolutely no reassurance on that?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. I agree entirely, and I will talk a little about what the EU has done that goes beyond UK legislation.
Jess Phillips
I will give way—perhaps—shortly.
The rise of pregnancy discrimination in the past few years because of changes in UK legislation means that women’s rights definitely need to be protected and considered, and I would be very happy if we had external protection.
The rights of part-time workers are crucial for women. That includes pension rights and equal treatment at work for part-time workers. Some 75% of part-time workers are women, and 42% of women work part time. Equal pay for work of equal value is crucial for women. The issue derives from the speech therapist case brought to the European Court of Justice in 1993. It is a very live issue, because low-paid women in the UK are today fighting equal value pay cases against Asda and Reading Council—this is still going on today.
The Government’s White Paper touches on this. I am just going to make a minor segue: because my favourite moment in the White Paper was the bit where it said that Britain does have sovereignty but it has not always felt like it. That reminded me of my children saying, “I know you love him more than me. I know you love me too, but it hasn’t always felt like it.” We really made Britain look like a petulant teen. Anyway, back to women’s rights.
The White Paper says:
“The Government is committed to strengthening rights when it is the right choice for UK workers and will continue to seek out opportunities to enhance protections.”
What exactly does “the right choice” mean? When do the Ministers in front of me think that strengthening workers’ rights is not the right choice?
I remind the Committee that it is not long since we had the red tape challenge. The Equality Act 2010 was included in the red tape challenge in 2012, so the very rights to which the Government now say they are committed they have previously considered to be red tape. The Prime Minister herself was the then Minister who led that review. When Ministers wonder why we doubt the sincerity of their commitment, I say to them that I have read the White Paper very carefully. Much like the Government Front-Benchers going out to the European Union as part of the Brexit team, there is not a single mention of a woman, nor equality, anywhere in the White Paper.
Jess Phillips
I think it is time for a woman’s voice to fill this Chamber for now. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has had his say.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically powerful and passionate, and humorous, speech. Would it not be fair to approach the wording in the White Paper with some caution, bearing in mind that prominent leave campaigners argued that leaving the EU would be an opportunity to cut EU social and employment protections?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very good point, unfortunately. The thing that we might get, as the leave campaign said, is a squashing of workers’ rights; the thing that we will not get is £350 million going into the NHS. If only there was a level of consistency in what we have been promised.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I have always enjoyed working on the Women and Equalities Committee, which has been incredibly harmonious, listening to both men’s and women’s voices. I understand the spirit of new clause 100, but I find it faintly objectionable—I know who I am addressing this to in using that phraseology—to criticise our Prime Minister in talking about women’s rights and equalities, because she has led the way on tackling female genital mutilation, making sure that workers in particular areas have better life chances, and tackling coercive control. May I implore the hon. Lady to believe that Conservative Members, particularly our Prime Minister, do believe in the rights of those both male and female?
Jess Phillips
I have absolutely no doubt that some Conservative Members care about women’s rights, but I have lots of evidence to suggest that some absolutely do not, and need, frankly, a good, strong talking to by our Prime Minister. It is because I know how committed the Prime Minister has been to dealing with issues of violence against women like FGM, and cross-border issues to do with FGM, that I cannot understand why she would whip her party not to vote for this.
When Ministers are at the negotiating table thinking about the competitiveness of the UK economy, what will be high on their list? Will it be how to ensure that we protect and enhance workers’ rights or women’s rights—I think we can see the answer on the Government Front Bench—or will it be to undercut our EU neighbours by becoming a low-regulation, low-tax economy? The esteemed High Court justice Dame Laura Cox has said:
“Some of the basic rights that we now take for granted—pregnancy and maternity rights, part-time workers’ rights, equal pay for work of equal value—are all at risk if the UK becomes a low regulation economy.”
Is that the true destination of these negotiations? Can the Minister give us an assurance that powers in the great—or otherwise—repeal Bill will not be used to remove any equality and employment rights at a later date? Will the rights of part-time workers, pregnant women at work and women fighting for equal pay really be safe with them, whatever happens?
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Lady is making a passionate case, but it is not really for this Bill; rather, it is for the great repeal Bill, which will come in due course.
Jess Phillips
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s assertion, but I am being asked to vote on something tonight and I want to be certain that people like me and people who live in my constituency are going to be protected. At the moment, I do not feel confident about that.
Jess Phillips
No. To clarify, a lot of Members are waiting to speak. The right hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for many minutes during this debate, and I think it is time for someone else to have a chance to speak.
My second concern, which has been touched on, is the issue of violence against women and girls. The new clause would not only defend women’s rights at work, but protect those women escaping domestic violence and FGM and those trafficked across the EU and the UK. In 2010, up to 900 schoolgirls across the city of Birmingham were at risk of FGM, with the key risk ages being at birth, four to six years old and during puberty. One in five children in Birmingham will have experienced or seen domestic violence before they reach adulthood. At least 300 forced marriages of women take place in the west midlands every year. When Ministers are at the negotiating table, who will be in their minds? Will it be the women in my constituency experiencing FGM and those fleeing their violent partners and using services such as Birmingham and Solihull Women’s Aid?
In Birmingham, four women have been murdered in the past year, with another woman found dead in my constituency only last week. The European protection order ensures that women who have suffered domestic violence are protected from the perpetrators if they travel or move anywhere in the EU. Predictions about the consequences of Brexit for policing measures will depend on the outcome of the negotiations.
On 4 February 2016, history was made in the Hammersmith specialist domestic abuse court when the first European protection order in England and Wales was imposed. In this case the survivor had returned to Sweden. A restraining order and an EPO were granted so that she is protected in the UK as well as in Sweden. It is generally accepted that the UK will want to continue with certain parts of EU policing, justice and co-operation, and it is essential that the UK is able to opt into the EPO agreement following Brexit. The White Paper notably neglects to mention any of this. It does not mention FGM, domestic violence or, indeed, any areas in which the Government will continue to work with European partners on the issue of violence against women.
In the area of crime, only organised crime and terrorism are mentioned. Although they are incredibly serious things, no Member will be able to find as many constituents who are as affected by those two crimes as are affected by what I am talking about. Will ending violence against women and girls and, in particular, the UK’s continued use of the EPO be a priority for the Government during and after the Brexit negotiations?
Finally—this is not a penultimate “finally”—the new clause would achieve what the Prime Minister says she wants to achieve, which is to make the UK a fairer place and to not only protect workers’ rights but build on them. Those were her words.
There are many gaps in our equalities legislation, and there is a need to make our legislative framework fit for the 21st century. Sections 14 and 106 have been there since the Act was passed but have not been commenced. Will the Minister undertake to establish a cross-departmental and cross-party—I put myself on the line by saying that I will come and help—working group to assess and make recommendations on developing legislation on equality and access to justice? My challenge to the Government is this: will they take the opportunity that Brexit gives us and make the UK the best place to be a woman, or will it be one of the worst?
Suella Fernandes
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who speaks with passion about her cause and argues for women with much persuasion. I gently point out that only when the Labour party can claim to have elected its second lady Prime Minister can it preach to Conservatives on how to support women. I rise to speak against the entirety of the proposals tabled by Opposition Members, but particularly against the references to trade with the European Union and the rest of the world in new clauses 2, 11, 77 and 181.
I have two key points, the first of which is on trade. I am struck by the premise in the wording of, for example, new clause 181 on trade agreements, which calls on the Government to
“have regard to the value of UK membership of the EU Customs Union in maintaining tariff and barrier-free trade with the EU.”
The new clause is wrong for several reasons. It is totally misguided, and a misreading of what the British people voted for on 23 June. If we
“have regard to the value”
of the customs union, we are missing the point. Where is the call to have regard to the costs of UK membership of the EU customs union? Why does the new clause not refer to the reasons why Britain must leave the customs union, and what we stand to gain? There is simply no point to Brexit and no meaning to the result of the referendum if we do not leave the EU customs union.
Where is the acknowledgment of the restrictions and costs of the common commercial policy inherent in our membership of the EU customs union? The new clause and all those containing that reference to trade are one-sided, prejudge, and lack any objectivity or impartiality. Where is the reference to, or acknowledgment of, the simple fact that Britain can set her own rules on trade policy, and forge new and dynamic agreements with the rest of the world, only if she leaves the EU customs union? Where is the reference to the gains we stand to make by striking new trade deals with the rest of the world? The Legatum Institute special trade commission estimates a 50% increase in global world products over 15 years.
I am concerned that there is no impact assessment of the damaging effect of the EU’s trade agreements on developing countries, or of the common external tariff, which binds members of the customs union.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is commenting on a proposal that is in my name and the name of three other Select Committee Chairs. Is she aware of the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee by a series of hauliers, ports and so on? They said that if their goods from the EU were subject to the type of customs checks to which goods from outside the EU are subject, there could be delays of between one and three days.
Suella Fernandes
The right hon. Lady needs to do her research before she makes points like that. If she had attended the meeting I had with experienced trade negotiators just two days ago—they are part of the special trade commission and have led trade deals on behalf of other countries—she would know that they say that the rules to which she refers are already part of free trade agreements around the world. The problems she highlights are being blown out of all proportion, given the reality of what we stand to gain from leaving the customs union.
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend makes her point with typical force. At our last Treasury Committee meeting, we heard from the director of customs at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, who pointed out repeatedly that 96% of customs clearance, where required, takes place electronically within a few seconds and requires no intervention.
Suella Fernandes
That is exactly the point that needs to be made. Where is the amendment making that point?
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend is making a typically powerful case. As the Member of Parliament who represents Dover and Deal, where this issue will have the greatest impact, I have put together a group to look at it. It is perfectly possible to build a frictionless border, using the latest technology. The Opposition want it to fail; we will make it succeed.
Suella Fernandes
I could not agree more with the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Lady says that we are not interested in an unbiased assessment. Had she been here yesterday, she would have seen new clause 43, which sought an even-handed impact assessment. Why cannot she read the amendment paper before making her wild assertions?
Suella Fernandes
We can all see that the amendments are an attempt to pull the wool over the British people’s eyes and fob us all off, and I will have nothing whatever to do with them.
EU protectionism has placed farmers and workers in developing countries at a disadvantage when exporting to the EU, because of the common external tariff. Why should British consumers be denied cheaper sugar, wheat or tomatoes from developing nations to protect less efficient farmers in northern Europe? That is the effect of the common external tariff, and the effect on our consumers of our membership of the EU customs union.
Chris Green
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it is perverse that the external tariffs impoverish third-world nations, and that we then hand money over through the Department for International Development to try to raise their standards?
Suella Fernandes
The absurdity of the current position is astonishing. We will be able to remedy that injustice only by leaving the customs union, taking control of our trade policy, having trade deals on a fairer basis and being real promoters of fair trade for those countries.
Suella Fernandes
I will not, because I have taken quite a few interventions and I want to make progress.
Business for Britain has estimated the cost to British consumers of the damage done by the common commercial policy and the customs union at some £500 per household. The amendments do not reflect the absurdity of the current position. British companies such as JCB are no more able to sell their machinery tariff-free from India to the UK than Tata can from the UK to India. Since 1973, Britain’s trade has pivoted from being global to being European, and that has all been negotiated on our behalf by the European Trade Commissioner. Why is there no amendment recognising the influence to be regained by Britain resuming its own seat at the World Trade Organisation? Why is there no reference to the fact that EU trade policy has wrecked the ports of Glasgow and Liverpool, which are on the “wrong” side of the country, and denied us any chance of determining our own trade policy? That is a reflection of the one-sided prejudice in, and misguided nature of, the amendments.
The amendments fail to point out that in 2015, the UK’s deficit in trade in goods and services with the EU was £69 billion, while the surplus with non-EU countries was £30 billion. Why is there no amendment asking for an impact assessment on the gains from trading more widely and more freely with the rest of the world, building on our surplus with countries outside the EU? The amendments do not reflect the fact that Britain is losing out now because of our membership of the customs union, and they miss the fact that we have more to gain by leaving. They omit those salient features because Opposition Members do not want to be honest about the fact that the EU still does not have any agreements with major nations such as Brazil, the USA or China, and that we have more to gain from increasing our exports to the rest of the world than by remaining a member of the customs union.
My second-to-last point is on EU nationals. I consider the Prime Minister’s position appropriate in the circumstances: she will guarantee the position of approximately 3.5 million EU nationals as soon as possible once the negotiations have started. I want to ensure that this issue is put in perspective. Of the 3.5 million EU nationals currently residing in the UK, approximately 64% already have the right to stay here, 8% are children with an EU national parent and therefore have a right to reside here, and 12% will have accrued their five years permanent residency by 2018. This means that 84% already have a secure immigration status in this country. We are talking about a minority of people.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Let us be practical. We cannot even deport convicted criminals. The truth is that not a single EU national will ever be deported.
Suella Fernandes
I agree wholeheartedly. That course of action would go against any idea of natural justice, legitimate expectation and the rule of law.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
If that is the case and we have certainty for EU nationals, will the hon. Lady join us in voting for new clause 27 tonight?
Suella Fernandes
I will not be voting with the Opposition. I am very content with the Government’s position on EU nationals.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern and disappointment that while EU Governments could have sorted this out already, some have put the brakes on and have refused to do so? We should be putting pressure on them to sort out this very important issue much, much earlier, and outside the renegotiation process.
Suella Fernandes
I could not agree more. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) is in his place; I recall the letter he sent to Donald Tusk on this very issue.
Michael Tomlinson
Was my hon. Friend not as disappointed as I was by the response to that letter, which signally failed to grasp the nettle? This could all have been resolved before Christmas, on 15 December. The answer then was no; it should have been yes.
Suella Fernandes
That reflects the wisdom of the current position. We must safeguard the rights of UK nationals abroad before making any move on this issue.
I was involved, with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), in a cross-party study with the think-tank British Future. We made suggestions to the Government on how to regularise and deal practically with the legal position of the 3.5 million EU nationals in this country. There will be issues for the Government to deal with. For example, what should the cut-off date be? Our report recommended that the date after which the new rules should apply be the date when article 50 is triggered, at which point a legitimate expectation will have arisen in respect of new arrivals to the country. We felt that that struck the right balance between fairness and pragmatism.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am holding in my hand a list of Members who wish to speak; it stretches from here to Brussels. There are 21 Members who wish to participate, so a degree of self-restraint in terms of the length of speeches and interventions would be helpful. Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken already in the course of these three days. It is only fair, therefore, that I try to give some preference to those who have not been able to contribute at all.
Caroline Lucas
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), not least because I would like to disagree with several of the points she made—I am sure she will not find that surprising. She says that she finds the Prime Minister’s attitude to EU nationals “appropriate”. I find it deeply inappropriate, and so do the EU nationals themselves, who simply want certainty about their future in this country. The Prime Minister’s refusal to guarantee that now, when she has the ability to do so, is cruel and, frankly, immoral. We are talking about people’s lives, which are not commodities to be traded in some wider bargain. The Prime Minister could and should guarantee to people who have made their lives here in good faith that of course they can stay. The idea that it is appropriate to do otherwise is out of order.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Is the hon. Lady aware, as I am, of EU nationals holding senior positions in UK institutions already leaving the country and of EU nationals being interviewed for senior positions but asking searching questions about what Brexit means for them and their families?
Caroline Lucas
I completely agree. I was talking to the vice-chancellor of one of the universities in my constituency the other day and hearing that already staff were wondering about their future and whether it was worth leaving. Some of them feel unwanted, despite having made a massive contribution to our society and communities. That is why, again, I think that the Government’s attitude is incredibly irresponsible.
I want to talk in particular about my amendment 38 on the environment. I am so pleased that we have at least a few moments to talk about the impact of Brexit on our wider environment and on sustainability. So many of us have been trying to raise these issues for a long time, because they are massively significant, and I know that the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee was waiting hopefully yesterday to make some interventions, based on some of the evidence that we heard in that Committee about the environmental impacts of Brexit. They are deeply worrying, and I would particularly like to focus on the issue of the monitoring and enforcement of environmental legislation once we leave the EU.
Caroline Lucas
I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mary Creagh
Does the hon. Lady share my disappointment that, as a result of last night’s filibuster by the Scottish National party, it has not been possible to share in this Committee debate the work done by the Environmental Audit Committee on both the benefits and the potential risks to the natural environment of leaving the EU and on our new inquiry into chemicals regulation, which affects every single aspect of our manufactured and exported goods?
Caroline Lucas
I am not going to pick out any one particular party for filibustering. I am afraid that it is an epidemic that affects this whole place, and I would love to see it end. I do, however, want to talk about precisely that kind of evidence that the Environmental Audit Committee heard.
One almost believes that it is precisely the complexity demonstrated when evidence is given about the environmental impacts of Brexit that explains why Conservative Members do not want to hear about it. Such complexity underlines to them the fact that this Brexit process is not going to be done and dusted in two years. The idea that we will have a whole new trade agreement in two years is cloud cuckoo land; anybody with any knowledge of this issue would certainly say that now.
Caroline Lucas
No, not at the moment; I want to make a bit more progress.
As many Members have noted over the last few days, the protections currently guaranteed by our membership of the EU—whether it be on the environment, workers’ rights or food safety—rely on an established and robust system of monitoring and enforcement provided by EU institutions and agencies. Perhaps the most important part of this system has been precisely the strong pressure to implement the law within a specified timescale.
The incentive to adhere to the law arises from the monitoring and enforcement role of the EU agencies. The Commission acts as the guardian of the law and responds to legitimate complaints; serious breaches are referred to the European Court of Justice; and sanctions can follow, including fines of many hundreds of millions of pounds. It is exactly that enforcement mechanism that we are going to lose as a result of Brexit. Although the Government talk about moving across lots of this legislation in the great repeal Bill, the enforcement processes and the agencies that make sure that this stuff gets done do not get automatically transferred.
James Heappey
The hon. Lady and I share an enthusiasm for the greater deployment of renewables within our energy mix, so does she agree with me that one of the protections that the EU also affords is the protection of the German solar photovoltaic manufacturing sector, which is inflating prices for PV cells in the UK because the EU has put in place the minimum import price on those cells from China?
Caroline Lucas
I do not support that decision, but the idea that we should go down the road of leaving the EU, with all the problems that are going to arise, which would cause much greater damage to the environment, simply because we do not agree with one or two key decisions really is the definition of someone throwing their toys out of the pram. That is not a sensible way forward.
Mary Creagh
Is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am that when we leave the single market and the customs union, the birds and habitats directive, which protects migratory species and Britain’s special places for special wildlife, will cease to apply in this country, affecting all environmental impact assessments? Is she also concerned that air pollution standards that are currently set and enforced by the European Union could be downgraded?
Caroline Lucas
I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concerns. On the air pollution issue, we have seen very recently that it was precisely the threat of EU sanctions that eventually got this Government moving when it came to dealing with the problem. Without the extra sanction at the EU level, they simply would not have taken the necessary action. I think that absolutely makes the point.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
Since its establishment, the European Chemicals Agency has built up a staff of over 600. Together with the EU Directorate-General for the environment in the UK, it has become the natural home of chemical risk assessment in Europe. Does the hon. Lady agree and share my concern that the UK does not have the resources—financial or human—to create its own regulatory agency in chemicals?
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman is a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee, and just this week he and I heard experts give evidence about the impact on our chemicals industry of leaving the EU, and, in particular, of losing membership of the REACH directive. This country has not the capacity or the resource simply to step in and take that over.
Mary Creagh
Our Committee heard yesterday from industry representatives that British chemical manufacturers could pay up to €300 million, and have already paid about €130 million, to register chemicals with the REACH database and the European Chemicals Agency. Those sunk costs, which must be incurred by 2018, could be lost to UK industry as a result of the duplication of setting up a UK-based chemicals agency. Does the hon. Lady share my concern about that?
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I do not know what more I have to say. I gave an indication that I wanted to enable as many Members possible to speak. A significant number of Members have not spoken at all during the three days of this debate, and that is hard on some Members who have tabled new clauses or amendments and wish to speak. I want to try to give a fair crack of the whip to those who have not spoken at all, but long interventions and long speeches do not help that process.
Caroline Lucas
I apologise, Sir Roger. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh)—who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee—tried to make some of these points for hours yesterday, but I will confine myself to saying that I agree with what she has said. I think that the impact on our chemical industry has been massively underestimated. Given that it is our second largest manufacturing export and given that at least 50% of those exports go to the EU, the impact on the sector will be massive.
If the Government are serious in their ambition to be the first Government to leave the environment in a better condition than they found it in, Ministers must now explain to us in detail how the legislative system for monitoring and enforcement will be replaced. I find it astonishing that they expect us to vote for the Bill without being given any idea of what the present complex, robust and unique system of legal enforcement might look like when we leave.
In evidence given to the Environment Audit Committee, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds made the important point that the European Court of Justice operates on a slightly broader basis than the Supreme Court in the UK, which must follow narrower due process. It is therefore possible that great swathes of environmental protections, once transferred to UK statute, will in effect become redundant owing to the absence of monitoring and enforcement by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. That loss of an effective judicial system will come at a time when UK regulators, tasked with monitoring compliance with environmental legislation, have had their own budgets slashed. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a third of the staff that it had 10 years ago. Furthermore, because the great repeal Bill will not carry over the jurisprudence from the European Court of Justice, we seem to be set to lose the important case law which, for the past 40 years, has proved so effective in protecting the UK environment.
Rachael Maskell
We are also in danger of losing access to the European Environment Agency, which brings such expertise to the advancing of environmental legislation.
Caroline Lucas
I agree, and the same applies to the European Food Safety Agency. Some of the new clauses draw attention to the fact that we still need to have access to those bodies. It strikes me as completely baffling that the hon. Member for Fareham can somehow think it insulting to her constituents for us to be talking about such vitally important new clauses.
This is not only an issue of law relating directly to wildlife and nature. As it stands, the Government’s push for an extreme Brexit opens the way for changes in key environmental policies relating to air, water, waste, food and much more, all of which will have an impact, direct or indirect, on UK biodiversity and our natural environment. For all those reasons, I think that new clauses which are intended to protect our environment, and which ask for that protection to be guaranteed before article 50 is triggered, make good sense.
I will end my speech in just 30 seconds, Sir Roger. Let me simply say that I particularly support new clause 100, about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke so passionately and eloquently. In recent weeks we have heard repeated and welcome assurances from Ministers that workers’ and women’s rights will be protected. If that is the case, let us get the new clause into the Bill. Let us ensure that this will not be rolled back through secondary legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I have no power whatsoever to impose a time limit, but six minutes per person will allow nine more Members to speak.
Charlie Elphicke
I propose to sit down at 4.50 pm, because it is important that we get as many Members in as possible, and it is also important to give an example to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who, sadly, is not in his seat today, so he can understand that courtesy to the House and to other speakers—and to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who waited so patiently yesterday—is actually quite important. Good manners are something we should never forget in this place, even if the Scottish National party is not always acquainted with those manners.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his graciousness in allowing me to intervene. He and many of his colleagues have claimed that the decision to leave the EU will mean we can take back control of our borders. Can he gently and slowly explain to those of us in Northern Ireland how he is going to take back control of the border, which stretches for about 300 miles, between the Republic of Ireland, which remains within the EU, and Northern Ireland, part of the UK and which therefore will be coming out of the EU? How do we retain control of that?
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Lady for making a very important point. The common travel area must be maintained. We have a strong history of that between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and the Prime Minister has set it out as a key priority for her. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady’s intervention brings me neatly to the next issue: the customs union. [Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Lady’s question.
Mr Harper
There are sedentary interventions asking my hon. Friend how we might do that. Let me give a constructive suggestion. Because of the common travel area and the rights of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom, which are also reciprocal, it seems to me that there is no need to have checks on people movements across the border, and from the conversations we had earlier about the fact that most customs checks can be done electronically, it seems to me that we can perfectly well maintain a soft border and the prosperity of both parts of the island of Ireland when we leave the EU.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
I want briefly in the last minute available to me—
Charlie Elphicke
I cannot take an intervention as I need to let others get in.
In the last minute, I want to touch on the issue of the customs union. It is clear in the decision that we want to enter trade agreements elsewhere in the world that we must leave the customs union. Opposition parties say that will all be a terrible disaster; in fact, as always, they hope it will be a complete disaster. But, on this side of the House, Members like me have been putting together industry groups to look at how it can be done, listening to what HMRC says, listening to how checks can be put in place, and listening to how we can construct a frictionless border that will work for Britain and work for Europe. It is in the interests of both—
Charlie Elphicke
No, not at the moment.
It is in the interests of Britain and the European Union that we construct a frictionless border, and that is why I am also in discussions with the authorities in Calais. It is in the interests of Britain and France, of Dover and Calais, and of the United Kingdom and the European Union that we ensure that this works. We need to embrace electronic bills of lading, risk-based checking and audits in workplaces. We need to treat the border as a tax point rather than as a hard place with border posts. That is a further answer to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). That is how we can ensure that we continue to have frictionless trade even if we have to leave the customs union. On that note, and given your injunction, Sir Roger, I shall conclude my remarks so that others may speak.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 163, which stands in my name and would require the Government to publish a strategy for properly consulting the English regions, including those without directly elected mayors. We are getting ever closer to the Prime Minister’s self-imposed 31 March deadline for invoking article 50, but a question that I put to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on 17 January remains unanswered.
To remind the House—and the Secretary of State, who is in his place—I asked him what discussions he had held with key stakeholders in the north-east about the effects of leaving the single market, given that 58% of our region’s exports go to the EU. I received an entirely unsatisfactory response to that question, and I remain concerned that the Government have ruled out membership of the single market before negotiations have even begun and without properly consulting those parts of the country likely to be most affected by this move.
Even more worrying is the fact that, despite the publication of the Government’s White Paper last week, we are still no closer to knowing what role representatives from all the regions of England, including the north-east, will play in informing the Government’s negotiating strategy and objectives. Instead, we have been provided with this entirely meaningless statement:
“In seeking such a future, we will look to secure the specific interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as those of all parts of England.”
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that comments from Members such as the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) about the port of Liverpool, which is in my constituency, having been in some decline are complete nonsense? The port is doing more tonnage than it has ever done, and it has recently had £350 million of investment. Conservative Members do not realise the good that the regions do for the economy.
Catherine McKinnell
I am pleased that I took that intervention. My hon. Friend makes a strong case for why the Government’s “we know best” approach to the Brexit negotiations just will not wash with the British public. Furthermore, the word “region” appears just four times in the White Paper, and three of those references are in the footnotes.
The Government claim that around 150 stakeholder engagement events have taken place to help to inform the Government’s understanding of the key issues ahead of the negotiations, but I would be interested to know when, where and with whom those meetings were held. We know that the Secretary of State made a vague commitment in the House to
“get all the mayors of the north to come and have a meeting in York”—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 802.]
but of course that cannot happen until after the mayoral elections have been held in May. I appreciate the sentiment behind the offer, but it is wholly inadequate. What will happen to those regions, including the north-east, that will not have an elected mayor after May and will therefore be excluded from that meeting? Surely, if the English regions are to have a truly meaningful input to this process, those discussions must start before May, given that the UK’s negotiations with the EU will already have commenced, and given the incredibly tight two-year timescale for achieving a deal that does not damage jobs and our economy.
We are repeatedly told that Brexit was about taking back control. We now know that that means an unelected Prime Minister who has sought every means possible to avoid scrutiny of her approach ploughing ahead with a hard Brexit, regardless of the consequences for different parts of the country. I am not convinced that people voted for that. I am not convinced that this Whitehall-knows-best approach will get the best deal for everybody up and down the country.
The only way for the Government to secure the best possible deal for all the regions—the north-east in particular—which have so much to lose from a bad deal, is to engage properly with those on the ground about what we need. That is why I am supporting new clause 163, which would compel the Government to ensure that that proper consultation took place.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Sir Roger, you will be pleased to know that I have never spoken for more than four minutes in the Chamber—I have never had the opportunity—and I do not intend to start now.
I agree with the intention and emotion behind many of the amendments tabled by hon. Members from across the House, but I do not support them simply because I do not want the Prime Minister’s hands to be tied throughout the negotiations. I campaigned fiercely to stay in the EU as I passionately believed that it was in Britain’s interests to do so, and I have not changed my mind. I agree with everything my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said last week and that, in addition to the economic implications, we will lose a tremendous amount of influence. However, there is one difference between me and him: I voted for the referendum and I have to accept the result. It may have been advisory, but the public, including those in Portsmouth South, voted to come out of the EU, and I respect that. I will be monitoring the negotiations closely, and I am pleased with yesterday’s reassurance that there will be a vote in good time on the final deal. It may be that we will get a very good deal, and that is why I cannot support new clause 2, which is too limiting.
I understand new clause 100, which was eloquently introduced by my hon. Friend—I will call her that—the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), but I hope that those who added their name to it will agree that the matter is already being addressed through the Women and Equalities Committee; the Modern Slavery Act 2015, brought in by this Prime Minister; and the Government’s work on domestic violence. We can be assured that what new clause 100 would address will be included in those things. I assure the Opposition that there are enough strong women on the Government Benches, led by a female Prime Minister—[Interruption.] There are strong women in the Opposition, too. Equality and women’s rights are well understood by the Government, and I am sure that there will be cross-party collaboration.
We have already received many assurances from the Prime Minister about EU and UK nationals, so I hope that we will get a firm agreement shortly. The sooner we get on with the negotiations, the better it will be for everyone. This could be a great opportunity for this country, but I will not support any deal that is not better for the UK. That would be a dereliction of duty. However, I have every confidence in the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—that they will have taken into account the views of people such as me and the intentions behind many of the amendments tabled for debate today. I am confident that the deal will be great for us and for our European friends and neighbours.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I add my support to new clauses 163 and 193, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North made an excellent speech about why the Government should accept the new clauses, but I want to add something else.
At a meeting of the Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire all-party parliamentary group yesterday, we heard from representatives from the four LEPs, from industry, from the creative industries and from universities, and we agreed to analyse what Brexit means for Yorkshire and the Humber. We agreed on a cross-party basis to submit that analysis to Ministers so that we can analyse not only what leaving the European Union would mean, but what we want to see from the negotiations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union talked about a meeting with mayors in York; that is a very vague promise, and we need to put some meat on its bones.
James Heappey
I, too, will try to be brief. Like many colleagues, I voted to remain, but I was clear at the time that I would be bound by the result in both my constituency and the country. The result in the Wells constituency was that we should leave, as it was in the country at large, so that is what we must do.
I am baffled by the number of amendments that have been tabled to the Bill, not because they lack value or do not make good points about our extraction from the EU—they obviously do—but because, as the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), rightly said on Second Reading, primary legislation will follow the triggering of article 50, and both Houses of Parliament will have an important role in scrutinising that legislation and what we do in the negotiations. I certainly intend to play a full part in that scrutiny, as I know will Opposition Members.
Earlier, we were discussing the impact of free trade agreements, particularly on our farmers. It stands to reason that when free trade agreements are introduced, they, too, will be scrutinised by the House, so the interests of the farmers and food producers in our constituencies can be brought to bear then to ensure that the deals are in their interests.
I associate myself with the comments made by so many colleagues about the rights of EU nationals to remain in the UK. In Somerset, people from elsewhere in the EU play a huge part in our local economy, particularly in our tourism, farming, and food and drink manufacturing industries. It is inconceivable to me that they would ever have their right to be here taken away.
On Euratom, Hinkley Points A and B are in the neighbouring constituency to mine, and we will soon be the neighbour of Hinkley Point C, too. It is clear to me that the UK nuclear industry has a world-class reputation for having the very highest regulatory standards. Those standards have been developed within the Euratom framework, but we should be clear that the United States, Japan and China also operate within that framework, without being members of the European Union. I fully expect that we will do the same when we have left Euratom by virtue of our leaving the European Union.
Those who have expressed any doubt that the Government will seek to continue to maintain the highest safety standards in our nuclear industry are perhaps not giving them the credit that they deserve. We have always set those standards, and we will always do so whether or not we are in the EU and Euratom. As for the willingness of other nations in Euratom to want to continue to co-operate with us, I am certain that they will. The French Government are very heavily invested in EDF, and it is inconceivable that they will not want their operations here in the UK to remain a part of the common regulatory framework across the European continent.
The Government have rightly committed to working with the industry and with all the nuclear research bodies in the country to make sure that they fully understand what the priorities of that sector are within the UK, so that those needs can be met with whatever it is that we put in place once we have left Euratom.
The UK’s nuclear industry is the gold standard globally. Many countries want their technologies to be employed here so that they can have the tick to say that their technologies have been approved for operation in the UK. It is apparent to me, therefore, that, as we put in place regulatory standards in the future, we will want to maintain that high standard and our great reputation around the world. Crucially, this House of Commons will have an important role in that.
My final point on energy policy generally is to encourage the Government to clarify that they see a clear distinction between the EU single market and the EU single internal energy market. From the perspective of security of supply, of cost and of decarbonisation, it is in our interests—
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point now. In fact, it is exactly the point that I would have made had I been called. He is absolutely right. Does he agree that, if we leave the single energy market and lose the interconnectors, we will need higher baseload capacity, which will cost more, and electricity prices will shoot up?
James Heappey
I absolutely agree that, from an energy perspective, the interconnection of the UK and the European mainland is hugely important, but my point is that that is not a part of the EU single market. The EU’s internal energy market is a separate entity. I invite the Government to clarify that they recognise that and that their commitment to leaving the European single market, which I fully understand, is distinct from a continued enthusiasm for the internal energy market, which is an entirely separate thing and hugely to our benefit.
The will of my constituents and our country is clear: we have been instructed to leave. It is not what I voted for, but it is what we will do now. The process starts with this binary decision of whether or not to trigger article 50. The Bill, without amendment, does exactly that. As we go forward, the role of this House and our responsibilities to our constituents are clear: we must engage fully in scrutinising all the legislation that comes forward as a result of the negotiations. Those who have suggested that to not amend the Bill now is somehow an abdication of our responsibility to our constituents are just wrong. Our responsibility as a House is to be bound by the result of the referendum to trigger article 50 and then to bring all of our expertise together in scrutinising the legislation that follows, as we do on all other legislation.
Liam Byrne
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I want to speak to new clause 193, which is in my name and the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I tabled it in the hope that the Minister would take it on board. I want to give the Government a chance this afternoon to set out their pro-European credentials.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) so eloquently put it, the Prime Minister has said that, yes, we may be leaving the European Union, but that we intend to be good European neighbours. New clause 193 is an opportunity for the Government to set out how we, in this country, will remain determined to stay a member of one of the most important European clubs, the European club that we helped to found—the Council of Europe, the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights.
We moved the new clause because one of the most significant consequences of this divorce from Europe is that we will leave the European Court of Justice. Indeed, an important part of the leave campaign’s argument was that we must escape from the tutelage of these terrible European judges and that only British judges are good enough for us—unless, of course, they happen to want to give this Parliament a chance to debate this Bill, in which case they instantly become enemies of the people.
This idea that foreign judges are anathema to this place is, of course, complete fiction. This very afternoon, the Government have solicited our support for CETA—the comprehensive economic trade agreement—replete with the new investor state dispute mechanism, a new court populated not with British judges but with foreign judges. The idea that foreign judges are about to be removed or extracted from the body politic in this country is nonsense, and that is why I think we must argue that one of the most important tribunals that oversees the law in this country should remain in place. That court is the European Court of Human Rights.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fundamental point about our sympathy not only with our European partners but with our common European heritage, stemming straight out of Judeo-Christian theology through the Enlightenment and various schools at Paris and the Sorbonne, into the concept of rights that has emerged. Those rights were not simply created by the Council of Europe, as he seems to be claiming, but rather by British judges over several hundred years—admittedly taken from French and other traditions—and were re-imposed on Europe in the aftermath of the second world war. Although that heritage is important, as he rightly claims, would it not also be appropriate to recognise that some of those judges today are Moldovan and Russian and have been rather more prone to look for dictatorial abuse than to guarantee rights?
Liam Byrne
There is a reason why Russia has had its credentials suspended by the Council of Europe, and that is that it is not prepared to honour the great European Magna Carta that British civil servants helped to draw up under Churchill’s inspiration in the years after the second world war.
The Conservative manifesto—
Liam Byrne
I will give way in a moment, as I want to put a specific question to the Minister.
The Conservative manifesto is not well read on the Government Benches; we study it forensically and in detail. In 2010, the manifesto said that the Conservatives would introduce a British Bill of Rights, replace the Human Rights Act and ensure that the European Court of Human Rights was no longer binding over the UK Supreme Court, ensuring that the European Court of Human Rights could no longer change British laws. That position was repeated in the 2015 manifesto. I hope that the Minister can say that that plan is now in the bin.
Mr Jones
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have resisted intervening throughout the course of the debate, but I think I can help him to this extent: I do not know whether he was present during the wind-ups on Second Reading, but I informed the House that the Government have no plans to withdraw from the European convention on human rights.
Liam Byrne
The Minister is good to put that on the record, but the fact is that there are plans—plans were set out in the Conservative manifesto in 2010 and in 2015, and the draft British Bill of Rights that is circulating in the Ministry of Justice contains similar plans. That is why in August 2016 the Justice Secretary told the House that a British Bill of Rights would be introduced, and the House wants categorically to know whether that British Bill of Rights will have the implication and result of taking us out of the European Court of Human Rights. That is the point that I want the Minister to put beyond doubt by accepting new clause 193.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
May I give the right hon. Gentleman some reassurance on two points? First, having served as the Minister responsible for human rights, I can say that it was never in the Conservative plans for a Bill of Rights to pull out of the European convention on human rights. I made that clear monthly at Justice questions. Secondly, precisely because the Council of Europe is completely independent of the EU, this is an entirely meaningless amendment.
Liam Byrne
It is absolutely not. It is essential if the Prime Minister is to be good to her word that we will remain committed to the European club that we helped to create.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Let me help to set the right hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. I am sure that I have heard the Prime Minister say publicly—I think, during her leadership campaign—that she was abandoning plans to leave the European convention on human rights because she accepted that she could not win a parliamentary majority for such a proposal.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that point, but I would like the question put beyond doubt by asking the Minister to accept new clause 193, which would give us a degree of assurance. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is perfectly prepared to vote against his own Whip in order to seek cast-iron reassurances, and I seek the same level of reassurance this afternoon.
It was back in September 1946 that Winston Churchill went to Zurich and proposed the Council of Europe as a first step towards recreating the European family whose breakdown led to the tragedy of the second world war. In the face of rising risks and threats, those old words are still wise words to guide us.
Mims Davies
It is a great pleasure to speak in this Committee of the whole House on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. I fully support the Government as they enact the will of the people shown in the European Union referendum, and welcome the White Paper.
Taking them at face value, I agree with some of the new clauses; they look benign and fairly honourable. The problem is that it is illogical to try to muddle the negotiations into the middle of this withdrawal Bill as if it were a Christmas tree Bill. I shall speak briefly about some of my constituents’ concerns, and set out my own view on new clause 2. I will not be supporting it because although it seems agreeable and benign, it does not mention migration. The Prime Minister spoke today about the priority she will place on the UK’s need for highly skilled workers from the EU throughout the negotiation process. The new clause fails to deal with that.
Anyone who has been part of any negotiation, particularly in the private sector, will be only too aware of the importance of not having our hands tied behind our back as we go into the process. Revealing our complete negotiation strategy at the start seems somewhat absurd. The aim of the Opposition’s new clause is simply to fudge the issues by suggesting that they care more about the negotiating principles than the Government do. The Prime Minister laid out guiding principles in her Lancaster House speech. My constituents on both sides of the referendum debate appreciated that speech and welcomed those principles. Many people are simply asking us politicians to get on with it.
I welcome all the contributions from speakers across the Committee over the past few days. The debate has been fascinating, and it has been important to be a part of it. Inevitably, the fine details will be part of the key negotiations to enact the will of the people in the coming months and years. Local businesses have spoken to me about the need to move forward. They are having to make key decisions about their staffing and arrangements, and wish that politicians would do exactly the same.
One of the issues I have found most surprising during the Committee stage is the attempt by some to suggest that various leave campaigns’ proposals were some kind of direct manifesto that the Government ought to follow to the letter. The Government are seeking to enact the will of the people, and to negotiate a strong and appropriate deal. We are in a post-referendum phase, but despite having been in Committee over the past few days—it feels like weeks—it appears that that is something the Liberal Democrats are gleefully unaware of. These are likely to be the most complex negotiations that the country will ever enter into, and the effects will be far ranging. Free trade treaties have been referred to a great deal, with separate sectors needing separate discussions and focus points. It is absolutely right that they should be separate from the Bill.
Taking anything but the smartest approach to this issue would be letting down our constituents, so I will not be supporting these weak attempts to dilute the Bill. Instead, I will be putting my trust in the Prime Minister and the work she will do in the national interest. As I said earlier, I find it objectionable that new clause 100 suggests that the Prime Minister and Government Members would somehow put women’s rights back because of this Bill—our Prime Minister, who did so much on this issue as Home Secretary, when she was committed to working against FGM, dealing with coercive control and fighting the gender pay gap. It is absolutely wrong to say that, in areas such as women trafficking, the Government and the Prime Minister will somehow just roll over and that these issues will not be a highlight of what we seek to achieve in leaving the EU.
Many of my constituents have rightly asked me about the rights of EU citizens working in this country. I totally agree with the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about the tone of the debate on this: it is very frightening and nerve-racking for constituents, and we are keen to protect all our constituents. No one in this Chamber is in any doubt about the huge contribution that EU citizens make to our economy, our society, our culture, our tourism industry and our national life, but in planning for free movement, issues around homes, doctors and pressures on NHS services have been very difficult to manage.
I was reminded at the recent local enterprise partnership conference that EU students make a positive contribution to my area, and particularly in Eastleigh as they come and go through Southampton airport. However, I would expect this House to have the same view of the contribution that our citizens make in other EU countries, so we need to make sure that we take a balanced approach.
All Members of this House do great casework in their constituencies. Often, we are dealing with international and EU citizens with immigration and homelessness issues, which are complicated and difficult. I therefore do not understand why there is a feeling that Conservative Members are somehow going to forget the work they do for people who may be married intercontinentally and who may have issues we need to resolve. In some cases, I have helped to get passports so that members of families can go to funerals, and I have helped with other issues that people needed help with. Ultimately, these people have complicated and difficult lives too.
In terms of the Bill, I believe we all understand that we need a mutual recognition of the work UK citizens do abroad and the work EU citizens do here. We also need recognition of all that Members of Parliament do to help to resolve the issues that affect all our communities. I do not believe that that will somehow change because of this Bill and that we will forget what we have to do for our constituents.
The Prime Minister was very clear today at Prime Minister’s questions about her intention at a priority first stage to look after all our citizens at home and abroad. I fully support her in the work she does, and I believe we will eventually get a deal that is right for the UK—a UK that is open and strong and that looks to the future. I will support the Bill, and I go back to my previous point: it is a notification of withdrawal—it is not about negotiations.
Sue Hayman
I would like to speak to new clause 192, to which I have added my name, about Euratom. A number of Conservative Members have spoken with great knowledge about the nuclear industry today, and as chair of the all-party group on nuclear energy I invite them all to join us and to come to our meetings to share their knowledge.
The nuclear industry is critical to my constituency in west Cumbria. Because of that, I have probably had an unusual inbox compared with most hon. Members, in that I have had a large number of direct emails from concerned constituents about the proposed withdrawal from the Euratom treaty. Those constituents are particularly concerned because of the significant negative impact that withdrawal could have on the nuclear industry in the UK. They believe it unnecessary and ill-considered, and are concerned that it will create great disruption in the nuclear industry at a time when we really need to be pressing forward with our nuclear new build programme.
Euratom has had a significant role in establishing its members’ credibility and acceptability in the wider global nuclear community. A constituent has contacted me to say that he believes that exiting will have a significant impact on the cost and the duration of decommissioning, which is of course very important in west Cumbria because of Sellafield. They also believe that the nuclear new build programme at Moorside will be impacted. EDF Energy, which is building the Hinkley Point C project, has said that it believes that ideally the UK should stay in the treaty, as it provides a framework for complying with international standards for handling nuclear materials.
On the issue of safety and materials, another constituent, who worked for very many years as a radiation protection adviser, has been in touch to share his concerns. He has wide experience of applying regulatory controls in workplaces including hospitals, the oil and gas industry, paper and plastics manufacturing, radiography, and the nuclear industry. He says that every one of these is considerably safer today as a result of Euratom—so this is not just about the nuclear industry directly. He goes on to say that he believes it is extremely short-sighted to remove the wealth of information and expertise that has resulted from our membership of Euratom.
James Heappey
The hon. Lady and I share a real enthusiasm for the nuclear industry and host it in or near our constituencies. How, specifically, will our withdrawal from Euratom lead to a diminishment of our expertise in how to regulate the nuclear industry?
Sue Hayman
I am talking about what constituents who actually work in the industry are telling me. To be honest, I would trust the judgment of my own constituents. In an intervention, I mentioned a constituent who works at the National Nuclear Laboratory, who says that leaving will impair his ability to collaborate with leading scientists and engineers across Europe, to the detriment of science and technology in this country. This is what my constituents are telling me. The hon. Gentleman can choose to disbelieve them—I do not. I trust my constituents.
I do not understand why, when we have conflicting legal opinion on why we have to leave, the Government are insisting so much that we have to. We need to make sure that a rapid exit does not do serious harm to our nuclear industry. We have so much to lose, with so little to gain. I therefore ask Members to support new clause 192.
Mr Lilley
For the sake of brevity, I will focus, if I may, on new clause 11, which is entitled “Tariff-free trade in goods and services”. Of course, there are no tariffs on services worldwide, so that should be fairly easy to achieve. I take it to mean tariff-free trade in goods and the minimum of barriers to services.
With regard to trade, there are only two realistic outcomes to the negotiations we will have: first, that we negotiate a free-trade agreement continuing tariff-free trade—more or less what we have at present—and secondly, that we move to trading on the basis of most favoured nation tariffs under WTO rules, which is basically what America, China, Japan and Russia, the four most successful countries exporting to the EU, do.
From what I have heard in this House and what I know of the Government’s position, everybody would like us to negotiate continuing tariff-free trade with our European partners. We do not particularly need any clause in this Bill to try to achieve that. Moreover, it is very simple to negotiate. It is very easy to go from zero tariffs to zero tariffs—it can be done in an afternoon. It is not like negotiating the removal of tariffs, as the EU has had to do with Canada. Canada had 5,000 different tariffs, the EU had 12,500 different tariffs, and they had to trade off one against the other.
Tariff-free trade is very simple to negotiate. As far as barriers and services are concerned, if our regulatory systems began to diverge, all we would have to negotiate—after assessing whether or not the matter was serious—is the normal dispute resolution procedure, because after the great repeal Bill we will start with identical regulatory arrangements.
Mr Lilley
The 7% is after taking account of everything we get back. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know, he should look up table 4.27 on page 159 of the Office for Budget Responsibility report, which spells out how much we will get back net when we leave, which is £13 billion—£250 million a week.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if a 4% tariff is imposed, it is possible that the pound will depreciate by the same amount, because we have our own currency?
Mr Lilley
It is already 15% more competitive than it was a year ago, which dwarfs the average of 4%. We can, of course, give processing relief—that is, remit tariffs—on components that are part of processing and manufacturing chains and that will be re-exported. We will get £12.3 billion of revenues, if we apply the common external tariff to imports from the EU, but our exporters will pay some £6.5 billion of tariffs on their exports to the EU, so we would have ample money to compensate any exporters who were not sufficiently advantaged by a 15% devaluation, and still have billions of pounds to reduce general taxation. We can also, of course, negotiate free trade agreements with the rest of the world and slash unilaterally the tariffs that we currently charge on food, clothing and other things that we do not produce but that mean that our consumers have to pay higher prices to subsidise inefficient producers elsewhere in the EU, instead of importing from, say, the less-developed countries from which we should naturally be importing.
There are many other advantages, but as you have urged brevity, Ms Engel, I will not tell the Committee what they are but hold them back for a future occasion.
Albert Owen
It is always interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). I will concentrate my brief remarks on Euratom. As the Minister and the Committee will know, its principal goals are the promotion of research and the dissemination of information; the establishment of safety standards; and facilitating investment. It also governs the supply of ore and nuclear fuels.
Euratom establishes a nuclear common market. The Eurosceptics always used to say, “We want to be in the common market,” yet their decision is to pull out of it. I believe that the Government want to retain the principal goals, and they stated on the publication of the Bill that we are leaving Euratom only because of legally binding arrangements, but that is debatable—I have seen conflicting legal advice—and cynics suggest that it is more to do with the European Court of Justice.
The Government say that they support Euratom and want us to continue both to co-operate and to have the highest standards. The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) is absolutely right that we are world leaders on nuclear standards, but in co-operation with other countries, which is why it is so important to keep Euratom, the umbrella body.
The purpose of new clause 192, which is supported by the industry and industry bodies, is to continue co-operation and have greater certainty. I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who was very courteous. He said he had met the industry and was sure that we will be able to continue outside Euratom, but that is not what the industry in general believes. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) said that the management of the JET energy research programme in Oxfordshire did not want the proposal, but the workforce have lobbied me in great numbers through the union, saying that there are risks if we pull out.
Access to information and data sharing are important. We will be way behind if we pull out. Companies in the industry need to plan in advance; they need that certainty. Euratom deals with nuclear co-operation with the United States. It is ironic that although we are talking about coming out of Europe and trading with the United States, we need to be part of Euratom to get agreements to move fuels to the US, Japan, Canada and other countries. Renegotiating will take an awful long time.
Ideally, the Minister would retain the UK’s membership of Euratom even if we left the European Union. If the Government proceed to give notice to withdraw, we must have an agreement on transitional arrangements. We must also have sufficient time to negotiate and complete new arrangements with EU states and third countries such as the US, Japan and Canada. If in two years an agreement cannot be reached, the UK should remain a member. Our standing in the nuclear industry is at stake, as are jobs and our reputation as a major country in nuclear research. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.
Mr David Jones
I have listened to a large number of very important contributions this afternoon from right hon. and hon. Members, and a large number of proposals have been considered. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I say that I prefer—
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way before he says that he would prefer not to give way to anybody?
Chris Leslie
Does the Minister agree that it is totally farcical that I have tabled 35 proposals but have been unable to speak to any of them? Does that not prove that the curtailing of the debate leaves Parliament unable to scrutinise withdrawal from the EU?
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The public watching need to know that this is not the right place for many of the amendments and new clauses to be debated. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has said, this is not the right Bill.
Mr Jones
That is what I was about to say. I would like to address all the amendments if I can, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I take no further interventions.
The amendments serve as a valuable reminder of the numerous important matters that will need to be considered and discussed throughout the process of negotiation. They seek to ensure that specific aspects of our future relationship with the European Union are prioritised by the Government. Let me take this opportunity to tell the House once again that we are committed to delivering the best possible deal for the whole of the United Kingdom. However, we can only set about delivering that deal after we have triggered article 50. It is not appropriate, therefore, to seek to tie the hands of the Government on individual policy areas at this stage; that could only serve to jeopardise our negotiating position.
I will do my best to respond to each of the amendments, given their broad scope, but for the avoidance of doubt, there is a common response to them all: elementally, this is a straightforward procedural Bill that serves only to give the Prime Minister the power to trigger article 50 and thereby respect the result of the referendum. As a consequence, these amendments are not for this Bill. Instead, they are for the many future debates that will take place in this House and the other place—
Chris Leslie
On a point of order, Ms Engel. The Minister said that the amendments were not for this Bill. Will you remind the House that the Chair has ruled that all the amendments are within the scope of the Bill?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)
The Chair’s ruling has been mentioned time and again. The Content of amendments is a matter for debate.
Mr David Jones
Thank you, Ms Engel. The amendments will be debated at a later stage.
New clauses 2, 7, 100, 163 and 193, as well as amendments 32, 34, 40 and 55, would require the Prime Minister either to have regard to, or to set out in a report, a number of matters prior to triggering article 50. Those include, but are not limited to, the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland and the preservation of peace in Northern Ireland; tariff-free trade with the European Union; workers’, women’s, human, civil, social and political rights; climate change and environmental standards; and the British economy and economic model. The White Paper published last week sets out our strategic aims for the negotiations and covers many of the topics that hon. Members have addressed in these and other amendments.
With regard to the common travel area, for instance, we have already stressed that we are committed to working with both the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to recognise the unique economic, social and political context of the land border between the UK and Ireland. We have also made it clear that we are seeking a bold and comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union that is as tariff-free and frictionless as possible.
On new clause 7, which concerns the preservation of EU tax avoidance measures, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will convert the acquis into British law, and that it will then be for the British Parliament to decide on any changes to that law, with appropriate scrutiny. Similarly, amendments 7, 9 and 38 to clause 1 and new clauses 16, 70 and 133 seek to require the Government to commit to a position on specific issues before triggering article 50. Amendment 7, for example, seeks to ensure that the UK continues to participate in EU common foreign and security policy after withdrawal from the European Union. A matter such as that cannot be resolved through unilateral action and, instead, must be clearly addressed through discussion with the other 27 member states of the EU. We have been clear that we want to see continued close co-operation on foreign and security policy with European partners, but those discussions can begin only after article 50 has been triggered.
New clause 16 is designed to ensure that the employment rights of those living or working in the UK will be unaffected by the Bill. The Government have made it clear that not only will there be no change to employment protections as a result of triggering article 50, but we will protect and enhance the rights people have at work.
Mr Jones
No, I will not give way.
I am grateful for the contributions of Members to this Committee stage. The Bill respects the judgment of the Supreme Court. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support both clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 gives the Prime Minister Parliament’s authority to notify the European Council of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU. It also makes it clear that this power applies notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972; this is to address the Supreme Court’s conclusions on the status of the 1972 Act. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members who have tabled amendments not to press them to a Division, so that we can make progress with the Bill, start the process of withdrawal and work to deliver a deal that respects the vote of the British people in the referendum.
Paul Blomfield
In the few seconds left to me, I want to say that we will not withdraw the new clause and we will hold the Government to account in respect of the Secretary of State’s commitment to achieve a deal that provides for the exact same benefits as we enjoy from our current membership of the single market.
The issue of our membership of Euratom has caused concern among Members on both sides of the House, which the Minister failed to allay in his closing remarks. To clear up any doubts, such as those that the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) expressed, I remind the House that the Nuclear Industry Association has made it clear that we should not leave Euratom. It is not in the interests of the industry or people’s jobs. They will watch how the House votes on new clause 192, and will judge the Government accordingly. I hope that Members will recognise that and vote for the new clause, and for all the other helpful amendments we have tabled.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Assistant Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby—there seems to a be a slight blockage that she might be able to relieve.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delays in the Aye and No Lobbies.
Alex Salmond
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government’s refusal to accept a single amendment means there will be no Report stage. The programme motion means there is no debate on Third Reading. I am informed by the Library that the last time that combination happened was the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, which was about the first world war. For this to happen on any Bill would be an abuse; for it to happen on this Bill is an outrage. What is it about the procedures of this place that allows a Bill of this constitutional significance to be railroaded through in this disgraceful fashion?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The House agreed to a programme motion, and that is what has been adhered to. What I would say is that the point is on the record; you have certainly pointed out the last time this happened. There are other channels where I think that conversation ought to go and to be taken up, but I thank you for that.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This House has nobly represented the will of the British people in a referendum, and that is why the Bill has passed as it has.
Mr Deputy Speaker
May I just say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a constitutional expert, that he will recognise that that is also definitely not a point of order?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Ms Gibson, it is very good to hear the choir. I personally do not mind singing, but I certainly cannot allow it in the Chamber, because before we know it we could hear other tunes, and I do not want to get into that—and some of those on that side of the Chamber have not quite got the voice that they might have on the other. I do not want a sing-off within the Chamber. It is very good of you, and much appreciated, but if we could just leave it for a little while: it has been a very tense week already, and I do not need any extra. Thank you.
Delegated Legislation
European Union Documents
Petitions
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Glasgow North,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions' plan to close Maryhill Jobcentre and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Maryhill Jobcentre, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002005]
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The petition states:
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Glasgow Central,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions’ plan to close Bridgeton Jobcentre and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Bridgeton Jobcentre, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002006]
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The petition states:
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Glasgow North West,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions’ plan to close Anniesland Jobcentre and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Anniesland Jobcentre, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002008]
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
The petition states:
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Glasgow East,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions’ plan to close Parkhead and Easterhouse Jobcentres and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Parkhead and Easterhouse Jobcentres, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002007]
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
In similar terms to the petitions lodged by my colleagues, the constituents of Glasgow wish to petition that the Department for Work and Pensions halt the sham of a proposal to close half the city’s jobcentres, including the two in my constituency in Castlemilk and Langside. They should get a grip of themselves and get back round the table.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Glasgow South,
Declares that the Department for Work and Pensions’ plan to close Castlemilk and Langside Jobcentres and half of all Jobcentre Plus offices in Glasgow is morally outrageous; express our concerns that the city is being used as the testing ground for more devastating cuts across the UK; further that the proposals to close eight of the 16 Jobcentre offices across Glasgow, will impact on tens of thousands of people in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and Universal Credit; further that the UK Government has already indicated that 20% of the Jobcentre estate will see closures, and Glasgow has been handpicked to take a disproportionate hit of 50% closures; further that it will result in the poorest communities not being serviced by a Jobcentre and make it even harder for those seeking employment to get support; further that thousands of people could also have to travel further at additional cost to attend their appointments; further that the UK Government have brought forward these proposals without carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment and without consulting the Scottish Government; and further that any Jobcentre closures in Glasgow will see one of the most deprived parts of the UK starved of a vital service that should be available in communities; impacting both on Scottish workers at these centres and also those most disadvantaged in need of benefits.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt any moves to close Castlemilk and Langside Jobcentres, or at the very least carry out an Equality Impact Assessment immediately prior to a full public consultation across Scotland.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002012]
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I am grateful to be able to present a petition to the House tonight on the construction of an A36-46 link road, east of Bath. I present the petition on behalf of residents of Bath and the wider north-east Somerset area. The petition has attracted 2,846 signatures from the concerned residents. I thank all of those who have signed the petition in support of the link road.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Bath and the wider North East Somerset Area,
Declares that transport networks in Bath need improvement to reduce congestion in the area; further that a link road between the A36 and A46 should be built; further that an A36-46 link road would provide economic benefit to Bath; further that it would improve transportation links; and further that it would reduce congestion and air pollution.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with Bath and North East Somerset Council and Highways England to bring this long discussed and much needed project of building an A36-46 link road to fruition.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002010]
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Post offices are very important and are at the heart of communities. The proposals to close the post office on the Westcliff Estate in my constituency are greatly opposed by local residents.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Scunthorpe County,
Declares that residents are opposed to the closure of the Post Office branch on the Westcliff Estate in Scunthorpe.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges North Lincolnshire Council to work with residents of the Westcliff Estate in Scunthorpe to try and stop the closure of the Post Office.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002009]
Educational Attainment: Oldham
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It feels odd to have an Adjournment debate on such an historic day for our country. I suspect we are in for a long period of scrutiny, review and challenge. It is also a very important day for me personally, as it is my son’s 15th birthday. He was the reason I came into politics and he amazes me every day.
“Oldham kids can be the best in the world and they can aim as high as they want.” That was the message from Baroness Estelle Morris on the launch of the Oldham Education and Skills Commission. For many years, we saw the fragmentation of education, with a diminishing role for the local education authority. In part, that led to a deferral of responsibility for education in academies and free schools at local level. The commission reviewed this in great detail and the message was simple: for education to be the best it must become everybody’s business. Regardless of the type of school they attend, they are our children, our future and our collective responsibility. Even with a complex system of education, there was a collective desire to see standards in Oldham improve. The town needed a joined-up plan—not many different plans that might conflict with each other, but a single vision for what the future could be. Critically, this included early years, primary, secondary, further and higher education, as well as lifelong learning.
When others talk about Oldham they do not always present an accurate picture of our education system. There are some problems, and we acknowledge them in an honest and open way, but there are also reasons to be proud of what has been achieved. Since 2012, Oldham has seen a positive improvement in the proportion of pupils reaching the expected standard—up from 51% to 76%. We accept fully that there is room for improvement, but it should be recognised that progress has been made. The number of primary schools judged good or outstanding has increased from 80% to 95% in just three years. Our secondary schools must do much better, but we should acknowledge that they too have seen an improvement, with the percentage of schools judged good or outstanding increasing from 22% to 62%.
I pay tribute to parents, students, teachers, governors and the local authority for the great strides that have been made, but I am unrelenting in my ambition for that positive experience to be available to all young people in Oldham, not just the lucky ones. All our young people must be given the best possible start in life, a life which will be better but more complicated than ever before. The world is more complicated than ever before. It will be challenging for them to be in an ultra-competitive environment. They will have to be the best they can be.
The Oldham Education and Skills Commission proposed 19 recommendations that would form the foundation of the vision for a “self-improving education system”. It also brought forward two local performance indicators, which sought to meet the ambition for all young people to get on in life and do well. The first was that all national performance indicators be met at the national average or beyond by 2020. The second was that all Oldham education providers be judged as “good” or “outstanding” by Ofsted by 2020. I am sure the Minister would concur with that ambition. The commission outlined its vision in detail in a report published in 2016, and I know that the Minister has taken the time to read it. I greatly appreciate the time he spent doing that and meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). We discussed in that meeting how we could work together on this.
The Minister will be aware that the Government have selected Oldham, along with five other towns, to be an opportunity area for social inclusion, meaning that it will share the £60 million that has been allocated. I want to be fair and balanced, because education in Oldham is so important that I am not willing to create artificial political dividing lines, if we can work together positively. However, as you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be challenging those concerned where I think a decision has been made that runs counter to the interests of young people in Oldham. I hope that with that mature relationship we can work across parties to achieve our aim.
For Oldham to do well in a sustained way, it must have the strongest possible foundations on which to build. That means clear leadership, adequate resourcing and collective responsibility—and of course that goes beyond individual schools.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I know that this debate is about Oldham, but this issue applies across the whole of the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that educational attainment must incorporate not simply grades in academic subjects, but vocational skills, such as mechanics and joinery, and that schools must support those skills of a practical nature so that, whatever their vocation in life, young people are prepared?
Jim McMahon
I absolutely concur. I was an apprentice myself. It gave me the chance of a career and options that I did not have when I was going through the schools system. For a lot of working class kids in particular, a technical vocation means that they can live a decent life with a well-paid job.
As we are clear in our vision for what the town can be, we must also be clear about what our town should not be. Over the last two weeks alone, we have seen the removal of a free school sponsor and, this week, the closure of the university technical college. Every school and college will see a cut to its core budget, and in many places the facilities are simply not fit for modern learning, let alone an inspiring environment fit for our young people. We are left hanging while we wait for the delayed area based review, which has left many colleges in the area not knowing what the future will be. We have not had a meaningful discussion about the future and introduction of new independent faith schools for the town either. We are also left with many unanswered questions about the failure of the Collective Spirit free school and the closure of the £9 million UTC, where not a single child gained the required GCSE results.
I commend the inclusive approach from the regional schools commissioner, but the sheer scale of the challenge is huge and the resources limited. As Vicky Beer moves on to pastures new, there is concern about whether the new commissioner will make the same effort to reach out to local MPs.
There are still many unanswered questions about the financial practices at the Collective Spirit free school, and they need to be answered, not just for sake of the school and the town, but because it might expose more fundamental weaknesses in the academy and free schools system. For a period, the school’s director was also the sole director of a trading company that provided services to that school and another one in Manchester. Collectively, it invoiced for £500,000 of services. Rules from the Department for Education and the Education Funding Agency allow connected party transactions, providing they are provided at cost.
The problem is that, providing the contractor can prove that every penny invoiced was spent, the EFA seems happy to sign it off as within scope. It does not account, however, for where the money eventually goes. For example, a school could trade to a company behind which another company with the same directors is invoicing to get the money out the door. Technically, that meets the criteria—that these limited trading companies should offer an at-cost provision—but it does not tell us how £500,000 of public money has been spent by a relatively small school.
We have asked the questions. I submitted a dossier to the regional schools commissioner last year. That came to me as a result of the bravery of whistleblowers—people who were involved in the school and were concerned about the financial practices going on there and wanted to expose them. I understand that the EFA carried out a review, but it has not been made public, and there is nothing on the website to say what the conclusion was. The public have no way of knowing, either from the EFA, the school website or Companies House which individuals and which companies benefited from those contracts.
No breakdown has been provided, and I suspect that that problem is not limited to this school alone; it is potentially a much wider problem. So today, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), I have written to the National Audit Office in order to provide confidence that the money invoiced into those trading companies was spent on the education of the young people attending the school. When I mention a breakdown, I do not mean just a breakdown of service headings provided at the school; what we want to know is whether invoices can be provided that demonstrate that those services were provided, whether the invoices related to another company and whether connected parties were involved.
My question is this: in the interests of getting the best deal for taxpayers, will the Minister lend his support to ensuring that this review is carried out in a full and meaningful way, and that its results will be published so that the public can make up their own minds? That will lead to one of two things. Either it will prove that the whistleblowers were right and that financial practices were taking place that were not in the interests of the young people at the school; or it will prove that everything was above board, the school adhered to the rules and the money was spent appropriately. It will provide the opportunity to set the record straight, irrespective of what the result of the review turns out to be.
We have talked about the Education and Skills Commission, the issue of the Collective Spirit free school and the information that is still outstanding, so let us now move on quickly to the university technical college. This was a flagship college, with £9 million of public money spent on it. Oldham college gifted land to enable it to happen. I absolutely agree with the principle of wanting to look at things differently and try out new ideas. However, it is not acceptable that the young people who were students there have left school without the required qualifications, thus not achieving their full potential. Again, therefore, I ask the Minister for his support to make sure that if young people have been let down and have not reached their full potential—I must say that the local authorities have been extremely supportive in this matter—they are supported to re-sit their exams.
I also ask the Minister formally to sign up to the efforts and recommendations of the Oldham Education and Skills Commission. That is necessary because there is a danger, as we have seen with the free school and the UTC, of the opportunity area becoming a one-size-fits-all, centrally dictated model that is imposed on Oldham because it shows up as an area that needs intervention. If that happens out of context, and not in line with the Education and Skills Commission findings, it will really be a missed opportunity that will not reflect the significant work that has already taken place, and it will not ensure that the money already provided is used to best effect.
My strong view is that the teaching professionals, the parents, the students and the local authority can, by working together, regardless of the structure of the schools involved, genuinely transform educational outcomes for young people in Oldham, provided that they do so as part of a single plan, instead of through contradictory plans.
I also ask for the area-based review of education to be concluded and, importantly, that a democratic vote takes place in each of the local authorities involved. There is concern that the pressure is coming from central Government, and that the decision will be made by the combined authority before the mayoral elections. At the moment, the combined authority is not a directly elected body, and it is important that those who are elected by their communities have a say on the area-based review, especially if it means fundamental changes to Oldham College.
I ask that current funding arrangements, the review and the consultation take into account areas of high deprivation, particular areas with high in-migration and where a high number of youngsters and parents have English as a second language. We know that that requires additional support. I ask, too, that the former UTC building be transferred to Oldham College, to support the ageing campus on Rochdale Road and benefit Oldham College students. It cost a significant amount of public money, and could still be used to benefit Oldham children. I think that Oldham College is best placed to provide education from that building.
We should not allow a UTC to fail, thus preventing children from realising their potential, without fully understanding the reasons for that failure. I ask the Government to review the project and publish the lessons that could be learned, in order to ensure that the same thing does not happen again. I repeat my call for a review of the performance of Collective Spirit free school, and of the due diligence that was exercised in the selection of the sponsor. However, it is even more important for the financial concerns expressed by whistleblowers to be addressed in a public report.
Finally—a word that Members may be pleased to hear—I ask the Minister to consider the devolution of education to Greater Manchester. The move away from local education authorities has been detrimental to education standards in my town. When there is local control, people know where to go to get answers if schools are not performing well, and when they come together and support each other, it is like a family relationship. We are not seeing that now. What we are seeing is a fragmentation of education, which I do not believe is in the interests of the people of Oldham.
Devolution to Greater Manchester would provide a potential framework for a compromise—not a return to a local education authority arrangement that the Government clearly do not support, but a new model involving a combined authority with a directly elected Mayor. My view is really quite simple. If we trust the combined authority and the new Mayor from May onwards to get on with running the health service and social care, justice, policing, fire, transport and housing, we ought to trust them to get on with sorting out the education system in Greater Manchester. If we could do that, we could teem and ladle skills across Greater Manchester, so that areas in need of that support and capacity at local level could realise their full potential.
What I have said is not intended to be an overt criticism of the Government, although there may be differences between us. I want the Minister to take on board that there are local Members of Parliament who care passionately about Oldham and want to invest time and education to ensure that it can be the best that it can be, while also recognising that we may have to meet in the middle.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) on securing the debate. I agree with him about the historic nature of today. Let me also offer my congratulations to his son on turning 15.
As the Prime Minister has said, the Government want to create a true meritocracy in this country, and there is no more important place to start than education. I was pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Oldham area, when we were able to discuss how we could work together to raise education standards in the town, and also to discuss the Oldham Education and Skills Commission. I enjoyed reading its report.
According to the Government’s policy for school improvement, a high-performing education system must be driven by the best school leaders. Teachers and senior leaders should be free to innovate and improve standards in their own schools, driven by a genuine sense of responsibility to share knowledge with their peers, and swift and fearless in challenging failure wherever they find it. In turn, the Government have an important role to play in helping the best teachers and headteachers to lead the system.
Teaching practice, and what is taught in the classroom, should be determined solely by evidence. The Government, school leaders and teachers share responsibility for seeking to learn from those who teach in the best schools in England, and in higher performing systems internationally. One example is the Government’s reforms of primary education, and particularly the much needed drive to improve early literacy through systematic synthetic phonics and the essentials—spelling, punctuation and grammar. Another is the adoption of the south-east Asian “mastery” approach to maths teaching, with its emphasis on fluency in mental and written calculation and its refusal to allow any pupil to fall behind.
Those are critical education reforms, and they share an important characteristic with our third principle. A high-performing education system must provide opportunities for all pupils to achieve their potential, and no children should enter education with the odds already stacked against them simply because of who their family are or where they are growing up. Despite all the evidence on what makes a difference, our society remains unequal. The effects of this inequality are evident in the social mobility index, published last year by the Social Mobility Commission. Its indicators illustrated the daunting barriers faced by children in Oldham and other areas identified as coldspots for social mobility. The Government’s selection of Oldham and 11 other coldspots as opportunity areas represents an important commitment to those children.
We are making significant investments in each opportunity area, through new funding and access to additional support from the Department’s existing improvement programmes. This expenditure will, in line with our principles, be determined through rigorous assessment of specific barriers to social mobility and be based on evidence of what works in education. Our approach to removing these barriers must involve working with all schools and local partners who share our goal, with the support of the most effective system leaders. I am therefore very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the foundations he and his colleagues have laid in Oldham, and for this opportunity to confirm the Government’s commitment to Oldham and the other opportunity areas, and to discuss with the House our approach to improving education across the country.
The reforms of the last six years show that professional autonomy combined with strong accountability is delivering improvement in our education system. Academy leaders benefit from that autonomy. The latest data show that 10 of the 26 academies in Oldham have been inspected since they opened. All those with more than one inspection since opening have maintained or improved their Ofsted grades.
We want to see good schools choosing academy status as a positive choice, and we expect academies and academy sponsors to play their part in Oldham and the other opportunity areas. We know that strong sponsors with commitment, drive and the right resources can drive up standards in a school. The recent report by Sir Nick Weller on education standards in the north endorsed the role of strong sponsors and strong partnerships. There is, however, despite improvement across academy and maintained schools in Oldham, a clear need for further improvement, particularly at secondary level.
We have seen how being a multi-academy trust can provide opportunities to bring together educational expertise and develop and trial innovative new approaches. We will want to support new and existing MATs to develop in Oldham, and ensure that knowledge and approaches developed in those MATs are shared across Oldham’s schools, to drive up performance.
A school-led system is, of course, not just one in which headteachers can drive up standards in their own school, but also one that enables them to support each other, and challenge each other to improve. Oldham now has six teaching schools. All were selected because of their strong leadership and their commitment to helping partner schools in Oldham develop knowledgeable teachers and excellent teaching practices. There are also nine national leaders of education working with schools in Oldham—leaders such as Julie Hollis, headteacher of Oldham’s Blue Coat academy, a teaching school and an outstanding school with very high EBacc attainment figures.
Julie, her team, and the many other national leaders of education, senior leaders of education and national leaders of governance in Oldham and across the country are our system leaders. One of the reasons we can be confident that the opportunity areas will be successful is that we can already look with pride to their record of achievement, and their continuing appetite to support and drive improvement across the system.
We must, however, acknowledge the stark reality that, despite the hard work and achievements of our headteachers and system leaders, children growing up in Oldham and other opportunity areas are still less likely to attend an outstanding school, or to gain the qualifications they need to progress to higher education, training or the best jobs. They are still being left behind, and they start falling behind even before they start school. There can be no argument with the hon. Gentleman’s own clear and damning judgment: in his introduction to the Oldham Education and Skills Commission’s report, he stated that this
“Unfulfilled talent is criminal. It wastes…public money and blights families and communities.”
We are, therefore, as one in our recognition of the need to act, and in our commitment to supporting improvements.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we have already announced new funding for the opportunity areas, and have confirmed that additional support will be made available through national improvement programmes, such as the new teaching and leadership innovation fund. Also, £1 million from the careers and enterprise investment fund will go towards improving the quality of advice and guidance given to pupils in opportunity areas. Together, these extra Government resources, combined with the local commitment embodied by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, will make the difference that we all want to see in Oldham.
I shall refer to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised during the debate. The academy trust has agreed with the regional schools commissioner that the Collective Spirit free school and Manchester Creative Studio School should join new multi-academy trusts. Our priority is to ensure that pupils receive high-quality education, and we are working with the trusts to ensure that there are swift improvements. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about conflicts of interest in the trust are investigated.
The closure of Greater Manchester University Technical College was not a decision that was taken lightly. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our priority is the education and welfare of the UTC’s pupils. We are working closely with local schools and colleges to ensure that significant support from the local authority enables pupils to continue and progress in their studies. I am grateful to the new Greater Manchester UTC trustees who have stepped in to ensure that this happens, and that action is taken in the best interests of the pupils and their parents.
In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the challenges in Oldham. I hope that I have assured him and the House that we share his commitment to tackling those challenges. We look forward to working with him and other Members in the area, and with local partners, to transform educational attainment in Oldham.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
That the draft Important Public Services (Education) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2016, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 264 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Important Public Services (Transport) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2016, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 328 / Noes: 263 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Important Public Services (Health) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2016, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 323 / Noes: 263 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Important Public Services (Border Security) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2016, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 323 / Noes: 263 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Important Public Services (Fire) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2016, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 323 / Noes: 262 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Trade Union Act 2016 (Political Funds) (Transition Period) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2016, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 322 / Noes: 254 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That this House has considered European Union Documents No. 10968/16 and Addenda 1 to 16, a Proposal for a Council Decision on the signing of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States, No. 10969/16 and Addenda 1 to 16, a Proposal for a Council Decision on the provisional application of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States, and No. 10970/16 and Addenda 1 to 16, a Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union and its Member States.
The House divided: - Ayes: 409 / Noes: 126 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
International Development
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Rory Stewart
The British taxpayer has not funded any structures that have been demolished by the Israeli Government. The European Union has funded structures that have been demolished by the Israeli Government, but so far it has not decided to seek compensation. [Official Report, 11 January 2017, Vol. 619, c. 297.]
Letter of correction from Rory Stewart.
An error has been identified in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) during Questions to the Secretary of State for International Development.
The correct answer should have been:
Rory Stewart
The British taxpayer has not directly funded any structures in recent years that have been demolished by the Israeli Government. The European Union has funded structures that have been demolished by the Israeli Government, but so far it has not decided to seek compensation.
Visa fees for Pilgrimage to Hajj and Umrah by Saudi Arabia
Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill
Wednesday 8th February 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesMerchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Act 2017 View all Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 February 2017 - (8 Feb 2017)
The Chair
Welcome to the Committee. I have a couple of remarks to make at the beginning. First, will everyone in the room switch off their electronic devices? Secondly, I remind hon. Members that they should not bring hot drinks, which are not allowed under the rules of the House.
We begin with clause 1 of this short, two-clause Bill. Only one amendment has been tabled, to clause 2. I suggest that Committee members make remarks about the amendment and clause 2 during the debate on clause 1—in other words, there will be a general debate about the contents of the Bill on the question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. If the Committee is content with that suggestion, I will put formally the questions on the amendment and that clause 2 stand part after consideration of clause 1, on the basis that those provisions will already have been debated. Is that agreeable?
Hon. Members
Yes.
Clause 1
Homosexual acts in the merchant navy: repeals
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, for what I think is the first time. I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House for being here this morning.
The Bill is extremely straightforward, repealing provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that purported to allow for the dismissal of a seafarer from a merchant navy vessel on the ground of homosexual activity. The Bill does not make an effective legal change, as those provisions have been superseded by the Equality Act 2010. I do not want to repeat the extensive airing that the issues had on Second Reading a few weeks ago, but the Bill is still worth pursuing, for four reasons.
First, the Bill is symbolic: it completes the repeal of historical provisions that penalised homosexual activity. Secondly, it delivers on the commitment made during the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2016. Thirdly, it gives reassurance. At the moment, an individual could look up the 1994 Act online and be alarmed or confused by its apparent provisions in this area. Fourthly, the Bill tidies up legislation: it makes the status of the current law absolutely clear and removes defunct provisions.
Let me attend to the contents of the Bill. Clause 1 simply repeals sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the 1994 Act. My amendment addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby on Second Reading, when he helpfully discussed commencement. He essentially argued that there did not need to be the customary two-month delay.
I am informed by parliamentary counsel that they default to a two-month commencement period unless there is some reason to consider a shorter or longer period. I have been advised that there will be no adverse consequence from an immediate commencement, hence the amendment. It amends clause 2 to set the date for commencement as the day on which the Bill is passed— that is, when it receives Royal Assent. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I hope that the amendment will strengthen the Bill’s symbolic function in showing our determination to settle this matter as quickly as possible.
Clause 2 deals with commencement, which I have just discussed, and the Bill’s extent, which is throughout the UK. I reassured the House on Second Reading that, as a maritime issue, the subject of the Bill is a reserved matter, so it does not require legislative consent motions from the devolved Administrations.
As I said, this is a very straightforward Bill, repealing defunct provisions of the 1994 Act. It will give reassurance that no discriminatory employment practices are allowed in law, in the merchant navy or elsewhere, and it will tidy up the statute book. I hope that my amendment will strengthen that signal in showing our determination to complete as soon as we can the repeal of historical provisions that penalised homosexual activity.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury on introducing the Bill. I am delighted that it has cross-party support. I have very little to add although, in the accustomed manner, that will not stop me saying it anyway.
We very much support repealing those provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that suggest it would be lawful to dismiss a seafarer for homosexual activity. This is a very short Bill. Clause 1 would omit from the 1994 Act sections 146(4) and 147(3):
“(homosexual acts as grounds for dismissal from the crew of merchant ships).”
Clause 2, as we have just heard, is being amended. It would have required the Act to come into force at the end of two months, but we support the amendment.
The Bill’s brevity does not in any way undermine its importance; short Bills can be quite significant, as we are discovering at the moment. There is little to amend and I hope it will be agreed that it is relatively straightforward. We are all keen that the Bill should be passed, and speedily. It is clear that the provisions that the Bill seeks to repeal have no place in a modern society based on sexual equality and inclusion. Although other countries appear to be going backwards at the moment, it is good that we continue to go forwards.
The provisions to be repealed are now legally null and void in any case, superseded as they were by the Equality Act 2010 and related regulations. Dismissing a member of a merchant ship’s crew on account of homosexual activity would be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to part 5 of the 2010 Act.
As we discussed on Second Reading, section 14(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2016 already repealed the parts of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act that related to the armed forces but left in place the aspects concerning merchant ships. The Government said they would decouple the two issues and would soon act to repeal those sections concerning merchant ships.
The Bill will tidy up existing legislation and remove discriminatory language from the statute books. It is an important, albeit symbolic, gesture, so let us get it done.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Like you, during my time in the House I have heard many hon. Members and Ministers begin their speeches by saying, “I will be brief.” The difference today is that I mean it: I will be extraordinarily brief.
I have to do only the following: to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on bringing the matter to the attention of the House and to reassure the Committee that I will not be using the beautifully crafted but arid speech prepared for me by my civil servants, because I do not need to add much to what was said on Second Reading and previously.
It is a curious thing that in our age we tend to measure virtue in mechanistic terms—both curious and undesirable, I think. Men and women are driven by feeling, and what arises from feeling. So, in taking the Bill forward, let us not speak in mechanistic terms. Let us not speak drily about legal consistency and procedural certainty.
Let us delve a little deeper just for a moment. The Bill is about being fairer, kinder, more reasonable and more generous. If those are more testing virtues and more difficult to think about this morning, then so be it: we should consider them for all legislation—particularly the kind that we have before us, which involves people’s feelings, sentiments and privacy. Men and women are complicated and fascinating because of their complexity. We should at all turns, at every opportunity, try to remember those enduring values of reasonableness, kindness, fairness and generosity. In that spirit and for that purpose, I welcome the Bill.
I will say one more thing if I may. It is also common in our age to speak of transparency and openness. Let us also this morning, just briefly, make a case for privacy. The Bill would reinforce the privacy of people who simply seek to go about their lives in the way that they choose.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Commencement, extent and short title
Amendment made: 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 6, leave out “at the end of the period of two months beginning with” and insert “on”—(John Glen.)
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Low-Cost housing
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered low cost housing.
It is good to have you looking after us this morning, Mrs Gillan. It is also good to see the departmental Whip in her place—she is a fully-fledged Minister in her own right anyway. As a former Whip, I feel it is always good to see a Whip temporarily released from the office’s vow of omerta and allowed to show their knowledge of the area they cover for the Whips Office.
Housing, whether rent or mortgage payments, is probably the single biggest monthly bill that most of us face and because we have not, as a country, built enough new houses for decades, no matter who has been in Government, the costs have been getting steadily steeper. The result is less living space, longer commutes, less cash left over at the end of each month for other things and, overall, a lower quality of life for all of us. We need to increase the number of new homes that are built and yesterday’s welcome White Paper contains some important steps towards that goal. Most important, from my point of view, were the ideas to make it easier to build up, not out, in urban areas—greater housing density, in the jargon.
Anyone walking around most British town centres, passing train stations or high street shops, should look upwards. The chances are that they will mostly see fresh air—skyline. British towns and cities are some of the most low-rise in Europe, which seems bonkers for a country that is also one of the most crowded. Much of this is self-inflicted. For many Brits taller buildings create instant mental images of 1960s brutalist concrete tower blocks on sink estates—the backdrops for gritty dramas of social decay from left-wing film auteurs. This mental trope has had some real-world consequences for the country too because it means that we are, as a society, instinctively resistant to anyone who proposes building upwards. So let me sing a fierce anthem of praise for taller buildings—not necessarily brutalist tower blocks, although they have their admirers, but for elegant, well-proportioned apartment blocks and terraces where the design stands the test of time.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for interrupting him as he gets to the chorus of his eloquent speech. He talks about the need to build upwards. Does he agree—he has alluded to the ’60s-style connotations that building upwards has for many people—that we need to have planning forethought in terms of what buildings will be like in 20 or 30 years’ time so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the 1950s and 1960s?
John Penrose
That is absolutely right. There are some people who, from a purely aesthetic point of view, love brutalist concrete architecture and rather more who dislike it a lot. For most of the rest of us, one of the crucial tests is not merely the aesthetics but whether this stuff remains liveable, not only in the first few years after it is built but over many generations. Another is whether it is therefore acceptable to the rest of the community. It is not just a question of what somewhere is like to live in as a location; it also has an impact on other people as they walk past.
As the hon. Gentleman said, it depends on how the design stands the test of time. There are places such as four or five-storey Regency terraces and Victorian town houses, which people still want to live in and walk past a century or two after they were built, or their slightly taller and more modern equivalents, which provide trendy new city centre living space for young professionals or well-designed retirement homes for older folk. We do not need to be scared of these buildings. One of the densest urban areas in Britain is Kensington and Chelsea, which is hardly a byword for inner-city decay. Elegant continental cities such as Paris and Madrid are far denser than almost anywhere in Britain too.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is giving a very powerful speech so I am loth to interrupt him. He mentioned the international comparisons and Kensington and Chelsea, but I think he is missing the suburbs. I represent a suburban seat. He said that housing is the single biggest bill, but it is also the single biggest issue in surgeries. I had a candidate stand against me as a “no to tall buildings” person. His slogan was, “We want to be living in Acton, not in Manhattan.” Has the hon. Gentleman had similar experiences as a constituency MP? People just do not like these buildings; they crowd out light and are not in keeping with the suburban landscape.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Order. May I remind Members that interventions are supposed to be short and not too discursive?
John Penrose
The hon. Lady just gave a classic example of this instinctive British fear. I have discovered that in general if people see a beautiful building that is well-designed and moderately, but not too enormously, tall—Manhattan being an example of where things are incredibly tall—many of those concerns are greatly reduced. The taller something is the more impact it has on everybody else for miles and miles around and therefore the greater care we have to take. There is a middle ground that I will talk about in a minute, which will provide us with a great deal of building and housing opportunity to reduce the cost of housing without having to make everywhere look like Manhattan, if I can put it that way.
The hon. Lady’s intervention leads me to say that we need to throw off these mental shackles—these 50-year-old emotional architectural scars—and instead count the blessings of building up, not out.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this important issue of how we better utilise our space. He will know—I am sure this is the case in his constituency, as it is in mine—that people have the opportunity to live above shops. That is a special scheme brought in by local councils and local departments and is a way of utilising the space that is there. Does he agree that that is one method for addressing the issue of low-cost housing?
John Penrose
That is a very good example—a classic example—of the kind of thing we need to look at. Many British high streets are two storeys, or perhaps three storeys, tall. Not only are those upper storeys lightly used, and in some cases unused, but there are two or three further storeys of fresh air above them that could be developed into housing as well. The crucial point that was made yesterday in the White Paper, but has been more broadly accepted for years, is that the only way to bring down the overall cost of housing in this country is by increasing the supply. We have to make sure that more of this stuff is built and finding those right, convenient locations near social and physical infrastructure is crucial. I will expand on that point a little more in a minute, but the hon. Gentleman has touched on a particularly good example.
I was about to number the blessings of building up, not out and I shall now carry on doing so. First, it will attract much needed new investment to regenerate and save tired or rundown town and city centres, bringing fresh life, a broader mix of businesses and longer trading hours to high streets that—as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned—are suffering under the twin attack of out-of-town shopping centres and online retailers.
Secondly, building up, not out could help break the stranglehold of large house building firms over the number of new homes that are built. Those firms tend to focus on larger sites, whether greenfield or in towns, and rarely pick up smaller plots where an individual bungalow or two-storey shop could be redeveloped into four or even eight smart new apartments on the same site. By releasing lots of overlooked smaller urban plots we can create a fast-growing cadre of insurgent new developers, adding much needed new capacity and competition to the sector and its supply chains and speeding up the too comfortable, cosily slow rate at which the big firms currently convert their land banks and planning permissions into completed homes.
Thirdly, building up, not out will reduce urban sprawl by cutting the pressure from builders to concrete over green fields and green belts at the edges of towns and villages across the country. Given the strain and pressure on our green spaces, they should be our last building resort, not our first. Fourthly, it will cut commuting by allowing people to live closer to work, shops and other community hubs from libraries to GP surgeries. The reductions in emissions, and the effects on both our quality of life and the wider environment, will be very significant indeed.
Finally, building up, not out would release huge numbers of new urban house building sites to solve the housing shortage. As the Secretary of State said yesterday in his new White Paper, the only way to make homes more affordable for everybody is to build a lot more of them. Whether we are talking about renting or buying, the basic laws of price and demand mean that the prices will never stabilise, much less fall, unless the supply of housing increases dramatically.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is making very good points, and I agree with him about the Government’s welcome White Paper yesterday on improving the housing supply. Does he agree that one of the challenges can sometimes be the fairly entrenched, long-held concerns that people raise locally about higher properties? Incentives are needed in the system to encourage local authorities to give planning consents if we are going to overcome some of the problems.
John Penrose
I agree with my hon. Friend for two reasons. When taller buildings excite the kind of Manhattan-ish concerns that we just heard about from the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), there clearly has to be careful consideration and community buy-in, because they have such a profound, wide-scale impact on local views and local infrastructure. Smaller and more modest proposals—I will talk about those in more detail in a minute—are much more absorbable and go much more with the grain of local things, so they may well not need a huge number of extra permissions and incentives, beyond the fact that they provide an opportunity for individual landowners to make a contribution and perhaps to increase the value of their particular site. I will expand on that, and perhaps if my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) is not completely convinced, he will intervene later.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. I am glad to hear that he is talking about building up rather than out, given that in the past we have built on the green belt, destroying our environment. Does he agree that no matter what form of building there is, it is vital that the infrastructure is correct, because we have faced major problems in our cities from flooding over the past few years?
John Penrose
I absolutely agree. One advantage of building up rather than out in existing urban environments is that an awful lot of infrastructure is in place anyway. Less brand-new infrastructure needs to be constructed as a result. Other problems come from building in urban environments—for example, existing infrastructure may be put under strain and need to be expanded in some way—but flood defences are a good example of where the effects are perfectly scalable. When a flood defence wall has been built, an awful lot more can be built behind it. The flood defence wall does not need to be upgraded just because more has been built behind it, even though it may need to be upgraded when it wears out in 50 years’ time. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very good example.
As I was saying, prices will never stabilise, still less fall, unless the supply of housing increases dramatically. Cheaper homes are one of the cheapest, simplest, most effective ways of raising living standards for everyone and, by making our available cash go further, of improving the country’s economic productivity.
In the 1970s and ’80s, our towns and cities were places without an economic purpose. Their industrial manufacturing centres were dead, social problems multiplied as jobs dried up and people left in droves. But now, urban living in towns and cities is fashionable again, because, even in our highly connected, distance-defying online world, it turns out that there is huge value in people clustering together. Ideas flow more freely; skills and knowledge too. Firms in similar sectors create clusters that feed off their neighbours’ energy, hire each other’s staff and drive each other on. Building up, not out helps those things to happen more easily, so more wealth can be created. It is greener and cheaper, and it makes us richer and improves our quality of life, so clearly, the idea’s time has come.
To their eternal credit, I think the Government get that. The new White Paper has much to say about developing smaller sites of half a hectare or less, and subdividing large sites so that smaller developers can get in on the act as well. Local development orders and area-wide design codes, which streamline planning permission if people want to build particular pre-approved types or styles of property in a specified area, make a strong showing too. There is a range of new permitted development rights, which allow everyone from hospitals to brownfield site owners to build without all the red tape, heartache and uncertainty of getting planning permission.
Dr Huq
From a design point of view, I completely get the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but how would he inject affordability? The rate in London has been at up to 80% of market rates, and units in high-rise buildings in my constituency seem to be bought off-plan by people at property fairs in Singapore and by Russian oligarchs—the lights are always off—so how would he make that link and build affordability in?
John Penrose
The hon. Lady tempts me into a slightly wider area of discussion than the one I was focusing on. However, my broad point at least is that we will not be able to make all housing more affordable, whether that is for those on lower or middle incomes, unless we dramatically increase the supply of new homes of whatever tenure—whether we are talking about homes for rent or for buying. Only by doing that over the longer term will we manage to reduce the cost of housing for everybody at all income levels. The hon. Lady might like to propose some additional measures and, if so, I am sure that she will make some remarks later to turbo-charge some other opportunities for those on lower incomes as well. However, as a starting point and a fundamental, we are kidding ourselves if we think we can get away without increasing the overall level of new homes that are being created in the first place.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. One aspect concerns me slightly about the London model: is there not a risk that people being allowed to build upwards will lead to the creation of single town houses that have become much larger, therefore creating half-a-million-pound houses rather than low-cost housing, which is the thrust of the argument?
John Penrose
If demand is unsatisfied in any part of the housing market—whether at the top or bottom end—that will spill across. If people are looking for a particular size of house—if their family is growing and they need a three-bedroom house as opposed to a two-bedroom house—and they cannot find one, the demand will spill over into other areas of the housing market. Demand will drive up price, no matter what, and that will knock on through to other areas of the housing market. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are hotspots in the housing market—geographically and in terms of kinds and sizes of house and tenures—where this problem is particularly acute, but we cannot afford to be that choosy. We need to build an awful lot more of all kinds of houses if we are to reduce prices. Some of the hotspots may well apply to people on lower incomes and, at that point, we should be doing something about it, but that should not be to the exclusion of everything else; otherwise the knock-on effects will still be felt throughout the tenure range.
With what I have said in mind, I would like to take up the offer in the White Paper and make a formal submission to the consultation that the Minister launched yesterday. I want to make a concrete proposal—please forgive the pun—for a new permitted development right to add to the suite that the Government suggested. The right would allow small-scale additions to town and city centre properties when the final result is still below the treeline or other buildings in the same block. Converting existing shops or offices would still require planning permission, but building new apartments within those height limits above them, or above existing housing, would not. It would not apply to substantial new buildings or major developments, nor to listed heritage buildings or conservation zones.
That measure is safe, sensible and proportionate and should not scare anyone—certainly not those worried about Manhattan-style buildings. It would offer a little piece of freedom from the cold and clammy hand of bureaucracy: a chance for every householder to help solve the nation’s housing problems by extending the size, and value, of their property by adding extra bedrooms or perhaps an entire apartment on top of what is there already. It would provide an opportunity for energy and ideas to have their head, without being diverted, amended or discouraged by official objections, rooted in the very British fear of any building that is taller than two storeys high.
Without the measure, officialdom will be too slow to change. They will not be forced to look upwards, and will carry on thinking the same way as they have for the last 50 years. We need change immediately, not at some distant future time. Without a shock—a stimulus—and some creative development yeast, the White Paper’s dough will never rise. Many valuable town and city centre sites will continue to be ignored.
The new permitted development right could be that stimulus—that little piece of freedom. It could be a creative spark that lights the blue touch paper of Britain’s stodgy, slow-paced, cosily comfortable housing market so that it takes off like a rocket. It would improve our economy and our quality of life, make our homes more affordable and reduce development pressure on greenfield and green belt sites. I hope the Minister will agree.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. As a Back Bencher, it is certainly unusual for me to be second in the speaking order.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on securing the debate. He has campaigned on this issue and raised it in Parliament before, so it is clearly something that he is keen to see progress. I agree in principle with much of what he said about ensuring vibrancy in main streets at night. If that can be done by building upwards above shops, that is a good thing, but in the long run we really need to be careful. I have already touched on my concerns that the proposal might open the door for the construction of large town houses without delivering low-cost housing, which is the thrust of this debate. I am also slightly concerned that there may be a rush by too many people to do it. We need to ensure that the right controls are in place, including building standards and building controls, and that the processes can be inspected. Clearly some low-rise buildings were only ever designed to be low-rise buildings, even though they may be adjacent to higher buildings.
John Penrose
Just to clarify, nothing in the proposals that I have made today would affect building control or building regulations. Clearly we would need all the usual checks to ensure that buildings will stay up and be safe once they have been constructed.
Alan Brown
I fully accept that. I know that is the premise; I am just saying that we need to ensure that the resources are there to keep an eye on things. We have heard stories about properties in London getting built in the rear of gardens and so on, which is done without planning consent or building standards consent. It is a question of ensuring that procedures are properly followed. Foundations need to be checked and may need to be strengthened, and buildings that are structurally tied to adjoining buildings need proper structural design. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s good point about controls, listed buildings and exemptions, and I agree that a controlled method of allowing building up can work.
Let me return to low-cost housing, which is the title of this debate. We need to do more to make low-cost housing available. I welcome the UK Government’s White Paper, but neither I nor my party think it goes far enough. As was raised yesterday, the elephant in the room for low-cost housing is the right-to-buy model. In the long run, the extended right-to-buy model for social housing will eat into the availability of low-cost housing. Subsidies from the public sector to allow people to buy properties use money that could otherwise be going directly into stimulating housing growth or be put towards brownfield development. Members have raised concerns about building outwards and eating into the green belt. Clearly brownfield regeneration is a good thing, especially in the urban environment. The money being taken out of the system for right to buy could be put to better use, either directly for building new social housing or for stimulating new brownfield development.
By ending right to buy, the Scottish Government have protected 15,500 properties that would otherwise have been sold from stock. Quite often, houses that are sold end up in the buy-to-let market, which pushes rents up because social rents are always cheaper than private rents, and that has an impact on the housing benefit bill. Again, that means more money from the public purse that could otherwise be going towards housing.
The Scottish Government are making a record investment in council house building. I request that the UK Government consider going back to that model and funding the construction of public housing. Because there is no right to buy for housing in Scotland, housing associations have more confidence to build housing. They can also get subsidies from the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government delivered 30,000 affordable homes in the last Parliament and have a target of 50,000 for this Parliament.
I recognise that the White Paper targets affordable homes, but the argument goes full circle: for the UK Government to deliver affordable homes, they need to put public money to the best possible use, not subsidise the purchase of properties for people who already have one and who do not need a discount to become a homeowner. I know that a lot of people have aspirations to become homeowners, but the No. 1 thing is to ensure that there are enough homes for everybody. We can look to further drive home ownership once there are enough homes for everybody, but once that happens the market will even out and we will not see the continued push on prices.
The hon. Gentleman said that there would be controls on listed buildings. My other concern is that we would need tight controls on the aesthetics of buildings to ensure that they blended in with the surrounding environment. Where there are permitted development rights rather than planning controls, there still need to be tight guidelines.
John Penrose
May I press the hon. Gentleman a little on that point? I take his point with respect to areas that have a homogeneous architectural style and that therefore have conservation of one kind or another, but not areas that have no such homogeneous style and no conservation control or anything like it. Most British cities are a hotch-potch of things built over several centuries, and that is fine. I am concerned that he is trying to create a sort of clammy bureaucratic control where historically there has been none and everyone has been happy with the outcome.
Alan Brown
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Perhaps, as always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. However, I would have real concerns if people were just able to throw up these buildings. There could be real issues with the materials used, with long-term maintenance and with the aesthetics of buildings. For instance, if people use the wrong materials for wood fascias and do not maintain them, they become a real eyesore in the long run. I am just putting that out there; I think those issues should be considered within permitted development rights. Local areas might not have a completely homogeneous style; as he says, cities may have developed as a hotch-potch, but that is not always an attractive look, and if we do not watch out, it can become even less attractive. Clearly that is not the desire behind the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, but I conclude by congratulating him on advancing it.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under you again, Ms Gillan. I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for securing the debate.
I wondered whether there had been a mix-up by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who decides on these debates, but knowing him and understanding the process as I now do, I know that that is not possible. Hon. Members may have attended this debate and people may have watched it in anticipation of a debate on low-cost housing, perhaps hoping to hear some more detail about the White Paper that the Government released yesterday or some more meat put on the bones of the essential topic of low-cost housing. Instead, this debate has been about a small proposal to tweak the planning system.
I will address the proposal from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare in a moment, but first I will address low-cost housing, which is the topic of the debate and is what I expected to be speaking on. Of course the overall supply of housing—which the hon. Gentleman states it is the intention of his policy to address—is important, because we have a shortage of housing in this country, as the Secretary of State said yesterday. In a pure supply and demand curve, one expects more supply to mean lower cost, and the obverse—shortage of supply—means higher cost, which is exactly what has happened in the open market; so housing becomes more and more unaffordable for more and more people.
That has happened in the last seven years. Under David Cameron, the UK built fewer homes than under any peacetime Prime Minister since 1923. The number of home-owning households rose by a million under the 1997 to 2010 Government, but it has fallen by 200,000 since 2010, and this shortage has meant that the price of buying has risen and risen, putting homes out of the reach of even well-paid young people. Members here today may have watched “Newsnight” last night, in which there were reasonably well-paid young professionals who could not get on the housing ladder. In my constituency in west London, working people earning reasonable salaries cannot even afford to rent, and if they can just about pay more than 50% of their income on rent, they have no money left to save up for a deposit. The market is not delivering affordable homes to rent or to buy, except in some economically deprived areas, where there are more homes than there are people who want to live in them.
In most of England, because house prices have risen, more and more people need some kind of subsidised low-cost housing. Since 2010, however, Government funding for all types of affordable housing—there were eight definitions of affordable housing in the White Paper—has been withdrawn, except for one, which is for first-time buyers. The level of new affordable house building has still managed to hit a 24-year low. The number of shared ownership homes and other low-cost home ownership homes being built annually has fallen by 66% since 2010, to just 7,540 homes a year, meaning that 34,170 fewer affordable homes have been built since 2010 than in the last six years of the last Labour Government. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) clearly described the problems—and the potential solutions—of delivering truly affordable low-cost housing.
For social rented housing, official statistics show that the number of social rented homes that were started in 2009-10 was almost 40,000, but in 2015-16 the number of social rented homes being delivered was less than 1,000—a fall of 98% and the lowest figure since records began.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said yesterday in the main Chamber that private house builders, housing associations and councils need to fire on all cylinders to build the homes that we need, and councils need to be allowed to build homes again to meet the needs of local people. At the moment, they are not allowed to do that.
Dr Huq
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I agree with what she is saying, that this “Pile ’em high, sell ’em cheap and leave it to market forces” solution does not sound like it is enough. When it is left to market forces, in a place such as Ealing, people seem to use these high-rise homes that are going up as a very expensive piggybank; they are not even living in them. Obviously we need more social housing to counteract all this.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. I have experienced that in my own constituency. We still have newly built homes that are never let, because they are seen as nothing more than an investment, and many of them are very high in price.
As I have said, the latest affordable housing statistics have fallen to their lowest levels in 24 years. Of course I welcome any credible initiatives to provide low-cost housing, but where is the evidence that this well-meaning initiative to extend permitted development rights, which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has discussed today, will actually deliver low-cost housing?
Between February and April in 2016, the Government consulted jointly with the Mayor of London on proposals to deliver more homes in London by allowing a limited number of additional storeys on existing buildings through a permitted development right, local development orders or development plan policies, which is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is seeking. That was part of the Government’s commitment to explore how more homes could be built on brownfield land, in order to reduce the pressure on greenfield or metropolitan open land. The Government summary of the responses that they received to that proposal says:
“More than half of those were not supportive of the proposal, with a one-size-fits-all permitted development right approach considered unworkable. While it was noted that it could support town centres and deliver more homes, it was recognised that the complex prior approval that would be required to protect neighbours and the character and amenity of an area would result in a permitted development right that is no less onerous than a planning application.”
Specifically, a couple of the consultees—the Planning Officers Society and Historic England—did not support the proposals. I am well aware that the British Property Federation welcomed them.
John Penrose
I just wish to clarify something for the hon. Lady. I have read the document she is quoting and learned of the concerns surrounding the proposed permitted development right, which has been consulted on already, but my proposal is different. It starts from the same place, but is designed to avoid the criticisms that were levelled, which she has rightly pointed out. I have endeavoured to modify my proposal in a way that will allow it to sidestep those issues.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Nevertheless, with any consideration of extending permitted development rights, there are always unintended consequences. That is why the Planning Officers Society, Historic England and other organisations did not see the merit of, and therefore did not make the case for, extending them. In fact, it was not only permitted development rights that were considered, but other methods.
As I say, the British Property Federation welcomed the proposal for an extension to permitted development rights, but even the BPF said that
“it is unlikely to deliver a significant amount of new homes”,
which, as the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, is one of his key aims.
What are the reasons to retain the status quo, which is what I am suggesting? Proposals to develop upwards can go through the planning application process. What is wrong with that? A planning application provides notification, consultation, transparency and accountability, whereas extending permitted development rights does not. If any proposal to build higher makes sense in a town or village centre; if it works with neighbouring buildings; if the space standards and design provide good quality housing in which people will thrive, it should be granted planning permission. However, to deny a community or a parish council the ability to comment, to deny planning officers the ability to negotiate improvements to a proposal, and to deny locally elected councillors the opportunity to determine the application would just open the gates to unpopular, unwanted and possibly bad developments.
If a local council makes a bad planning decision—possibly in the face of fierce local opposition to an application—there is always the opportunity to appeal to the impartial Planning Inspectorate. Nobody denies that enabling more homes to be built in a town or village centre is a good thing for the life and vibrancy of that place.
Dr Poulter
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment. However, is it not very difficult for the types of people my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) has spoken about today—people who want to carry out small extensions or build small buildings—to bring the sorts of planning appeals that she just talked about? Sometimes bad decisions are made because around the time of elections, planning issues can become very contentious in local authorities.
Ruth Cadbury
Having been a councillor myself for many, many years, I am well aware of that pressure, which is why we have the appeals system—it is why we have that check and balance. Let us remember that one can only get away with refusing a planning application if the refusal is made on good planning grounds. Officers are there to advise councillors, and if councillors ignore officers, the application will go to appeal, and, if it is a good application that was refused for the wrong reasons, the Planning Inspectorate will overturn the refusal and the application will be granted.
The planning system is there for a reason. It is there to protect communities and ensure good development. It ensures that there are appropriate facilities, amenities, space standards, parking provision and so on. When permitted development rights are extended, a lot of that is lost. I am sure that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare does not want to see a load of high-rise buildings going up that do not meet basic standards and do not provide a basic quality of life for the people living in those dwellings and in surrounding dwellings.
John Penrose
I repeat that I am not proposing huge high-rise dwellings at all; I am proposing things that can be built up to the height of the local treeline, for example, which is four or five storeys at the most. I gently say to the hon. Lady that if the planning system works so bleedin’ brilliantly, we would have four or five-storey developments in market towns and seaside towns around the country, but we do not. I doubt very strongly that that is because communities everywhere have roundly decided that they cannot live with anything taller than two storeys. I suspect that it is because there is a chilling effect. People are being discouraged from putting such applications in because of officialdom knocking them back all the time.
Ruth Cadbury
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I believe he was in the same meeting as me last week, where we talked about converting empty space above flats into residential. In that interesting and informative roundtable, we heard that there is a whole host of barriers to converting empty space above shops, and the same applies to the proposal to increase heights. The planning system was not suggested as the main barrier. There are other barriers, such as structural ones, security ones, issues of funding and whether it is worth the cost. Except in very high-price property areas, such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and I represent, it is just not worth landowners’ while to do it. There is a range of barriers.
No one denies that enabling more homes in town centres is a good thing for the life and vibrancy of those town centres. I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment, but the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare could do better than blaming the planning system for the lack of delivery. The planning system can deliver what he wants now. He has brought no evidence that this little tweak of the planning system will deliver more housing, let alone more affordable housing. He has made circumstantial links between more supply, of which the proposal would provide a tiny amount, and a crashing fall in housing prices. There is no evidence.
We have seen problems when permitted development rights are extended, such as with the coalition Government’s policy, which has now been enshrined permanently, of allowing employment space to be converted into residential without planning permission. In Hounslow—I represent half of the borough—we have seen poor-quality housing, poor space standards, inadequate parking and issues with everything from refuse disposal to access. That policy is not providing good-quality housing or affordable housing.
The other extension of permitted development rights that was enacted under the coalition Government allowed homeowners to extend the rear of their homes by 6 metres, rather than the 3 metres it had been previously. Those developments have a massive impact on the neighbours. That is why we have to be careful about extending permitted development rights, and the Opposition do not support such extensions.
Building can be done at height with good design, but there is no reason why that cannot be done through the normal, transparent and accountable planning application process. In the years I was a planning committee member—some of those were as chair—we granted many applications for increasing the height of buildings and homes or for building new higher ones. We refused some terrible applications. The system allows for that to happen. We have a massive housing shortage in west London, but the prices are high enough that it is worth the developers’ while. We saw the applications; we approved the good ones and refused the bad ones. The market in west London is doing exactly what the hon. Gentleman desires.
John Penrose
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way yet again. She is being very generous and kind. I gently say to her that the London economic microclimate is not typical of the rest of Britain. I am rather reassured by some of the things she has said about what is happening in parts of London and how these things are being handled, but I do not think those incentives, processes or habits of mind among councils and council officials are broadly spread across the country.
Ruth Cadbury
In which case, the hon. Gentleman is effectively admitting that it is not the planning system that is the problem, but the state of the property market and other barriers to development. The market in west London is doing exactly what he wants, and I suggest he looks elsewhere for the cause of the problem and, therefore, for the solution.
The hon. Gentleman wants beautiful buildings; that is why a planning system is needed. He is proposing a solution that removes local oversight, but there is no evidence it will work and it could create unintended consequences. Furthermore, his proposal does not address the subject of the debate: low-cost housing. I am almost inclined to dissent when the Question is put at the end of the debate as to whether we have considered low-cost housing, but I will leave that for then.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). He has been fortuitous in securing this debate on low-cost housing the day after the White Paper was published, but he is rather disadvantaged by the fact that the Minister responsible is so busy selling the White Paper that he has to put up with a reply from me, but I will endeavour to answer the points he has raised.
The tone of the debate has frankly been a bit miserable, in truth. My hon. Friend has come forward with a proposal to expand the supply of housing. We all know that supply is the biggest challenge in delivering low-cost housing. Houses have become less and less affordable because we have not been building enough houses, period. We need to look at what we can do to unlock a bigger supply of houses, and that is what the White Paper is all about. I could happily trade statistics with Opposition Members, but the reality is that we have not been building enough housing in this country for decades. There are many reasons for that. Some of them are to do with planning, public opinion, finance and land prices, but what is clear is that our housing market is broken, and I do not think we should be ruling anything out in fixing it, because we have a real problem in terms of fairness for everyone in society being able to live in a decent home that they can afford. We in Government and as politicians should be seeking to deliver that.
That is where my hon. Friend has it in a nutshell, in coming forward with a proposal that could unlock substantially more housing. Listening to him and the reaction to his remarks from Members highlighted a massive cultural prejudice against building up, rather than building out, and there is a reason for that, which he alluded to in his remarks. We were very badly let down in the ’60s. That was the zenith of building up, not out, but we built buildings that were ugly and unpleasant, and they became unpleasant places to live. That is in people’s minds when they start thinking about high-rise housing and development. I have it in my constituency. We are on the border of London, so we have a substantial need for new houses. We have a substantial amount of brownfield land and green belt. Members will not be surprised to hear that we get a lot more planning applications for housing on green-belt sites, because we all know that it is cheaper to build there. We are also on the river, and if there is one place where high-rise developments would work, it is on the river.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)—I think we were all impressed by his courage in turning up for the vote yesterday—came to my constituency when he was housing Minister. He did me no favours because he described one of my riverfront housing developments as pig ugly. It was a four-storey housing development on the river, and people want to live on the river, but his point was that if the planners had been a little more adventurous, we could have built something higher and more beautiful. When one visits places such as Greenwich in south-east London, one can see that they have shown imagination. They have opened up the river and created nice places to live, so I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in this.
To give my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare some comfort, the White Paper sets out clearly the importance of high-density brownfield development, which is a part of his proposal. We propose changes to national policy to make it clear that local plans and individual development proposals should encourage building up where acceptable. We also propose to make better use of public land. The Department would welcome my hon. Friend’s response to the White Paper so that we can take this forward. It is incumbent on all of us, and it is very easy. We all react to our postbags—Mr Grumpy always complains about the planning application that is proposed—but we have a role now, because this is such an important issue, to sell what will really deliver more housing, so I encourage my hon. Friend to make his submission as robust and as forthright as he wishes.
The Government welcome the opportunity to discuss low-cost housing in its wider sense. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) made some excellent points, but we need to recognise that the problem has been in the making for decades and the issues are complex. We do not say that the White Paper has all the answers or all the solutions. There is no silver bullet. If there was, the previous Labour Government would have delivered it, as would we in the last Parliament. Let us get real here. This is a serious problem, and unless we have a grown-up discussion about it, we will not solve it and we will let down future generations.
Dr Huq
There is some stuff in the White Paper that was nicked out of the Ed Miliband playbook—we are pleased to see that there will be a ban on letting fees—but it could have been a little more aggressive on the “Use it or lose it” idea. I apologise, Mrs Gillan; I should have said my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). In Ealing we have a site, which my 12-year-old remembers as a building site for most of his life—it was a cinema—that is going to be rebuilt for residential use, but it has been land-banked for the best part of a decade. What does the White Paper say about that, and how can we be more aggressive with developers who simply sit on land while the value goes up?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Lady has hit on a major structural problem that is inhibiting the ability to supply. There are many examples of what she talks about. Some developers are bringing forward a supply of housing and others are sitting on the land.
The White Paper on housing that we published yesterday advocates shortening timescales for the implementation of planning permissions where appropriate. That is very much on our agenda. We are considering legislative changes to simplify and speed up completion notices, which will encourage developers to build out or face losing the site. I am a big fan of naming and shaming. Transparency is an effective tool. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Where we have developers clearly engaging in predatory behaviour and exploiting the marketplace, we should be prepared to name and shame them. Every one of us in this room has a voice. Where we see bad behaviour by developers, let us shout out about it, because we have to deliver more houses. It is that simple.
I trust that hon. Members have had the opportunity to digest some of the housing White Paper, if not all of it, and I hope that they will engage with the debate. I want to make it incredibly clear how committed the Government are to grappling with this problem. We want to make sure that all hard-working families have the housing that they need at a price they can afford. The root cause of the problem is that demand outstrips supply. Only by increasing supply substantially will we stop the increasing spiralling of house prices and rents.
Alan Brown
If all options are on the table in the White Paper, will the Government reconsider the right to buy and extended the discount? Have the Government put a cost against how much money has been paid out in the extended right-to-buy scheme and how many properties might have been delivered had the money gone directly to house building?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with his point about right to buy. We are firmly committed to it. We want to encourage the aspiration for everyone to own their own home. We want to enable that, and right to buy is very much a part of it. He made very thoughtful remarks in his earlier contribution, and we have answers. We are firmly committed to making sure that, for every additional home sold, another social home will be provided—nationally. There is a rolling three-year deadline for councils to deliver the affordable homes to replace right to buy. We must also remember that when someone exercises their right to buy, the house is not removed from the stock. They still have a housing need. Again, the issue comes back to making sure that we increase the supply of houses.
Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman a little more comfort. It was said by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth that councils were not building more homes. Actually, they are. Some councils are showing considerable imagination in unlocking new homes. They are establishing local housing companies and we are encouraging them to do that. We see local councils as part of the partnership to help to increase supply.
Ruth Cadbury
I am sorry if the hon. Lady feels that I said councils are not building new homes. They are building new homes, but they are having to use other resources now that there is no Government funding. They could build an awful lot more if they could be released from the borrowing cap. My own council is building about 400 new council homes. The problem is that councils are losing their own stock at a faster rate through the right to buy than they can build new council homes. They are building them using capital funds that could also be used for other infrastructure such as schools and so on.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am not sure I entirely accept that. Certainly local authorities have the powers to borrow using their general power of competence, and they have established local housing companies to do that. There is an obligation to replace one for one, following the right to buy being exercised. Ultimately, we see local authorities as a partner in delivering more housing. That is the message I want to press home today.
Our broken housing market is one of the greatest barriers to progress in Britain today. If we are really serious about building a fairer society for everyone, we need to tackle that. We need to fix this to make sure that housing is more affordable. As has been mentioned, many people spend significant amounts of their income on rent or mortgage payments. Building more homes will slow the rise in housing costs so that many more families will be able to afford to buy a home or enjoy the benefits of lower rents.
To summarise and put what the housing White Paper proposes in context, first, we will insist that every area has an up-to-date plan, because development is about far more than just building homes. This is where the challenge is for local authorities. The planning process and building a vision of where new homes will be built and what the future will be for a local economy is so important. It is about getting community buy-in. It will help to tackle some of the cultural prejudices that we discussed earlier in the debate. If communities have ownership of a local plan for their local area, they will get the attractive homes that they want and need. My challenge is for local authorities to step up and deliver. We are all aware that there are far too many local authorities that have not risen to the challenge of identifying where houses are needed. There are still too many councils that do not have a local plan, and they need to show leadership and deliver.
Secondly, and as the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) noted, we need to ensure that homes are built quickly once planning permission is granted. We will make sure that the planning system is much more open and accessible. We will improve the co-ordination of public investment infrastructure to encourage that, and we will support timely connections to utilities to tackle unnecessary delays, but the real issue is developers. We will give councils and developers the tools they need to build more swiftly and we will expect them to use them. I suspect that this is an issue that we will look at as reactions to the White Paper unfold and we consider whether there is a need for further legislative change.
We will also diversify the market. We want to bring new players in to the supply of housing. We need to give support to small and medium-sized builders and custom builders and to champion modern methods of construction to support new investment to build to rent. Those measures could be transformational. The idea of institutional investment that builds property estates or residential blocks that are specifically for rent, which people can rent for a long time, could transform the housing market and make renting much more affordable.
The White Paper also sets out how we will support housing associations to build more and explores options to encourage local authorities to build again. As I have said, we will also encourage further institutional investment in the private rented sector. Finally, because we recognise that building the homes we need takes time, we will also take more steps now to improve safeguards in the private rented sector. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in London will be particularly concerned about that.
We have seen the need to do more to prevent homelessness. I am very pleased that the Government have committed to fully funding the Homelessness Reduction Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). We will provide £61 million to local government to meet the costs of the new burdens associated with that Bill over the course of the spending review period.
We could easily trade statistics, but I do not think there is any value in playing the blame game about where we are now. We need to look at how we fix it. Everybody has a role to play in that—including the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton mentioned. The Government are very clear that fixing the problem is a real priority.
We have already delivered 313,000 affordable homes in England since 2010. The affordable homes programme alone delivered 193,000 affordable homes, exceeding expectations by 23,000. At the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced the expansion of the affordable homes programme with an additional £1.4 billion, which increased the overall budget to £7.1 billion. That is a significant investment from the Government in tackling the problem. The expanded programme also allows a wider range of products to help people on the pathway to home ownership and to continue to provide support for those who need it. Those products include shared ownership, rent to buy and affordable rent.
Opening up the programme in that way will help to meet the housing needs of a wider range of people in different circumstances and at different stages in their lives. We have to recognise that there are different problems in different areas of the country, but also different problems hitting people at different stages of their lives. We need to make sure that we have a solution for all of those.
Affordable rent was a policy introduced to get more bang for our buck in providing social rent models. It allows rent to be set at 80% of market rents so that we can unlock more supply. Those tenants will still benefit from a sub-market rent. This is a particular issue in London, where the affordable rent can be set even lower.
Home ownership, however, continues to be the aspiration for most people, which is why we have looked at the Help to Buy products, right to buy and shared ownership. Shared ownership offers a route through the part-buy/part-rent model to enable people to get on the housing ladder sooner than if they were saving for a deposit. Purchasers buy a minimum 20% share in the new-build property at market value, pay a controlled rent on the remainder and may continue to buy further shares until the property is owned outright. We will continue to use that tool to expand home ownership. Since 2010, around 45,000 new shared ownership schemes have been delivered and we will continue to deliver more.
Help to Buy has already helped more than 200,000 households to buy a home, including through the equity loan scheme, which has benefited 100,000 households—81% of whom were first-time buyers. We have also committed £8.6 billion for the Help to Buy equity loan scheme to 2021, to ensure that it continues to support homebuyers and stimulate supply. We recognise the need to create certainty for prospective homeowners so we will work with the sector to deliver that.
I come back to the issue of the planning regime and how we can speed up its ability to help to deliver the volume of supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is quite right to look at tools for how we can do that. He highlighted the importance of increasing brownfield development and building to higher densities to deliver more homes. If widely adopted, that could reduce the need for green-belt development. What excites me about the idea is the ability to regenerate our high streets. I am sure I am not alone, given the way that retail is moving today, in seeing some of my high streets really struggling. The idea that we could create a new, mixed-use high street, rather than a retail-dependent one—one where people can live above the shops or behind the shops in new high-rise developments and be able to go downstairs and visit cafes and restaurants—is quite an exciting concept, which would particularly appeal to the younger generations coming through. There is massive potential, and I encourage my hon. Friend to carry on trying to open people’s eyes to the potential of this initiative.
The Department has been engaging with my hon. Friend on his work and has taken up his proposals. We consulted last February on proposals to allow limited upward extensions in London, no higher than the height of an adjoining roofline. Following that consultation, we recognise that there is potential to deliver more homes nationally, not just in London, through a change to national planning policy to support upward extensions in suitable locations. As set out in the housing White Paper, we propose to amend the national planning policy framework to make it clear that local plans and individual development proposals should address the particular scope for higher-density housing in urban locations where buildings can be extended upwards by using the airspace above them.
In the White Paper, we have committed to reviewing the nationally described space standards, because of feedback from the sector that in certain places, space standards make it hard to use land efficiently and stop cheaper houses being built, which more people now want to rent or buy, such as Pocket Homes. We have to recognise the limitations. When we write planning law, we write it at a given time, in a given set of circumstances. When the world changes, we need to be prepared to be fleet of foot in dealing with new opportunities to address the issues we face. However, this is not a race to the bottom, and Government are clear that in assessing the options we will be looking for a solution that combines greater local housing choice with good quality and with decent places to live.
As I have set out, in the past few years we have seen over 300,000 affordable homes built in England. We now need to go much, much further and meet our obligation to build many more houses, of the type people want to live in, in the places they want to live and at a price they can afford. Doing that will give those growing up in society today more chance to enjoy the same opportunities as their parents and grandparents. I am struck by the fact that this is the first time that the future generation will be less well-off than their parents, when for many decades we have been used to high living standards. It is firmly my view that the price of housing is central to that.
We will ensure that the housing market is as fair for those who do not own their own home as it is for those who do, and we will continue to look at what is happening in the private rented sector. All that is a vital part of our plan for a stronger, fairer Britain, and a critical step along the road to fulfilling the Government’s mission to make Britain a country that works for everyone.
John Penrose
I would like to extend my thanks to everybody who participated in this debate, in particular my hon. Friend the Minister—and Whip—for responding so constructively and helpfully. As she said, the timing of this debate was slightly fortuitous. As everyone here will appreciate, when we put in for debates we have little control over precisely when our names will come up, so I had no idea that it would take place 24 hours after the publication of the housing White Paper.
As the Minister said, I have been campaigning on this issue for some time, so this is at least partially a celebration of victory, because I am pleased to say that the Government have listened. There is a great deal in the White Paper about building up, not out, and it contains some very welcome steps. The Government deserve full credit for taking some major steps in the right direction. Therefore, my modest proposal, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) called it, is a final flourish or a final capstone—a residual step to ensure that it is done well and fully, rather than only partially. I think I am very close to the summit of achieving what we need to do, and I want to take this final step. This is, at least in part, a celebration of victory as much as a request for further activity.
I want to pick up on the Minister’s comments about there being a slightly miserable tone to the debate. She is absolutely right that there is no silver bullet to this problem, but it is perhaps a little reductive to say that because one particular proposal—in this case, my final step—does not solve all the complicated, deep-rooted and long-lasting housing problems that this country faces, it should therefore be opposed. If we let the best be the enemy of the good, we will get nowhere. This is a far broader issue than we can possibly cover in one debate, but I am pleased to say that we will make some progress.
I will finish on this point, which I direct to the Labour party and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth in particular. My hon. Friend the Minister said there was a cultural divide over tall buildings, but I think that in this Chamber there has been a cultural divide over the approach to regulation, too. I accept that the planning permission and planning regulation process plays an important role in preventing substandard building and inappropriate large-scale building—the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth was right to point all those things out. However, when it comes to regulating our fellow citizens in a free society, the burden of proof is on us to show why what we are doing to take away their freedoms is right, not on them to explain why they should have them back. Therefore, if I have a modest suggestion for an extension of those freedoms—a rolling back that will not impact on the broader points that the planning system is rightly geared to prevent abuses of—then it is up to us to justify why that should not happen. The burden of proof should be on us.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Can I check that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way?
John Penrose
I have finished my remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered low cost housing.
Unauthorised Overdrafts
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fees and charges on unauthorised overdrafts.
Overdrafts are one of the most widely used credit products in the market. Almost three in 10 people in the UK with personal current accounts have been overdrawn in the past year. Overdrafts can be a flexible form of borrowing, and most people use theirs for only a couple of months in the year. However, a significant minority of people—around 10%—are much more frequent users and regularly go overdrawn for nine months or more each year. There are also people who regularly go over their overdraft limit and are hit by exorbitant and disproportionate charges. The major banks make more than £1 billion per year from charges on unauthorised overdrafts—the majority, according to the head of the Competition and Markets Authority, from financially vulnerable customers.
StepChange Debt Charity estimates that 1.7 million people in the UK are trapped in an overdraft cycle and consistently use overdrafts to meet essential and emergency costs. For many vulnerable customers who are already struggling, regularly having to go into an overdraft or over an overdraft limit can lead to and exacerbate financial difficulties. Many hard-working families live constantly on their overdrafts, and those in chronic financial difficulties often face impossible choices between meeting the costs of essential bills and going further overdrawn or over their overdraft limit. Those people can struggle to get out of their overdrafts, as fees and interest build up over time and make it increasingly difficult to get out of the red. Those households are also more likely to be on the edge of their overdrafts, and if they go over, they face substantial and punitive charges that push them into difficulties. If people do not have the means to get out of their unarranged overdrafts, that can lead to persistent charges, which make it successively harder for them to avoid financial difficulties each month.
Last year, StepChange surveyed its clients with overdraft debt to explore their experiences of overdraft charges. It found that people with overdraft debt who contact the charity regularly go into the red. On average, those people had been in an unarranged overdraft for 11 of the past 12 months. Almost two thirds—62%—of the people StepChange helps with overdraft debt regularly exceed their arranged overdraft limit as they struggle to make ends meet; they did so on average in five of the past 12 months. Borrowers face average charges of £45 a time for slipping into an unauthorised overdraft. That adds up to a massive £225 a year of unauthorised overdraft charges on average.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the cap on payday lending has actually worked quite well and stopped unaffordable charges, so in its review of high-cost credit, the Financial Conduct Authority should look at introducing a similar cap on overdraft charges and more affordable ways of paying down debt?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this area, both as a Member of Parliament and before she came to this place, and she is absolutely right. I will come on to the difference between caps on overdraft charges and those on payday lending.
Research published today by Which? found that consumers needing as little as £100 could be charged up to £156 more by some major high street banks than the Financial Conduct Authority allows payday loan companies to charge when lending the same amount for the same period. For example, Which? compared the cost of borrowing £100 for 30 days and found that some high street banks’ unarranged overdraft charges were as much as seven and a half times higher than the maximum charge of £24 on a payday loan for the same period. And because bank overdraft charges apply to monthly billing periods, not the number of days money is borrowed for, consumers who need £100 could pay up to £180 in fees if they borrow over two calendar months from their high street bank in the form of an unarranged overdraft.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
A constituent of mine was made redundant and wanted to get back on his feet, so he set up a small business—a soft play area for kids, which was essentially a cash business. For every direct debit he paid, he had to pay 40p. For every automated debit and every internet payment, he had to pay 40p. Every time a payment was made to his account, the charge was 22p, and for every £100 paid to his account, he was charged 66p. Those are obscene amounts for what is essentially a cash business. I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to put that on the record.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking on behalf of her constituent. We have all experienced people in our patches being ripped off by banks. Frankly, that is not what people expect. They expect to be able to trust their high street bank to give them a good deal and treat them fairly, yet in my hon. Friend’s constituent’s case, that just is not happening.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this excellent debate. She talked about the Which? report. She will be aware that NatWest customers face fees of £180 for exceeding their limit by £100 for 30 days, and that Lloyds and Santander demand £160. That is completely uncalled for.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that interventions need to be very short and punchy, particularly when we have only half an hour.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a situation where people can be charged £5 or more per day by many high street banks for going just a few pence overdrawn. Those charges rack up very quickly. The issue is that they are totally disproportionate to the offence. Going just a few pence over an overdraft limit in one month could mean £100 of charges, and as she says, the charge for doing so over two calendar months is potentially £180.
It is simply not acceptable that banks are making large profits at the expense of pushing the most financially vulnerable people deeper into debt spirals. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria de Piero) gave one example, and StepChange has told me about two other cases. The first is of a 42-year-old man who racked up overdraft charges after losing his job. Interest on his overdraft and persistent charges for going over his limit meant that on average, £80 a month was added to his debt. Over a year, his overdraft debt increased by more than £1,000 because of interest and unauthorised overdraft charges. The second case is of a 38-year-old woman who faced spiralling overdraft debt after getting divorced. The increased burden of managing financial commitments on her own meant that she slipped into an unplanned overdraft by £90. That led to a cycle in which she was constantly in and out of an unarranged overdraft, and her overdraft debt increased to £1,000 due to interest and charges.
Those people, like so many others, were already in difficulty and trying to manage their debt from day to day. The banks should have a responsibility to help them manage their finances and help them out of their cycle of debt rather than sending them deeper into crisis with extortionate charges. The banks know that those customers are financially vulnerable and struggling, yet they do nothing to help—in fact, they do the exact opposite by making it harder for them to get a grip of their finances.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this timely debate. Does she agree that it is sometimes in the banks’ interest to allow customers to run massive overdrafts so that they can push them on to even higher personal loans and other products, which they might not need and might not be right for them in the circumstances?
Rachel Reeves
I agree. What really worries me is that most of the £1 billion that is made every year from unauthorised charges is made on the backs of those who are most financially vulnerable. It is a bitter irony that it is now a better deal for some people who need short-term credit to go to a payday lender rather than their high street bank. Most of us regard banks as more reputable and fairer to customers, yet for many people that is just not the case.
Huge progress has been made on the charges faced by people who access finance through payday lenders, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) mentioned, with the introduction of a cap following great work by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), so why are banks still allowed to get away with these unfair practices? There was some hope last year that this problem would be addressed when the Competition and Markets Authority undertook a review of the retail banking market. The CMA recognised the issue and the inquiry’s chair subsequently told the Treasury Committee that unauthorised overdrafts are
“the biggest single problem in the personal banking market”.
The CMA published its review of retail banking on 9 August, but frankly its conclusions and proposals were a missed opportunity. It found that overdraft users make up almost half of those with personal current accounts and that many find it hard to keep on top of their arranged or unarranged overdrafts. It acknowledged that failing to do so can be costly, since overdraft users can accumulate high costs from the complicated mix of interest, fees and charges.
The review goes on to say that overdraft users, like other personal current account customers, have very low switching rates, which is particularly striking given that they often have the most to gain from switching. One reason for that is that overdraft users can be uncertain about whether they will be able to obtain an overdraft facility from a different bank or when such a facility would be made available to them and are therefore worried about moving accounts,. Anyway, none of the major high street banks has a great offer for customers who are financially vulnerable.
When it came to remedies, the CMA’s proposals, quite frankly, fell well short of the mark. Some measures will go some way to addressing problems for some people, but not for those who most need support. One proposal says that customers need to be given clear notice when they are going overdrawn and that banks will be required to notify customers when they are going into an unarranged overdraft. Customers also need to be given the opportunity to avoid incurring charges, and the alerts that banks will be required to provide will inform them of a grace period during which they have an opportunity to avoid charges by paying more money into their account.
Critically, the CMA fell short of proposing an independently set maximum cap on the charges on overdrafts, as we have with payday loans. Instead, the report said that banks will be required to set their own ceilings on their unarranged overdraft charges in the form of a monthly maximum charge. However, most banks already have that. The problem is not that banks do not have a maximum charge—they do, and it might be £5 a day or £90 a month—but that the maximum charge is much too high.
The major four high street banks, which make up 77% of the current account market, already set their own caps on charges, and those charges can be up to £100 a month. The CMA’s proposals represent little more than business as usual for those banks. Competition in this section of the market is weak, and in the past few years it has got weaker still with the merger of many of our high street banks. Heavy unarranged overdraft users are the least likely to switch banks accounts. Banks make more than £1 billion from unarranged overdraft charges and, given the substantial revenues they generate, there is little financial incentive to lower existing charges.
Ultimately, the proposals in the CMA report might take small steps towards helping some, but for the majority of people who are already struggling and do not have the means to prevent unauthorised overdrafts even if they are alerted to them, they will do little, if anything, to help. The monthly maximum cap as proposed by the CMA will likely do nothing to stop the deepening of a person’s debt crisis, with punitive and disproportionate charges.
I do not want to deny the banks the right to charge for the services they provide, but I do want some fairness and proportionality. It is not fair to charge £5 a day or £90 a month for being a few pence over an overdraft limit, and it is not fair to whack charges on customers who are struggling with debt, in the knowledge that the charges will make their problems worse, not better. Banks need to take some responsibility for their customers.
As the Competition and Markets Authority admitted at a meeting of the Treasury Committee, the measures proposed in the report are geared at everybody and not in particular those who are financially vulnerable, for whom no direct action is proposed. When I asked whether the banks were taking advantage of financially vulnerable customers, it conceded that those customers who are least likely to switch are a “captive audience” for the banks and their excessive charges.
Ultimately, the Competition and Markets Authority report was a huge opportunity finally to put an end to what it calls “uncomfortably high” charges and to address what it said was the
“biggest single problem in the personal banking market”.
However, the opportunity was squandered. In effect, it passed the buck by asking the Financial Conduct Authority to respond to the recommendations. Peter Vicary-Smith, the chief executive of Which?, said to the Treasury Committee that the Competition and Markets Authority had left the heavy lifting and the difficult decisions for the Financial Conduct Authority to make. In response to that buck-passing, the new chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, Andrew Bailey, has made the welcome decision to include this issue in its ongoing review of high-cost short-term credit, which will report later this year.
The Financial Conduct Authority needs to do more to tackle the detriment caused by persistent overdraft use. I have been pleased by the focus that the FCA has placed on this issue so far, picking up where unfortunately the CMA left off. StepChange Debt Charity says that the review
“should include looking at what more can be done by lenders to support people who are trapped in an overdraft cycle and give them better and more affordable ways of paying back their debts.”
Yasmin Qureshi
Does my hon. Friend consider that what the banks are doing is insidious, bearing in mind that they and the Government can borrow at very low rates of interest?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right. The bank rate is so low and banks are being given access to money at such low rates from the Bank of England. The problem is that they are not passing that on to their customers, and certainly not to those who most need it. The banks should be doing much more to ensure that those low interest rates are passed on, because that would give the whole economy a boost as well as helping those people who most need it.
I have been calling on and will continue to urge the Financial Conduct Authority to look at setting a cap for banks on unauthorised overdrafts as has already been done for payday lenders. It must look at such lending by banks in exactly the same way and not shy away from setting a cap for banks, too.
I also urge the Government to take action, because while the Financial Conduct Authority undertakes its review, every single day more financially vulnerable customers are being exploited and more and more are being pushed further into a cycle of debt. That is simply not acceptable. The justification for a cap in these markets has been made with the introduction of a cap in the payday lending market, and those are two different sources for the same short-term credit for people who need it immediately. They can either go to a payday lender or go into an unarranged overdraft. Whichever option they decide on to meet their short-term needs, they should not be exploited. The Government recognised that for payday lending and now need to recognise that on unarranged overdraft charges.
Frankly, it is a disgrace that the banks are charging more than payday lenders for short-term lending and getting away with it, so the Government should take action. That is why I am calling on the Minister and the Government to legislate for a cap on overdraft fees and charges, as they have already done for payday lending through the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. That would allow the FCA to implement such a cap without delay and without the risk of the banks taking the matter to the courts.
It is not right that the banks are making huge profits at the expense of the most vulnerable. Anything less than an independently set cap on overdraft charges will not be enough. I urge the Minister and the Government to act now, and I ask that as a first step the Minister will agree to meet me and representatives of Which? and StepChange to discuss this issue further so that we can ensure that all customers are afforded the protection they deserve.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for securing this important debate on an issue that we share a keen interest in. I am here to listen and, hopefully, to be helpful.
It is clear that we all share a commitment to ensuring that people across our society can rely on the financial services that they need to manage their money effectively, securely and confidently. We want an economy that works for everyone. For most people, the bedrock of that is a transactional bank account that enables them to manage their personal finances on a day-to-day basis. Access to credit, including the use of an overdraft facility, is an important part of that.
For that reason, the Government are committed to doing two things. First, we will support and encourage competition among financial services providers, not only so that people have more choice over who they bank with, but because we know that more competition inevitably means better options on offer for customers, who can then vote with their feet. Secondly, we want to make sure that British customers are supported in the important financial decisions they make.
The hon. Members who have spoken have expressed the same aims, and I want to discuss the key issues that have been raised. I thank the hon. Members for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for making some thoughtful points, sharing their constituents’ stories and making some more general observations. I am sure that the FCA, which is reviewing high-cost credit, will listen carefully to the debate.
The hon. Member for Leeds West rightly discussed the Competition and Markets Authority. A key question is how to ensure that there is competition. That is why we set up the CMA in the first place as a single stronger and independent competition regulator. It is the CMA’s role to review the market, assess how effectively competition is working and, where appropriate, propose remedies to address any issues. Hon. Members have referred to the CMA’s retail banking market investigation, which was published last summer. I am aware of the variety of opinions on that. It represented a thorough analysis of how competition is working in retail banking, including the role of both unarranged and arranged overdrafts.
The CMA concluded that the retail banking market is not working well for overdraft users. To tackle that, it is imposing remedies to improve overdraft transparency, including setting a monthly maximum charge for unarranged overdraft charges. It also looked closely at whether a hard cap on overdraft fees was necessary on competition grounds, and reached the conclusion that it was not. However, as hon. Members may know, it also recommended that the FCA should assess the ongoing effectiveness of the monthly maximum charge and consider whether other measures, including the introduction of rules, could be taken to enhance its effectiveness further.
The hon. Members for Leeds West and for Makerfield mentioned the action of the Financial Conduct Authority. It is true that the FCA has an important role to play in relation to overdrafts. It is worth pointing out, of course, that it has a much broader set of statutory objectives in relation to financial services, duties, powers and tools than the CMA. It has the power to cap the cost of all forms of consumer credit if that is deemed necessary and proportionate to tackle risks to consumers.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the Minister for his response to the substantive points that I and my hon. Friends have made. Does he think it is inconsistent that the Government have set a monthly maximum charge for payday lenders, but not for high street banks in relation to unarranged overdraft charges? If he does, is it time for the Government to act by setting a monthly maximum charge for unarranged overdrafts as well?
Simon Kirby
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making. What I think is appropriate is for the Government to listen carefully to what the FCA comes up with later in the year, and to act in consumers’ best interests. I am sure we both agree on that. There is clearly an inconsistency; otherwise we would not be having this debate.
The Government welcome the fact that the FCA is looking closely at what action might be necessary on overdrafts, considering the twin objectives of enhancing competition and protecting customers. That is why, in the light of the CMA’s recommendations last November, the FCA launched a consultation on high-cost credit, including high-cost, short-term credit—payday loans—and overdrafts. The FCA’s call for contributions remains open for another week—until next Wednesday, 15 February. I encourage those watching or listening to the debate, or reading it afterwards, to contribute to that, so that the FCA will be fully informed of the variety of opinion.
Today’s debate is timely, in view of that. It has—and I thank the hon. Member for Leeds West for this—attracted quite a lot of press interest; the subject is obviously of interest out in the real world. I am certain that hon. Members’ views will be heard clearly.
Rachel Reeves
I get the idea that the Minister is wrapping up. At the end of my speech, I asked whether he would meet me and representatives of Which? and StepChange. I hope that he will accept that invitation and that the meeting can be arranged soon.
Simon Kirby
I am not quite ready to wrap up yet; I have a few things to say that I am sure the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear. I should be delighted to meet her and representatives of Which? at an appropriate point—the most constructive time, when we can make the most difference. Obviously, while the FCA is considering the matter and the consultation is still open, the appropriate time may not be next week, but I should be delighted to work with her to come up with a solution that benefits everyone.
I think it is safe to say that the Government will be working alongside the FCA to understand the issues in the market. We will continue to do so, to ensure that it has all the appropriate tools at its disposal to take action where problems are identified. We have heard about some of the issues that people face when taking on overdrafts or other forms of high-cost credit. I can reassure hon. Members that the Government will closely monitor the work of the FCA in looking at that area. I am sure that the views expressed by hon. Members this morning will be taken into consideration as the regulator carries out its work.
We in the Government will also continue our efforts, complementing the work of the FCA. We have taken steps to encourage competition, to support credit unions and to improve financial education. The Government will, through that comprehensive approach, continue to take steps to make sure that British customers have quality choices, good information and strong protection.
It may be helpful if I say, in closing, that the CMA is not the final word in competition. There are important areas outside the scope of its work and the Government will keep a keen eye on the entire area. The Government will take the necessary action to ensure that our banking sector is not only the most competitive and innovative in the world, but fair.
Question put and agreed to.
National Shipbuilding Strategy
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I stand before you with the sense that we have been here before, and indeed we have. It is déjà vu on a grand scale, because at Defence questions, during Westminster Hall debates, in answers to urgent questions and in ministerial statements, the Government have had the chance to put at rest the minds of the various parties interested in the shipbuilding strategy. Yet again, we find ourselves hoping that the Minister will give us something more than the usual scorn sometimes reserved for SNP Members.
Any time I tire of waiting for answers, I simply remind myself that many people have been waiting much longer, whether they be the men and women who serve us in the Royal Navy or those in the yards on the Clyde and at Rosyth. That is not to mention the average taxpayer, who demands nothing more from the Government than that their money is well spent on equipment that actually works and the assurance that the Government are doing their utmost to fulfil their most basic duty—defending our homeland.
In 2021, it will be two decades since HMS St Albans slipped from Yarrows on the Clyde and became the last-of-class Type 23 frigate, meaning that the state that has always prided itself on being a maritime power will not have built a single frigate for the best part of 20 years. Furthermore, as the first-of-class Type 23, HMS Norfolk, left that same shipyard in 1990, it found that the mission for which it had been specifically designed had all but ended. It is quite incredible that in 2017, we are still unable to see a signed contract to begin the replacement of the Type 23s, which are a cold war platform. No one I have spoken to through my work on the Select Committee on Defence, whether fellow members, academics, shipbuilders, trade unionists or even civil servants, sees that as an acceptable way forward, yet here we are.
Its cold war mission may have ended, but the Type 23 has certainly done all that was asked of it, and more. Let us not forget that the range of tasks the Royal Navy has undertaken in the post-cold war era has dramatically increased, yet paradoxically, as the senior service’s task list is increasing, the number of frigates and destroyers available to it has sunk to an historic low. It is that paradox that I hope the Minister will help me with today. Although the Ministry of Defence has long been able to exploit the convoluted and confusing history of the Type 26s and Type 31s, there is no way to hide its failings. I will make it easy for the Government by posing three straightforward questions that I hope they will take in good faith and respond to appropriately.
First, and most simply, when will we see the national shipbuilding strategy? Secondly, the MOD has made much of 2017 being the year of the Navy, but 2023 is a much more appropriate choice, as that is when the MOD completes the purchase of 24 F-35B planes to fly from the carriers, and when HMS Queen Elizabeth becomes fully operational. Will the Minister reassure us that the Royal Navy will be able to form a fully functioning carrier group with Type 26s, Type 45s and the requisite Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service ships? Thirdly, on a related note, various media outlets have reported in recent days on the bandwidth problems in the procurement budget, which were highlighted in a National Audit Office report. So far as the equipment plan is concerned, how will the shipbuilding strategy ensure that surface naval ships are prioritised in procurement decisions?
When the Government committed to the national shipbuilding strategy as part of the 2015 strategic defence and security review, many of us thought we were reaching the end of a long journey with respect to the modernisation of the Royal Navy. How wrong we were. Early studies of what in 1994 was called the “future surface combatant” certainly thought outside the box. A whole range of options were considered, including a radical trimaran hull design. After a decade, the FSC had become the “sustained surface combatant capability”, which had as many as three designs. It was not a concept that would survive the financial crash. Indeed, by 2009, it was possible for my friend the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who chairs the Defence Committee, to call for a future surface combatant that was as “cheap as chips”. How did we get from as “cheap as chips” to building £1 billion frigates in less than a decade?
I contend that the blame lies squarely at the door of the MOD. One thing has become clear from the numerous conversations I have had with both management and unions at BAE Systems: it is a global company with a world-class workforce that is able to turn its hand to whatever design and specification is provided by the MOD. Up to this point, it has done that. Quite simply, the MOD’s unerring ability to change horses midstream has added to the cost, timescales and uncertainty of the ongoing naval procurement programme.
That continued after the shipbuilding strategy announcement in 2015. The initial reassurances we were given were replaced with disquiet last spring, when no contract for the Type 26s was signed. When The Guardian broke the story in April about potential job losses at the Clyde yards, there was a crushing realisation that, yes, it had happened again. Any hope that a refreshed team in the main building over the summer would lead to clarity on the Type 26 or the shipbuilding strategy did not last long. When the Minister repeatedly assured us in the Chamber that we would see a strategy by the autumn statement, we knew she was using alternative facts. When my colleagues and I on the Defence Committee released a report that concluded
“it is now time for the MoD to deliver on its promises”,
I imagine we already knew that it had no intention of doing so—although I am interested to know if that report played any part in delaying the strategy, or if Ministers simply chose not to tell Parliament of their intentions.
It was not entirely clear, when Sir John Parker’s independent report was announced, whether informing Parliament was part of the original strategy. When the report was finalised, we thought that it would be the formal strategy going forward. There is plenty to agree with in Sir John’s report. Many of its findings chime with my experiences of MOD procurement, namely that there was a
“vicious cycle of fewer and much more expensive ships being ordered late and entering service years later than first planned”,
and:
“The Government must drive cultural and governance changes in Defence that inject genuine pace into the procurement process with a clear grip over requirements, cost and time.”
However, we are now getting to a stage at which the report, far from being too little, too late, is too much, much too late. It will once more allow Ministers to take us around the houses and hope that we forget that they are running out of time to fulfil previous promises made to the House, the Royal Navy and the men and women on the Clyde.
While there is
“no precedent for building two ‘first of class’ RN frigates in one location in the UK”,
there appears to be no real alternative to the Clyde, as I am sure we will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Let us get on with signing the Type 26 contract and ensure that the Type 31 is ready to go as soon as possible.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman shed any light on what the Type 31 is? There have been generalised views of what it will do and what it will be, but I understand that there are no plans and no actual specification. Is the Type 31 not one of those pipedreams that seems to be put out there to reassure the industry, when actually there is a lot of work to be done not only to design it, but to find out where it fits into the broader naval strategy?
Douglas Chapman
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are constantly told that the Type 31s are also for the export market. I have asked parliamentary questions on whether the Government could provide details of their homework on what that export market might look like. I am afraid that, to date, there are no answers. We need to make progress with the information we have, which is why we are questioning the Minister today.
Anyone who has taken an interest in this matter will know that BAE Systems has two possible designs. It is important that we get on with picking one, so that we can ensure—to follow up on the hon. Gentleman’s point —that we have an exportable product that we can take to market. However, we are falling behind. The Franco-Italian Aquitaine class frigates are already in service with La Royale and have been exported to Egypt and Morocco, so we are already missing the export boat with regard to the Type 31s.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend should also note the Danish Absalon class frigates, which have proved to be very versatile, reliable and affordable ships for a valuable ally’s navy.
Douglas Chapman
Of course. That just makes the point that while the Government sit back, dither and try to work out what the strategy might be, we have great examples of other countries—small countries—that are able to export their own products into the markets that they want to serve.
Quite simply, we have been waiting for the future surface combatant, be it the Type 26 or the Type 31, since 1994. Sir John’s report may seek a “sea change” in naval procurement, but the fact is that we had a defence industry strategy in 2005, a 15-year terms of business agreement signed by BAE Systems in 2009 and a consolidated shipbuilding plan for the Clyde, with support from the Government and the trade unions, in 2013. How on earth has it taken the Government so long to get to a strategy? Why do they still not have one by 2017? Surely that is a damning indictment of their competence to run the country. Again, I plead with the Minister: let us get on with it.
My second question for the Minister is about ensuring that when HMS Queen Elizabeth enters service, it will do so with a carrier group worthy of a next-generation Navy. Those carriers—the largest ships ever built for the Royal Navy—are being built on time and on budget in my constituency by the superb workforce in Rosyth. It would be a great disappointment to those workers, those men and women—
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a very important issue. He mentions the aircraft carriers. Let me respectfully advise the Minister that shipbuilding and ship repairs are still very much alive on the Tyne and that my local yard, A&P Tyne, has played a key role in getting those ships on time, within budget and with excellent quality. In the light of John Parker’s report, which identified that commercial yards have a great role to play in supporting traditional naval yards in providing the MOD’s requirements, I ask the Minister to ensure that when any lucrative contracts come forward in the future, commercial yards such as A&P are taken into consideration, bearing in mind their record.
Douglas Chapman
I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is a bit of a non-question for me, but I am sure the Minister will be happy to add it to her extensive list of questions already put.
The ships in Rosyth are the biggest that the Royal Navy has ever built, and various people have been involved in building them from day one and bringing the parts from all areas of the UK to Rosyth, but we must ensure that when those ships sail down the Forth, they are adequately protected. At the moment, I struggle to see how that battle group will fit together.
As I said, although 2017 may be the year of the Navy, 2023 will be far more significant, because in 2023 we will know whether the strategy has done what it set out to do in the first place. By 2023, the initial tranche of 24 F-35Bs should be in place to fly operations from the carriers, and the first Type 26 should be entering service to replace HMS Argyll, which will be the first Type 23 to leave service.
The Defence Committee highlighted the question of the carrier group in our November report and I hope we will press the Minister further on it, but quite simply the Government are running out of time to uphold their end of the bargain. Quite honestly, I am not holding my breath.
I expect many right hon. and hon. Members will talk today about the state of the Navy, but going over some of the history again might be worthwhile. At the time of the infamous Nott report, the Royal Navy had 60 frigates and destroyers, and even by the end of the Falklands conflict, it still had 50. In the 1998 strategic defence review, long after the cold war had ended, a floor of 32 ships was constructed. However, the Government now crow about their commitment to 19 frigates and destroyers.
Even as we move to an era of fewer and more powerful ships, 19 is still too low a number and has seen the UK fail in many of its commitments to its allies. I am not alone in finding it unacceptable that the UK has often been unable to provide a ship for NATO’s standing maritime groups; that we had to miss the recent anniversary celebrations of the New Zealand navy because a suitable ship was not available; and that offshore patrol vessels are having to fill in on tasks relating to the fleet ready escort and the Royal Navy’s presence in the Caribbean.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the 75th-anniversary celebrations for the royal navy of New Zealand. In November, our allies the United States, Canada and Australia sent ships to the international naval review—even Tonga and the Cook Islands sent ships to the naval review—but the United Kingdom Navy sent nothing. That is not exactly the best start to a brave Brexit diplomatic offensive, is it?
Douglas Chapman
Again, I cannot help but agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a very valid and good point, but if our backs were to the wall and we needed to provide ships for NATO, that would be a much more serious commitment that the UK would have to make. If we do not have enough ships to fulfil those commitments, that is even more concerning.
I said that the current fleet was 19 in number. Two ships, HMS Diamond and HMS Lancaster, are being used as training ships, so that reduces the number from 19 to 17 usable frigates and destroyers.
I hope that the Minister will break the habit of a lifetime today and actually give us the answers to the questions that we have asked. Quite simply, the Royal Navy and the carrier programme demand that. It starts with a contract for the Type 26 programme being signed, so let me reintroduce an old slogan: “We want eight and we won’t wait!” If we were to add anything to that, it would be that we cannot afford to wait any longer.
I hope that the Minister can also answer my last question. How can we ensure that surface shipbuilding does not suffer as a result of the proliferation of big-ticket items going through the order book over the next decade? The headline from Monday’s Financial Times says it all: “Spiralling cost of UK defence projects signals hard choices”. I raised this issue at the most recent Defence questions. With the years 2020 to 2023 being the most critical in the equipment procurement plan, I fear what Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute highlighted in the FT article:
“the historic response at MoD has simply been to push programmes to the right and allow service dates to slip.”
That story followed last month’s excellent National Audit Office report, which highlighted, among other things, that the “headroom” used to account for any potential overspend had already been spent. The report stated that
“any further capability requirements during the lifetime of the Plan period will have to be met through a reprioritisation”.
I know that all those situations put the Minister in a really difficult position, but the clear questions that I must ask again are these. When will we see the national shipbuilding strategy? Can the Minister assure us that, by 2023, the Royal Navy will be able to form a fully functioning carrier group, with Type 26s, Type 45s and the requisite Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships? Finally, how will the shipbuilding strategy ensure that surface naval ships are prioritised in future procurement decisions? Let us hope that today we get some answers and that 2017 does become the year of the Navy, not the year that the Navy wants to forget.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
Order. I remind everyone that the winding-up speeches will start at half-past 3. That should give Members an idea of how much time they have to speak.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) on securing this very important debate. He raises some very interesting points. Certainly I have been trying to get answers to them through parliamentary questions, but we are getting the usual stonewalling from the Ministry of Defence, which has become a habit in recent times.
The important thing is to ask this question: what is the status of Sir John Parker’s report? It was announced in the 2016 Budget, which stated:
“The government has appointed Sir John Parker to lead the national ship building strategy, which was confirmed in the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015.”
It also stated that the report would be published in the autumn of 2016, which in MOD-speak means anytime between December and the following June. The press release stated that it was a Treasury-led, not a MOD-led review. That is important. It was announced by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) when he visited Portsmouth naval base.
The report was published, strangely, not as a Government report but as Sir John Parker’s own report. The jungle drums in the MOD tell me that there was a bit of concern about whether the Secretary of State would put his name to this report, and he decided not to. That has left the report in limbo in terms of what influence and status it will have in the forward thinking about not only our naval shipbuilding strategy, but our wider industrial strategy.
I am also concerned about how this matter fits into broader defence industrial strategy. I asked the Minister on 12 January when we would publish a defence industrial strategy, only to be told that there are no plans to publish a separate defence industrial strategy, but that the national shipbuilding strategy—Sir John Parker’s report—would be added into a broader cross-Government piece of work on industrial strategy. That is important because we have basically abandoned having a separate industrial policy and strategy in this country. That is important because of the jobs that are relied upon and the important capabilities that we need in this country. The Government seem to have just mashed that into the rest of wider industrial policy.
A basic question needs to be asked about shipbuilding: do we want sovereign capability to produce complex warships in this country—yes or no? It is a very simple question that the Government need to answer to give reassurance about the future of the jobs—which the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife raised—and the technical expertise. The problem is that people look at a warship and think that the bulk of the cost and expertise has been met on the outside. It has not. The main value and technology in it are the skills that go into designing it and into systems integration. Our supply chain goes way beyond the Clyde—there is a national footprint of companies in leading-edge technologies. We need to ask whether we want those skills in this country or whether we will just buy from abroad.
When I was first involved in shipbuilding in the late 1980s, the then Government competed at different yards. We had Swan Hunter, Yarrows and Cammell Laird around the country and the Government used to compete contracts between them. At the end of the day, it was pork barrel politics as to who got the contract and that ultimately meant that Swan Hunter closed. Clearly, the strategy after that was to concentrate complex warship building in one yard. That made absolute sense. That one yard is on the Clyde, whether we like it or not. There is no other way of doing it.
The concern I have about Sir John Parker’s report—there are some points in it that I agree with—is that it is a bit naive. It has looked at building the carriers, which are on a huge scale in terms of block modular build, and then more or less said that we can start building Type 26s and others in a modular format. Well, I am sorry but I do not think we can—no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn). These ships are on a different scale. We need one yard to do the integration—the actual build. The idea that we are going to build them around the country to try to get some competition goes back to an argument we had in the late 1990s. I come back to the basic question of whether we actually want complex warship building in this country.
The issue is not just the capability. There is naivety among some people who think that they can order these ships like ordering their next car. They decide what colour they want, go to the showroom and say, “I will have a blue one and we will have a yellow one next year.” That is not how this happens. These are very complex warships and pieces of defence equipment. We need to retain not only the technological capability but the skill base in the yards and in industry, and we need a drumbeat of work going through to ensure that we do that. A classic example of when we got that wrong is when the Conservative Government in the 1990s took us out of submarine building. That led to all the problems we had trying to regenerate the capacity in Barrow for the Astute programme. Unless we keep that drumbeat going, we will get into a situation whereby we cannot rely on the fact that when we need a complex warship, there is one there to be delivered. We cannot turn these skills and capabilities on and off like a tap when they are needed.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
One of the real dangers is exactly what the hon. Gentleman describes. As the yards in Glasgow await the commencement of the Type 26 project, engineers—highly skilled workers who can work in many different fields—will not wait around forever.
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The issue is not just about generating the skills in the first place—the key investment that companies need to make in apprenticeships and other things. This is now an international market. There are perhaps engineers working on the Clyde who, if there is no work, will move elsewhere in the world. In some cases, they will not come back to the industry. We found that with the Astute programme; nuclear engineers left and trying to get them back, or regenerating those skills and expertise, was very difficult.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point. Critically, the Canadian suppliers were actually in Glasgow the other week looking for such people to take to north America.
Mr Jones
Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. This is an international market and these skills are very sought after. This comes back to my point that if we want this capability in the UK, we have to nurture and protect it and the only way to do that is by having a throughput of work.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife raised the issue of the Type 26. The delay is adding to that uncertainty. The wider piece really concerns me. To give the impression that we are going to have that drumbeat of work, we have had the Type 31 inserted into the programme. I have studied in detail to try to find out what the Type 31 actually is; no one has been able to tell me yet. It is a bit like the mythical unicorn—everybody thinks it exists, but no one has ever seen one. If the MOD can say that there is a budget line for it, it should please identify that—in the current procurement there is no budget line for it at all in the programme.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Was the hon. Gentleman concerned, as I was, to read in an article in The Daily Telegraph a suggestion from a Ministry of Defence source that there is no budget for Type 31s and that they might not even happen?
Mr Jones
As people know, I am a bit of an anorak on this subject and I actually study the MOD accounts, but I still cannot find where this budget line is. Another point that has never been answered is what this ship will actually be used for. I am not sure where it fits into any naval strategy. Will it be able to meet, for example, Britain’s NATO capabilities? Will it have capability to fulfil those roles? If it has not got the air defence capability, it will not. The other thing that people have completely missed is that this is about not just building the ship, but running it afterwards. We all know that there is a crisis in recruitment and manpower in the Royal Navy. Again, where is the budget line for not only building but running this generation of ships?
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife makes a very important point. The Government say that the great thing about the ships is that they are exportable; I am sorry, but we are bit behind the game on this. He rightly identifies at least two other nations that have product out there.
There is another point about strategy. This is about not only skills but the defence of our country, because if we have the gap between the Type 23s going out and the Type 26s coming in, there will also be a gap in the nation’s capability. I understand that there is an ongoing extension programme for some Type 23s, but we need clarity, because if there is a gap, we will not be able to protect the carrier groups or some of our other capabilities.
That leads me to the wider piece about the Government’s strategy in this area. The Prime Minister argues that she is batting for Britain and that Britain is the key market, but we have a situation in which the Ministry of Defence, obviously leant on heavily by the Treasury, is happy to have multimillion-pound contracts with the United States—the Apache and P-8 contracts, to name just two—with no commitment whatever that proportionate workshare will come back to the UK economy. I asked the Minister a written question about the Apaches, and I think Boeing said that 5% of the programme’s value will come back into our supply chain. That point is important not just for the number of jobs, but to keep the capability that we need in this country. I cannot imagine for one minute the United States doing something similar, even before President Trump took office, and things will get even worse now. Exporting highly paid jobs and capability from this country is inexcusable. I do not want to see the same thing happening in shipbuilding, so that we will perhaps just buy ships off the shelf from the United States or anywhere else.
A few weeks ago I asked the Minister in a parliamentary question what she was doing to monitor whether Boeing, for example, would put enough jobs into the economy. She fudged the answer, saying, “We don’t monitor this area.” I am sorry, but that is inexcusable. What really irritates me is that if a British company sold a piece of defence kit to the United States of America, there is no way that we would not have to give guarantees about workshare and jobs in the United States. My fear is that without joined-up thinking on shipbuilding, if we are not careful, a time will come when the Treasury says, “Isn’t it cheaper just to buy these from abroad—from the United States or somewhere else?” We would then lose not only the sovereign capability that is so important to this country, but the skill base and jobs that come with that.
I come to my final point. It is about time that the Ministry of Defence fessed up that it has a huge problem, which is only partly of the MOD’s making, because this is actually a Treasury issue. The National Audit Office report is clear about the procurement budget. The Ministry of Defence is falling into an old habit—as a former Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I know this is easy to do—of just pushing the budget sideways, which is what has happened with the defence budget. However, there are other pressures on the day-to-day in-service budgets. Ships are being laid up, for example, because the cash is not available to run in-service services. In addition, there is a huge black hole—it was highlighted in the NAO report—that the MOD has to deal with. We are not talking about separate money; it will have to find £8 billion over the next 10 years for the defence estate. All that falls within the defence budget, so if does not come out of one place, it will come out of another.
The Government need to be honest about where they are with the equipment budget. The Opposition got lectures from the incoming coalition Government about how frugal they would be, in terms of ensuring that they did not over-commit on defence, but they are clearly doing that now. The shipbuilding strategy needs to be published soon. If we are going to answer yes to the question, “Do we want a sovereign capability for shipbuilding in this country?”, we will have to put the money behind it and ensure that the work is of a nature that allows the industry to develop its skills and retain that capability.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and to have listened to his technical expertise in this area. I very much appreciated his speech and particularly his support for the Clyde shipyards. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) on securing the debate, and it is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans.
I shall start, as the hon. Member for North Durham did, with the extraordinary process regarding the strategy. He is not the only one who thought that Sir John Parker’s report would be the national shipbuilding strategy; I and other hon. Members of the House did too, as did trade unions and the defence industry.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The Minister said that a signed copy would be sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), but we are still waiting for it. Clearly that means that the actual statement has not been produced.
Chris Stephens
I remember that exchange, and there was clearly confusion about the report. I also find it extraordinary that although Sir John Parker’s report was sent to the Ministry of Defence on 3 November 2016, this is the first opportunity that hon. Members have had to discuss it in detail. In November or December, there should have been a debate, or a series of debates, on the report, so that hon. Members could give their views on it and feed into the process. I shall come to that later.
I was very concerned when it was pointed out to me that on 2 January in The Daily Telegraph—not necessarily a newspaper that I subscribe to—MOD sources were not only saying that there is no budget for the Type 31, but that it will not happen and the plan will not be realised. We need to go back to the former Prime Minister’s announcement on the Clyde in my constituency in 2014, when he promised that 13 Type 26 frigates would be built on the Clyde. We were then told that there would be eight Type 26 frigates and five general-purpose frigates. As the hon. Member for North Durham outlined, we do not know exactly what that capability is, but we were told, “It’s okay; relax, because eight plus five equals 13.” We are still awaiting the final sign-off, not only for the eight Type 26 frigates but for the five general-purpose frigates. I hope that the Minister will tell us, if there is indeed a budget for Type 31 frigates, what it is and what the procurement timetable is for Type 26 and Type 31 frigates.
Douglas Chapman
If what my hon. Friend is saying is anywhere near the truth and the Type 31s will not exist, what does that say about the drumbeat for Govan and Scotstoun?
Chris Stephens
I would be very concerned about that, and I will come to the effects of that later. Sir John Parker’s report is an honest attempt to end the “feast and famine” procurement processes by the Ministry of Defence that have often plagued the shipbuilding industry. If any other public services carried out procurement processes in the way that the Ministry of Defence does, there would be uproar in the streets—imagine if it was equipment for the health service or education, and so on.
I am pleased that Sir John Parker’s report also recognises the capability and skills of shipyard workers on the Clyde—in my constituency, in the Govan shipyard, and in Scotstoun, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan)—working on digital technology adapted from the automotive sector and with new working practices that have increased productivity. It is an honour and a privilege to represent them in this Parliament. The shipyard workers are also supported by trade unions and are represented at shop-floor level by representatives who have campaigned tenaciously over the years to ensure that future work is secured. Any announcements that come from the Government are a victory for them more than anyone else. However, as someone who had family members in Yarrows who were made redundant under a Tory Government, I always view such commitments from this Government with suspicion when it comes to shipbuilding.
Sir John Parker’s report also recognises that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships should be assembled in the UK. It really is a nonsense that that work has been farmed out elsewhere. I would hope that Rosyth, to cite one example, would have that opportunity. Failure to ensure that Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships are built in the UK will make the report fall at the first hurdle. An award to a UK yard for Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships would demonstrate that the Government are serious about ensuring that an export model can be achieved and that investment in technology can be kept.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
My hon. Friend is talking about Type 31s, but given the fact that the Secretary of State and also the leader of the Conservative party in the Scottish Parliament have said that there will be work on the 13 Type 26s, where is that guarantee from the Government?
Chris Stephens
I hope we will get that today. I hope the Minister will give us that commitment.
There is one fatal flaw, however, in Sir John Parker’s report, which needs to be tackled. His assumption that there is no precedent for building different first-class naval ships concurrently is wrong. In the 1990s, Yarrow shipyards were building and constructing Royal Navy ships as well as exporting ships to Malaysia. This precedent was envisaged by the Clyde shipyard taskforce in 2002, chaired by the then Scottish Executive Minister, Wendy Alexander, and the former Scottish Office Minister, Brian Wilson, which ensured that the Govan shipyard was responsible for the steelworks and that Scotstoun was to become the centre for excellence.
There is therefore reason to argue that Govan could construct the Type 26 frigates and Scotstoun could develop the new Type 31 frigate, using the specialist design capability to ensure that it could be exported to other countries. Such technical expertise to carry out the work is already there on the Clyde, but it will require investment. MOD pressure not to invest in the frigate factory—promises that led to the demolition of the covered berth and module hall at Scotstoun—has meant that we still have a constrained capacity and that the full potential for shipbuilding on the Clyde has not yet been realised. I want to hear from the Government about progressive plans with respect to shipyard reconstruction to unlock significant long-term advances and savings for the industry so that it can win more orders, not only here but from overseas.
Sacrifices have been made by shipyard workers on the Clyde. Let us not forget that to get to where we are now, workers on the Clyde took redundancy to ensure that the rest would be kept and that they would be match-fit to build the 13 Type 26 frigates. I hope that today the Minister will confirm procurement processes for the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates. The trade unions have said that failure to ensure that the Clyde leads on the general-purpose frigates would be a betrayal.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Evans. I am conscious of the time and will make sure that we all get a chance to participate.
I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) for bringing the issue forward today. He spoke very well, as he always does. He has been an advocate for shipbuilding across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where we are all better together, as I often say, Mr Evans—I am sure that in this case you would probably say, “Yes, you’re probably right on that.” [Laughter.] I digress slightly, Mr Evans; I apologise for doing so.
This is an issue that I have given much thought to and had much discussion about, having just come off the Select Committee on Defence. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) here. He took over my position on the Defence Committee and is already much involved in the issues. It is good to see him here and involved in the work on that Committee.
We have what is undoubtedly the finest Navy in the world. That is a recognised fact. That is no surprise, given that we are a small group of islands. At one stage we were described as the empire on whom the sun never set, as we controlled so much of the world. Our Navy was a major reason for that and our Navy retains a major role in the strength of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland today.
A strong army needs a strong fleet, and this is where the national shipbuilding strategy must play its part in the process. These are the facts: the Ministry of Defence is in the middle of an ambitious recapitalisation programme for its naval surface fleet. The Government plan to spend some £19 billion over the next decade on surface ships for the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
The Royal Navy designates a class of frigates and destroyers as a Type. The Navy has a fleet of 13 frigates, all Type 23s, which will begin to leave service from 2023 onwards. Hon. Members who have spoken so far have expressed concern—it is my concern as well—about the delays and the timescale, and about the quantity and numbers as well. We look to the Minister today for a response that can put our minds at ease and allay our fears.
Plans to replace the fleet changed significantly in 2015, when the Government dropped proposals to replace it on a one-to-one basis with the yet-to-be-built Type 26 frigates. Only eight Type 26 frigates will be ordered, and a new class of general-purpose frigate, unofficially known as the Type 31s, will be developed. We spoke on the topic of the Type 26 in October, and my stance today is as it was then, when I said:
“It is my desire...to see the new British fleet built in Britain. As we have said, we are marching to the steady drumbeat of orders, and that must be the way we move.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 308WH.]
Hon. Members have suggested that although the drumbeat of orders is on paper, we need to have it confirmed and the timescale needs to be in place.
BAE Systems is the prime industry partner for naval warships and submarines. I welcome the Government’s confirmation that the steel is to be cut on the Type 26 in summer 2017, although as the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said earlier, summer can develop into autumn—or indeed winter, whatever the case may be. The work will be at BAE’s two remaining shipyards, both located on the Clyde. Again, I can say it is within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I welcome the commitment, but the Government have not gone far enough and there is much uncertainty about what the highly anticipated report will bring.
I read an interesting report—Members have referred to it—on a website called Save the Royal Navy. Its opinion on the Parker report states:
“On 29th November Sir John Parker’s report to inform the UK National Shipbuilding Strategy...was published. Commissioned by the Treasury, exasperated with decades of continual delays and cost increases to warship construction, the report is concise and written in clear layman’s language. The 34 recommendations are eminently sensible and the report has generated at least temporarily, a warm and fuzzy feeling of consensus and optimism.”
That is a positive response looking towards the future. However, that report goes on to say:
“Amongst independent observers there is cynicism about whether any of the recommendations of the report will be implemented at all. Most of the issues highlighted have long been known but nothing has been done for years. By commissioning the report, the Treasury has at least created a roadmap to escape the current shipbuilding malaise which will be difficult to ignore.”
Perhaps the Minister will respond to that. The report continues:
“It is now up to government to properly fund, endorse and enforce the recommendations when it formulates and implements the actual shipbuilding strategy next year. Should those in power be bold enough to do so, it would go a long way to reviving the RN and have great benefits to UK industry.”
This is exactly the phrase we want to see:
“It is now up to government to properly fund, endorse”
and fulfil the recommendations—and, I would say, their obligations as well. That is why we are here this afternoon. These are matters of national importance and we need to impress upon our Ministers, particularly the Minister who is here, the importance of implementing the review and incorporating the recommendations for shipbuilding for our Navy.
We do not always get full details from the Library, but on this occasion we have oodles of information, which has been very helpful to inform our speeches. One thing that has not been mentioned is the issue of logistics ships. We have heard much about frigates, but I want to mention logistics ships on the record, because—the Minister will know this—it seems that South Korea is going to build them, and I want to know: why are we not building them here? I mean no disrespect to South Korea—it has a lot to do and is very expert in what it does—but I would like our people to have the opportunity.
There has been a suggestion that conversions from commercial shipping might be the right solution. If it is the solution, let it happen at home, using our own shipbuilding expertise. We have shipbuilders throughout the UK and they must benefit from Government contracts. A Ministry of Defence principle ensuring that only home firms get the work is a must. It is important to entire communities that rely on the work and the money. More importantly, however, we do not ask for ships to be built only to save jobs; we need those ships for the security of the nation. Sometimes that point is lost in the debate. We are thinking about the security of the nation, to make sure that we are okay. We have a duty and responsibility. I should like to say that I have every confidence—provided that the Minister gives a good response today. We must impress on her how vital it is to have a strong, fully functioning Navy. That can happen only with proper frigates and the right types of ships.
I implore the Minister to set our minds at ease and ensure that the report takes into consideration all that has been said, in the valuable contributions made by all Members to the debate. Certain things cannot be scaled back, and one of those is our defence capability. The Navy is an essential component of that, which must be recognised in the forthcoming national shipbuilding strategy. I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife for setting the scene, and all other hon. Members who have spoken. We look to the Minister for the response that we need.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) on securing this important debate. The timing could not be better, given the revelations about the cost of UK defence projects in all forces, not only the Navy. I want to raise two points. The first is about our priorities. They are set in the national security strategies and should flow into the strategic defence and security review and the Government’s priorities in this area. The second is the effect of the recent National Audit Office report on procurement for large defence projects and the affordability of the national shipbuilding strategy that we anticipate.
The national security strategy and the SDSR should inform the procurement process and, because of that, the national shipbuilding strategy. However, there seems to be a logical inconsistency in how that is applied. In paragraph 75 of the SDSR, the Ministry of Defence is quoted as saying that the document will
“determine priorities for investment to ensure that the UK has a full suite of capabilities with which to respond to defence and security threats”.
Page 67 identifies the three tiers of domestic and overseas risks, grading them as tier 1, 2 or 3 threats,
“based on a judgement of the combination of both likelihood and impact.”
Taking that at face value, the National Security Council has identified terrorism, international military conflict, cyber, public health, major natural hazards and instability overseas as the tier 1 threats facing the UK. That exercise having been undertaken, one would have thought the resources would follow the perceived threats and their perceived likelihood, but that does not seem to be the approach followed by the Ministry of Defence, particularly in the present case.
Douglas Chapman
Does my hon. Friend feel that the amount of resource going into the Dreadnought programme is skewing all other budgets and making the Minister’s job of preserving our surface ship fleet much more difficult?
Steven Paterson
Yes, I think that is a concern that many of us have—that the priorities identified in the risk assessment done for the document I have quoted are not being followed in Government spending. Perhaps that is why there has been delay after delay in the project.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that the Dreadnought programme is putting money into the Scottish economy? A success story in that regard is that Babcock is doing the missile tubes at Rosyth.
Steven Paterson
If we are going to take the SDSR process seriously and look at the assessment of what we need for the defence of the country, we must deal with tier 1 threats first—that is why they are tier 1 threats. Clearly, if we are to meet the threats identified, the shipbuilding programme is essential.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) noted, the Government promised that 13 Type 26 frigates would be built on the Clyde, then revised that substantially, to eight, with five multi-purpose frigates. At paragraph 90 of its report on the 2% level of spending by the Government, the Defence Committee correctly identifies the risk to the Type 31 programme:
“Should...the ‘concept study’ to investigate the potential for a new class of lighter, flexible general purpose frigate be unsuccessful, we wish to be informed at the earliest opportunity of the MoD’s contingency plans to deliver the extra ships to satisfy the total originally promised.”
The Government’s response to those concerns merely indicates a willingness to keep the Committee informed. We are looking for some more concrete answers from the Minister today. Furthermore, we still await confirmation that the frigates will be built on the Clyde. Should that not occur, it will be a betrayal of the Clyde workers, as my hon. Friend said. They would be entitled to feel betrayed; it would threaten the yards’ capacity to deliver complex warships in the future and would undermine the UK’s ability to meet the challenges identified in its own national security strategy and the SDSR.
My second concern is that the shipbuilding strategy will not be affordable. I am concerned that there will be further backtracking on the commitments. It is fine to have a strategy, with many large new procurement projects, but if there is no money to actualise the strategy, what is the point in the exercise? According to the National Audit Office’s report “The Equipment Plan 2016 to 2026”—which the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), among others, has already alluded to—the price of the plan has ballooned by 20%, to £82 billion, in a single year. That means that the Department has allocated all headroom previously set aside in the plan, removing all the flexibility to accommodate additional capability requirements. That is why we need reassurance today.
Given that the Type 26 project started at a projected cost of £343 million per hull, according to the 2015 major projects report, and is now £1 billion per hull, according to oral evidence to the Defence Committee, the MOD does not have, and never has had, a proven track record of acquiring big-ticket items on time and on budget. Rather than dealing with those pressures in the past, it has pushed the programmes further down the list and allowed service dates to slip, exactly as has been described today.
Steven Paterson
The hon. Gentleman must have read my mind, because I am coming on to say that point 18 of the NAO report summary states:
“Changes in foreign exchange rates, such as those that happened after the EU referendum, can pose a significant risk to the Plan’s affordability in the future. As at 10 January 2017, the pound was 21.4% below the exchange rate with the US dollar and 4.2% below the exchange rate for the euro used in the Department’s planning assumptions. Approximately £18.6 billion of the Plan is denominated in US dollars and £2.6 billion in euros over 10 years.”
That will have a major impact.
I understand that the Department has a certain amount of protection against foreign exchange rates in arranging its finances, but does it not worry the Minister that such a large amount of the plan is predicated on foreign exchange rates, with the Government appearing to be gambling that the rate will not go up further? Given the Government position that economists cannot be trusted, which is what many current Ministers said during the recent referendum—and going by even a cursory look at the financial predictions before Brexit—can we really have any confidence that the envisaged programme can be afforded? That is why we need reassurance today.
The shipbuilding strategy is long overdue and, given the current state of the Department’s books, it is badly needed to provide clarity for those working in shipbuilding and those monitoring our national defence readiness going forward.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong but, to take F-35s as an example, they are 85% built in the United States, and therefore bought in dollars. That is critical when we reflect on the impact of the fall in the pound compared with the dollar.
Steven Paterson
Absolutely. That illustrates the point very well. I hope that the Minister will reassure us today about the Type 26 programme and the Type 31 programme, about the ships being built on the Clyde as promised, and on the affordability of the shipbuilding strategy that the Government will hopefully soon present. Finally, I hope that by the end of the debate we shall know with certainty when the overdue shipbuilding strategy will be published.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) for securing this important debate.
I am pleased to see that all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are represented here today, but I have to ask: with the honourable exceptions of the Minister and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), where are all the Government Members? On the day we debated the royal yacht Britannia, one could not get one’s nose through the door for Government Members wishing to contribute. Yet here we are, discussing the national shipbuilding strategy, and apart from the honourable exceptions I mentioned, not a single Government Member is here to take part or even listen.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife; as always, he has hit the nail on the head. I join him in seeking an assurance from the Ministry of Defence that it will be able to form the functioning carrier group that he mentioned. I also join him in seeking a cast-iron guarantee that the building of surface ships will not suffer as the big-ticket items begin to come on to the books over the next decade or so. I look forward to the Minister addressing those questions.
I recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson), who questioned—rightly, in the light of the National Audit Office report—how the Government intend to pay for this equipment, given that we have been told that there is no headroom whatever, the contingency funds have gone and the costs are ballooning.
I commend the tenacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who has been a tireless campaigner on behalf of the shipbuilders of his constituency and of workers the length and breadth of the country. I hope the Minister was listening carefully when he articulated the fears of workers on the Clyde at Scotstoun and Govan.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was correct to refer to the status of Sir John Parker’s report. We were told that the strategy would be delivered; then, after it was not delivered, we were told that Sir John Parker’s report was merely for information. I would like to know when that was decided—I will return to that point in a moment. The hon. Gentleman also raised the vital question of the status of the Type 31s. I hope that the Minister will clarify the exact role that the Type 31s will play. Will she give cast-iron guarantees that they will actually happen?
My hon. Friends the Members for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) raised an incredibly important point: the delays and uncertainty caused by holding back the national shipbuilding strategy are in danger of producing a skills flight from Scotland, particularly from the Clyde. As we have heard, Canadian shipbuilders are already advertising locally in and around Glasgow, promising jobs in Halifax, Nova Scotia. That is deeply worrying.
The contributions from Scottish National party Members can be summed up with a single question: when will the Government finally publish the national shipbuilding strategy? As so many of us have said, it has been much discussed in this House. It has been talked about, promised and threatened; as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire said, we were even told on one occasion that it had actually been published, only for it to disappear again. The hon. Member for North Durham described the national shipbuilding strategy as a unicorn, and in many ways he is right. However, I tend to look at it as the Maris Crane or the Mrs Mainwaring of UK politics—a central character in a long-running series who is much talked about and around whom entire storylines may be based, but who is never, ever seen. Sadly, while Maris Crane or Mrs Mainwaring are cleverly constructed comedic devices, the national shipbuilding strategy is descending into farce.
I look forward to the Minister’s attempt to use smoke and mirrors to explain why the House and the people whose livelihoods depend on the report are still waiting for it in February 2017, when it was promised many times that it would be here before the autumn statement. My first memory of the national shipbuilding strategy being promised goes back to 12 September, when the Minister said that it would be delivered in November. In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West on 18 October, she repeated that
“the national shipbuilding strategy will report by the autumn statement.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 318WH.]
There were no caveats, qualifications or stipulations—nothing to suggest that that would not happen. It was a clear and unequivocal promise that the strategy—not a report that would inform the strategy, but the strategy itself—would be delivered before the autumn statement.
The Minister then told me at Defence questions on 7 November that
“the national shipbuilding strategy…will be announced nearer to the autumn statement…I am sure that there will be great news for shipbuilding across Scotland and the whole of the UK.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2016; Vol. 616, c. 1237.]
How would we know? We have never seen the strategy. It has not appeared.
We were given false hope on 12 December when I asked the Minister directly why the national shipbuilding strategy had not appeared, despite all the promises. She told me that I was
“complaining about the lack of publication of a report that has been published”.—[Official Report, 12 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 485.]
She even offered to send me a signed copy of it. Needless to say, signing, gift-wrapping and sending something that did not actually exist proved a step too far, even for the not inconsiderable skills of the Minister.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Has the hon. Gentleman received a copy of it?
Brendan O'Hara
Sadly, it is a will-o’-the-wisp—it does not exist. Perhaps it will come when Brigadoon next appears.
The rest of the country and I remain without the national shipbuilding strategy, signed or unsigned. Five months after the first recorded promise that it would be delivered, we are still waiting. I fully concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that our frustration at being led a merry dance by the Government over the shipbuilding strategy must be as nothing compared with the frustration of the shipbuilding workers and the servicemen and women of the Royal Navy who depend on the strategy for their livelihoods. We may poke fun at the Minister, but let us never forget that we are dealing with people’s lives and people’s jobs. Those people deserve respect, and when their Government say that something will appear on a given date, they should be able to trust that it will.
The Minister has a lot to address in her reply, but I ask her to address the following questions in particular. When will we see the national shipbuilding strategy? Will there be a full carrier group capability in 2023, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked? Can she guarantee that surface shipbuilding will not be squeezed as the cost of Trident soars, the economy shrinks and the pound loses value? What is the status of the Type 31 frigates, as the hon. Member for North Durham asked? Can the Minister guarantee that they will be built? Will she give a timetable for the construction of the Type 26, as she has been asked? Is she aware of the levels of concern that have been caused by these delays, and will she act accordingly?
There is so much about the national shipbuilding strategy that needs to be discussed. At the risk of repeating myself, I am sorry that so few Government Members are here to listen to this vital national debate. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) on securing this debate; it is on a very important subject and, as has been said, it has given us a first opportunity to discuss Sir John Parker’s important report.
I welcome the contributions of Scottish National party colleagues, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who showed his expertise in this area. However, it is a great shame—a crying shame—that there are no Conservative Members of Parliament present, apart from the Minister and, rather belatedly, somebody else who I think has come in for another debate. It is a great shame that we have not had a full Chamber and that we have not all been able to debate collectively what is a fundamentally important issue for this country.
I will focus my comments on the situation regarding the strategy from the Ministry of Defence. My starting point, of course, is what the Government themselves declared in 2015 in their strategic defence and security review. They said that they were committed to maintaining a fleet of 19 frigates and destroyers, and that they intended to complement that force with a new class of lighter and flexible general purpose frigates. At that time, they correctly made the link between the need to develop our national security and the promotion of our domestic prosperity. The Government proudly announced then that a new national shipbuilding strategy
“will lay the foundations for a modern and efficient sector capable of meeting the country’s future defence and security needs.”
In the Budget of 2016, the Government proudly announced that they had appointed the eminent Sir John Parker to lead and write a national shipbuilding strategy, and it was promised that a report would be prepared and presented to this House in 2016.
However, there has been genuine confusion and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to clarify the situation. On 29 November 2016, we had a report from Sir John Parker, but it was not, as we had been promised, the Government’s national shipbuilding strategy. Many people thought that it was—some Ministers thought that it was—but it was not. Instead, we had an “independent report” on the UK’s national shipbuilding strategy from Sir John Parker.
My questions are quite simple. How did that metamorphosis take place; why did it take place; why is there confusion; what contact was there between the different Departments; and who is taking the lead on this issue? Those are very important questions about something as fundamental as the strategy for our future warships, which is not an issue that can be lightly dismissed. I echo what other Members have said: we would all like answers from the Minister about what on earth has happened and what on earth is going on.
Of course, Sir John’s report is very radical and extremely scathing about how things work, or rather do not work, within the Ministry of Defence regarding Royal Navy programmes. The report has a very interesting, informative and worrying chart about the length of time it takes for projects to develop to fruition. For example, Sir John points out that it was in 1967 that the conceptual start of the Type 21 frigates began and they were delivered nine years later. As for the Type 23 frigates, the conceptual start date was in 1978, but it took 17 years for that project to come to fruition. Goodness knows how long it will take for the Type 26 frigates.
Sir John asks why there have been such long delays. Why has this process taken such a long period of time? In some ways, the demands upon the frigates have changed. The world has changed and defence requirements have changed, but there is still that laborious project time before us. Why has that happened?
Chris Stephens
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these delays not only impact on the Royal Navy but on the local economy in Scotland? He may be aware of the GMB report on Scottish shipbuilding and the value of shipbuilding to the Scottish economy.
Wayne David
Indeed, I fully support those points. The situation is very worrying for all concerned, not least the people who are employed in the shipbuilding industry and the local communities from which they are drawn.
Sir John gives a number of reasons why the long delays have occurred. He makes 11 points. I will not go through all of them, but will just pick out some of the reasons he suggests. He says that there has been
“A lack of assured Capital budget per RN ship series, subject to annual arbitrary change, with accumulative negative impact on time and cost with accompanying increased risk of obsolescence”.
That is very worrying. He also says that there have been
“Poor linkages across the ‘Total Enterprise’ including industrial capability and capacity”.
He goes on to say:
“Senior decision-makers have, previously, been engaged too late in the process and not always with high quality information and costing data”.
He adds:
“The MOD has lost expertise in both design and project contract management”.
He says that there has been
“Inadequate evaluation of risk contingency in each project”.
Those are some of the damning reasons why Sir John says there have been delays. I suggest that they are an indictment of the MOD, which really must sort things out once and for all regarding its procurement and governance strategy for warships.
Once the strategy has been written by the Government, when will it be published? I will not ask for the exact day or week, but will it be published in March, April, May, or whenever? We would like some sort of indication. Once it is published, we would like to know what sort of consultation there will be and how long it will last. I ask that because we want to have a full debate on every dot and comma of that important policy document.
I recognise that the Minister will not say very much about what might or might not be in that report. Nevertheless, I have a number of questions for her. First, will the Government sort out, once and for all, their procurement and governance systems for warship construction in this country? There really ought to be a masterplan that should be reviewed at each SDSR, and as part of that approach there should be a partnership with both the industry and the trade unions. As Sir John has suggested, a shipyard trade union representative ought to be appointed to attend regular meetings, to enhance the transparency and efficiency of the processes that are under way.
Secondly, will the Government commit to working with their industry partners and trade unions to enhance the training and educational capabilities and facilities, so that there is the correct mix of skills and competence, particularly with regard to the new digital systems that are coming on stream?
Thirdly, will the Government commit to having a small but highly specialised virtual innovation centre to force through, among other things, advances in design, new materials and productivity improvements? As Sir John has argued, such an innovation centre is necessary if we are to oversee the new “global competitiveness plans”, which I believe the Government want to see being created.
Finally, will the Government commit to placing a greater emphasis on the exporting of British-built ships, as well as British project management, design, equipment and sub-systems? Will they not only engage in general rhetoric, but commit to specifics, as part of a great national effort to ensure not just that British-built ships are used for British defence, but that the expertise in this country is sold for the benefit of navies throughout the world?
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
In the short time available to me—I want to leave a bit of time for the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) to say a few more words at the end of the debate—I will attempt to answer all the questions that hon. Members have put this afternoon, to the extent that I can.
The 2015 strategic defence and security review set out a clear plan for the Royal Navy. For the first time in a generation, we are growing our Royal Navy, and this major programme of investment will increase our nation’s power and reach. There seems to have been quite a lot of discussion in the debate about the exact timings for various different documents. We made it clear in the Budget last year—I will quote the exact wording—that:
“The government has appointed Sir John Parker to lead the national ship building strategy, which was confirmed in the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015. He will report by Autumn Statement 2016.”
In the end, it was 29 November. My office assures me that a copy of the report was sent to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). I am happy to take bids on whether it has been suitably autographed. If he has not received it, he should have, by this stage.
Brendan O'Hara
I have not received a copy. I look forward to a signed copy; it would be far more valuable. If what she is now saying is right, why did she say on no fewer than four occasions that the national shipbuilding strategy will be delivered by the autumn statement? It was unequivocal.
Harriett Baldwin
It is about the distinction between the report and the Government’s publication of the national shipbuilding strategy. A range of people raised this issue, so I make it clear that we are considering Sir John’s recommendations, and we will provide a full response, which will be what we can all call the national shipbuilding strategy. It will be published in spring 2017. I am sure Members will appreciate that I cannot be more precise than that in terms of a specific date.
Chris Stephens
Will the Minister outline the process? A few Members have mentioned that, including the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). Once the Government publish the national shipbuilding strategy and its response to Sir John Parker, what is the process? Who feeds into that response?
Gavin Robinson
In previous engagements at the Defence Select Committee, the Minister has indicated her willingness to travel throughout the United Kingdom to see the other opportunities that are available. Given that the largest dry dock and the second largest dry dock in the United Kingdom are in my constituency at Harland and Wolff, I look forward not only to the Minister visiting, but to formulating plans that can feed in to her final report and considerations.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for an obviously irresistible invitation. I hope I will be able to take him up on it in the not-so-distant future. For the record, I say to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) that I am in Newcastle tomorrow. I look forward to meeting a range of manufacturers. I will not specifically be meeting A&P Tyne on this occasion, but I met A&P in Falmouth only last week.
In the SDSR we announced our plans for a naval programme of investment. We are investing in two new aircraft carriers, which are currently being completed at Rosyth. We are investing in new submarines to be based in Scotland at Faslane. We have announced our plans for frigates. We are building five new offshore patrol vessels on the Clyde at the moment. We have ordered new aircraft, including the maritime patrol aircraft, the P-8, which will be based at Lossiemouth. Scotland is clearly doing well out of defence, and the UK is doing well in defence with Scotland, and 2017 is the start of a new era of maritime power, projecting the UK’s influence globally and delivering security at home. I do not have time in this debate to list all the different ships we have deployed across the world’s oceans.
I know the appetite of Members for publications. They will have all read the 2016 equipment plan, which we published last month. It laid out the plans in more detail and announced that the total amount that will be spent on the procurement and support of surface ships and submarines over the next decade amounts to some £63 billion. It is all part of the continued modernisation of the Royal Navy in the coming years, which will be underpinned by our national shipbuilding strategy. It is very much our intention that the strategy will be a radical, fundamental reappraisal of shipbuilding in the UK, with the aim of placing UK naval shipbuilding on a sustainable long-term footing. It will set the foundations for a modern, efficient and competitive sector, capable of meeting the country’s future defence and security needs.
Mr Kevan Jones
Can the Minister point out in the Budget where the budget line is for the Type 31?
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman will have read the equipment plan. I do not have the exact quote here, but clearly we have a very ambitious equipment plan. We are expecting to spend some £63 billion on ships, support and submarines.
I want to convey to Sir John Parker the thanks of all Members who have spoken today for his excellent report. He is clearly a highly respected expert. Importantly, he has taken an independent approach to the report. He has had a high level of engagement with stakeholders. Members asked about his engagement. He has visited all key industry leaders and all the companies across the UK that design and build ships, including in Northern Ireland. He has visited small and medium-sized businesses in the supply chain. Industry stakeholders were engaged at all levels. He brought strong strategic direction and guidance to the work, for which we are immensely grateful. He also met trade bodies, trade unions, Ministers, civilian and military officials and, indeed, the hon. Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). He has been thoroughly engaged with everyone.
I have not got much time left, so I will speak very briefly about exports, which a range of Members raised. The report makes an important recommendation about exports. We have already started that work, working closely with the Defence and Security Organisation in the Department for International Trade. Members can expect to hear more about that in the coming weeks and months.
The Type 26 programme is a key element of our investment plans. To meet our needs, we require eight to replace the eight anti-submarine-focused Type 23 frigates. Members will be aware that the Defence Secretary announced in November last year that, assuming successful completion of the negotiations, we expect to sign a contract for the first batch of the eight planned Type 26s and cut steel on the first ship this summer. That would give BAE Systems on the Clyde work until the early to mid-2030s. Commercial contract negotiations are intense and ongoing, so I cannot make any more information available to the House today. The investment will sustain shipbuilding skills at the shipyards on the Clyde and continue to provide opportunities in the wider supply chain around the UK. The ships will provide an anti-submarine warfare capability, which is essential for the protection of our nuclear deterrent. SNP Members had a bit of a political pop at me, but they would do well to remember what I have just said. Their two political obsessions—Scottish independence and ending our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent—would be two of the worst things that could befall the Scottish shipbuilding industry.
Briefly on the Type 31e, Sir John recommended that a new class of lighter general purpose frigate should be given priority. He was clear that it should be designed to be exportable, but capable of incorporating the needs of the Royal Navy. A lot of work is under way on that in the MOD. It is in the pre-concept phase, and further information will be made available in the national shipbuilding strategy.
In summary, the MOD is working with colleagues across Government and with industry to examine Sir John Parker’s report and its recommendations in full. I recognise that Members value the shipbuilding jobs in their constituencies, and I assure them that the Government are committed to an industrial strategy that will increase economic growth across the country and refresh our defence industrial policy.
Douglas Chapman
I opened the debate by talking about déjà vu, but the debate has been déjà vu writ large. I asked when we could expect an announcement on the national shipbuilding strategy. There was no reply from the Minister. We asked how the carrier group will be secured when it is at sea. There was no reply from the Minister. We asked whether surface ships would be prioritised in the budget, and again, there was no commitment from the Minister. What we did discuss was whether a signature was on a document. What we really need to see is her signature on contracts to ensure that jobs on the Clyde are safe and secure for the years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the national shipbuilding strategy.
Construction Industry: Blacklisting
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered blacklisting in the construction industry.
This debate relates to a secretive, insidious and shoddy practice that has brought shame on our construction industry. As shadow Secretary of State for Business, I initiated a lengthy debate in the main Chamber on the issue in January 2013. I return to it publicly today because it is my strong view that those who were responsible for it have yet to be properly held to account for their actions and the matter has fallen off the radar in this place. My intention is to put it firmly back on the national agenda.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman support early-day motion 47, which calls for a full public inquiry into the blacklisting practice in the construction industry?
Mr Umunna
The hon. Gentleman must be telepathic because he pre-empts what I will come on to. I will address that issue later.
First, it is important to state that although the issue has brought shame on the construction sector, there is still much to be proud of in the sector—look at the Olympic Park venues, Heathrow Terminal 5 and the new buildings that we see springing up around us on time and on budget in so many different communities. Let us also never forget why the sector is the success it is: primarily because of its construction workers. They build the offices and factories we work in. They build the homes in which we live. As a nation, we owe them a huge debt of gratitude, particularly when we consider those who have lost their lives working on construction sites in this country.
There is also a dark side to the sector—anyone who has worked in it knows this only too well—that leads to good people being subject to the most terrible injustices. As a result, lives have been ruined, families have been torn apart and many have been forced out of the industry.
What am I talking about? What is blacklisting? For the record, it involves systematically compiling information on workers, which is then used by employers or recruiters to discriminate against them, not because of their ability to do the job, but because they have raised health and safety issues or been active trade union members. It has meant that people cannot find work and therefore cannot support their families—they cannot put food on their children’s plates—and the result is all the stress and upheaval that come with that.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about many lives being ruined by the blacklisting of workers. Does he agree that it is time we put on record the work that the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, Unite and the GMB have done in securing settlements for the workers who were treated so badly?
Mr Umunna
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She, too, must be telepathic. Not only am I a member of Unite and the GMB, and proud to be so, but UCATT, which is now part of Unite, is headquartered in the centre of the universe: my constituency. The work that the unions have done is so important. I practised for almost a decade as an employment law solicitor before being elected by my constituents and I have seen injustice in the workplace, but I have never seen injustice on this scale.
The extent of the blacklisting activity in the construction sector was exposed for all to see following the raid in 2009 by the Information Commissioner’s Office on the shadowy and secretive organisation called the Consulting Association. Further details emerged in the last Parliament, during an excellent and extensive inquiry into blacklisting carried out by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) mentioned the work of the unions, and a lot of the evidence provided to that Select Committee was provided by those trade unions, which also worked with the ICO, as well as by the blacklisting support group.
The Consulting Association was born out of a right-wing organisation called the Economic League, which was set up in 1919 to promote free enterprise and to fight left-wing thinking, to which it objected. That included Members of this House. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, had information collected on him. The league, which blacklisted more than 10,000 people, was wound up in 1993, but its construction sector member companies wanted to continue this unforgivable practice and its activities, so the Consulting Association was born.
According to the Information Commissioner, 44 construction companies made up the hall of shame that was the membership of the Consulting Association at the time of the 2009 raid, including five companies in the Amec group, Amey Construction Ltd, six Balfour Beatty companies, BAM Construction Ltd, Carillion plc, Kier Ltd, Laing O’Rourke Services Ltd, Morgan Est and Morgan Ashurst, which are now known as Morgan Sindall, Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd, Skanska UK plc, Taylor Woodrow Construction, and VINCI plc —to name just a few of the companies listed. In 2009, half of the 20 biggest construction companies were all named as being involved in the association.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
Skanska has a base in Pencoed in my constituency. It blacklisted more than 111 workers or families. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning that company for its actions? I echo any statement that he makes calling for a public inquiry, which I fully support.
Mr Umunna
I completely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. Let us put what the Consulting Association was doing into context. It did not just maintain lists and files on thousands of construction workers; the material that it collected included personal information, such as information on workers’ private relationships, in addition to whether they had raised health and safety issues, their trade union activities and so on.
It is worth reflecting on this: member companies were charged a £3,000 annual fee to be part of the Consulting Association and then had to pay £2.20 on top of that for each blacklist check on a construction worker. For the cost of £2.20, the association would be able to dictate whether a worker got a job and whether they could put food on the table that week. Worse still, taxpayers’ money was being used to inflict that misery on people. Blacklisting checks were carried out on workers on publicly funded projects, ranging from airport runways, the Jubilee line, the millennium dome, hospitals, schools, roads and Portcullis House on the parliamentary estate—I could go on.
In addition to the blacklist checks, David Clancy, the Information Commissioner’s investigations manager, who carried out the raid in 2009 and is himself a former police officer, gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee that he believed that some of the information held by the association would have come from the police or security services, because of the nature of that information. I mentioned the private information that was collected—for example, one file features an in-depth analysis of an individual’s home circumstances and what his neighbours thought about him. I have seen some of those records, and it is clear that they contained information based on the surveillance of individuals away from construction sites. It is improbable that such information came exclusively from the construction firms themselves.
What about the legal protections for construction workers and the system of redress for victims? Although it was and remains unlawful to refuse employment on the grounds of trade union membership alone, at the time of the 2009 raid on the Consultancy Association there was not a specific prohibition on blacklisting. Following the raid and the emergence of the blacklist, the Labour Government acted to outlaw blacklisting and introduced the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, which allow individuals to bring civil claims against those found guilty of blacklisting in employment tribunals. If successful, that can lead to compensation of between £5,000 and £65,300. However, the regulations were not retrospective, and there is no criminal sanction. In truth, I believe the Labour Government should have acted much earlier, because that was too late for many victims.
Perhaps more shocking still is the fact that the firms that set up the association and supplied the information to and accessed the blacklist were neither charged with any offence nor ordered to pay compensation to the workers. To date, not one director of any of those companies has been brought to book for what happened. That is an outrage.
In October 2013—shortly after we had the debate on this issue in the main Chamber—a number of construction firms announced that they intended to establish a compensation scheme for workers who had been blacklisted. On the surface, such a move should be welcome, but there are many problems with the Construction Workers Compensation Scheme. It was brought together without reaching prior agreement with the trade unions—which, as I said, have been absolutely critical in all this—and it provides inadequate compensation. Applicants to the scheme are required to waive any future legal claims, and the companies involved do not have to admit liability or give an apology as part of the process. In fact, the workers were able to get a public apology only by dragging the construction firms kicking and screaming through the courts. I again pay tribute to the Blacklist Support Group, some of whose members are here today, which secured an apology from the firms involved in the Consulting Association in the High Court, although many victims feel that the apology was half-hearted and insincere.
Serious questions remain about the role of the police services in the collection and passing of information to the Economic League and the Consulting Association. I know that the undercover policing inquiry chaired by Sir Christopher Pitchford has said that blacklisting is potentially a matter within its scope. That is welcome, but not enough. It should be within the scope of that inquiry. There are many unanswered questions, and we cannot let this matter go.
What am I asking for from the Minister? Let me deal with the law first. As cases have progressed through the courts, it has become apparent that the blacklisting regulations need to be strengthened. For example, the extent to which it is possible for those who are not employed in the strict sense of the word but are self-employed to bring claims under the regulations if they have been refused work is unclear. That is important, because we know that full self-employment is an endemic problem and is rampant in the construction sector. Claims can be brought in employment tribunals or county courts, but the cap on compensation in a tribunal is £65,300. There is no cap in a county court, but to bring a claim in a county court there are added risks for a potential claimant because of the costs involved, and they need more resources. It is easier to do it in an employment tribunal, as there are not the costs consequences, but the claim has to be brought within three months of the alleged unlawful conduct, and sometimes people who have been blacklisted do not realise it for some time.
The upshot of all that is that the only legal remedy for some is a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, based on the right to privacy in article 8 and the freedom of association in article 11. For all those reasons—I could go on, but I will not go back to being a lawyer and bore people—the Secretary of State needs to carry out a review of the law in this area to look at how it might be tightened up.
The second issue is public procurement. I want the Government to adopt the Scottish Affairs Committee’s recommendation that all UK Government agencies and devolved Governments must require firms that have been involved in blacklisting to demonstrate how they have “self-cleaned”, as the Committee put it, before being allowed to tender for future public contracts. Those that have not done so should not be allowed to tender. The Welsh Government have introduced that measure, and I think it should be introduced across the whole of the UK.
There are lots of unanswered questions. Pitchford does not pick up on all of them, and nor do the cases we have seen. Were the intelligence services involved? We need a full public inquiry into this issue because people have not seen justice and we do not know exactly what happened. We cannot allow a climate of fear to hang over our construction sites. No worker on any building or in any other workplace up and down this land should hesitate before reporting an unsafe site or a dangerous working situation. The bottom line is this: if people do not report their concerns and do not highlight dangers, people could lose their lives, so this issue is very serious indeed. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on securing this debate and on speaking with such knowledge and passion about this terrible blight—this terrible indictment of companies in the construction sector, particularly during the 1990s.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that the blacklisting of trade union members and activists is an indefensible practice. What I have heard today really horrified me. However, I think we have an appropriate legislative framework for dealing with any further attempts at blacklisting, which is why we are not in favour of a public inquiry at the moment. Such an inquiry would perhaps have had an effect 20 years ago, and I regret very much that one was not held then.
The Information Commissioner intends to undertake a call for evidence later this year to develop her understanding of the underlying issues, building on her office’s observations from its extensive investigations into blacklisting complaints. In an area where there have been many allegations, that is an important step forward in establishing a true picture of the level of blacklisting that may or may not take place now.
Following the 2009 investigation of the Consulting Association—a case that Members are all too familiar with, thanks to the hon. Gentleman—the Government strengthened the legal protections in this area. The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, make it unlawful for an individual or organisation to compile, sell, use or supply a blacklist of trade union members or those who have taken part in trade union activities. Individuals can enforce the rights contained in the regulations through employment tribunals or the county court, as the hon. Gentleman said.
I am not aware of any evidence that the blacklists regulations are not doing their job, but should any new information come to light to suggest otherwise, we will certainly consider it.
Chris Stephens
In July 2016, the Minister told me in a written answer that the Information Commissioner was investigating some allegations of blacklisting. She committed to consider any further action that might need to be taken as a result. Will she give me an update, please?
Margot James
There is no further update. The Information Commissioner’s Office is undertaking such inquiries and when it reports to me I will consider the contents of what has been found.
The Information Commissioner’s Office is an independent regulatory body that was set up to investigate breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998. It has the power to take enforcement action, including searching premises and issuing enforcement notices and fines. Since April 2010, it has also had the power to issue a civil monetary penalty of up to £500,000 for serious breaches of the Act. That is a significant deterrent and a vast improvement on the previous rules, which allowed a maximum penalty of only £5,000. Data protection law is undergoing reform as a result of the general data protection regulation, which is to take effect on 25 May 2018. The powers of the Information Commissioner’s Office to impose fines will substantially increase as a result.
In 2009, the Information Commissioner’s Office established a fast-track helpline for those who thought that they might have been affected by the Consulting Association case. I congratulate the trade unions mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), which campaigned for and won compensation, and the Blacklist Support Group, members of whom are in the Public Gallery today, on their work on this matter.
When the Information Commissioner’s Office considered that a person might appear on the Consulting Association list, they were asked to provide further documentation. It has continued to run that service and to respond to written requests for information. To date, the helpline has received and responded to about 5,700 calls and 3,000 written requests. The nature of blacklisting is that it is secretive and discriminatory, however, and it can be difficult for individuals to know whether they have been affected by the practice. If people suspect that they have been blacklisted, they can report their concerns to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which will provide advice on how an individual may choose to take the matter further. The Information Commissioner has also attempted proactively to contact individuals who might have been affected, although that is only possible where up-to-date contact details are available.
Mr Umunna
The Minister is coughing so I will intervene to allow her to take a swig of water. While she is doing so, I will ask three questions. First, on a public inquiry, I understand what she says about the history, but the fact that events happened in the past has not stopped other big public inquiries, such as those into Bloody Sunday and Hillsborough. Will she explain why that should stand in the way of a public inquiry into blacklisting? Secondly, does she accept that it is difficult for the self-employed to use the legislative framework?
Finally, will she answer this point that has been made to me by people in the sector: there is a feeling that the Leveson inquiry into media behaviour came about in part because powerful, important people were subject to an abuse of media power and that, because we are talking about construction workers, the Government and the establishment are not taking the blacklisting matter as seriously. What does she say to people with that view?
Margot James
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s third question in a minute. On the second question, the self-employed are covered by the legislation. I accept that it may be more difficult for them to exercise any powers, but they are covered by the Data Protection Act. A self-employed individual may make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
On the more vexed question asked by the hon. Gentleman, there have been public inquiries in the past to do with people without power who have been affected by dreadful instances. That we are talking about a group of workers who are traditionally not very powerful and perhaps do not earn huge amounts of money has nothing to do with the matter. Personally, I think that such individuals are more entitled to protection and safeguarding than the wealthy and powerful.
The compensation on offer is, absolutely, for serious amounts of money. The Information Commissioner’s Office has taken action, and approximately £100 million has been extracted from the industry for a compensation scheme and to satisfy the results of court actions. The matters we are discussing are being taken very seriously.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On the question of a public inquiry, is not the point that much of the information that has come into the public domain has done so in an utterly random way? That is why there is a need for a powerful and systematic examination of whatever evidence might be out there.
Margot James
We are now in a position where compensation and redress are available, and there is an absolute law against anything similar happening again. For the time being, we are not considering a public inquiry because action was taken back in 2010, as I mentioned. The Information Commissioner has also now announced a call for evidence. Pending the outcome of that, we will consider the framework and whether it is still appropriate. For now, no public inquiry is under consideration, but we will see what happens after the Information Commissioner’s call for evidence and its subsequent report.
I encourage anyone who thinks that they might have been blacklisted by the awful Consulting Association and who has not already done so to get in touch with the Information Commissioner’s Office through its helpline. Furthermore, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 prohibits an employer from refusing employment because someone is a union member, so that is illegal. Individuals who believe that they have been discriminated against can, as I said, bring a claim at an employment tribunal. Dismissal for such a reason would automatically be unfair.
I understand the desire for the blacklists regulations to be applied retrospectively, but in 2010 the Government decided that that was not appropriate. The compensation package is available, blacklisting is now against the law and the Government’s response to the consultation was clear about a new, specific criminal sanction not being proportionate. The Government will ensure that any allegations of blacklisting are investigated by the appropriate authorities.
Chris Stephens
Will the Minister say something about potential changes to procurement, as was asked for by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna)? Are the Government minded to look at the procurement rules in that regard?
Margot James
We already have procurement rules that allow the Government not to enter into a contract with a company found guilty of a criminal offence or found wanting in ethical standards. It may well be that blacklisting can be shoehorned into that. Certainly, any company guilty of a criminal offence would not be considered for a public contract under the public contracting guidelines.
I think that I have answered the other points, so if there are no further interventions, I will sit down.
Question put and agreed to.
Private Renting: Homeless and Vulnerable People
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
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered private renting solutions for homeless and vulnerable people.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will talk about the housing problems around the country, but of course every area is different, and I concede that some of the ideas and statistics that I apply to my arguments may help the situation differently in different parts of the country.
The private rented sector is an increasingly important route out of homelessness. When renting works for homeless people, it can be life changing. It is often a huge step towards finding a job, reconnecting with family and rebuilding lives.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the single biggest reason for homelessness in the UK, particularly in London, is eviction from assured shorthold tenancies in the private rented sector?
Richard Benyon
I am well aware that the hon. Lady and her colleagues frequently deal with cases in which people were made homeless for precisely that reason, which is an increasing problem. I will come on to talk about some of those issues, and I hope that the Minister can add some flesh to the bones of the White Paper that was published yesterday and the work that he is doing on tenure with the private rented sector.
Finding a home in the private rented sector can be difficult, and we all know that despite the Government’s welcome move to ban letting agent fees, up-front costs often act as a barrier for people trying to access the private rented sector. Research by Crisis shows that 16% of landlords report increasing the deposit when renting to homeless people, 12% increase the rent required in advance and 15% increase the contractual rent.
By way of example, I want to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Adrian Smith, who runs Swift Logistics in Newbury. He discovered that one of his temporary agency workers had collapsed due to epilepsy, because he was finding it difficult to manage his medication as he was homeless and living in a tent. Adrian stepped in, gave him a clean uniform, offered him a permanent position and talked to him about his situation—things that I am sure he would do for any of his employees who were going through a rough patch. Adrian then started to look for accommodation for that employee. There was very little affordable accommodation in Newbury that suited that individual, and anything that Adrian found was made impossible because once the landlord or his agent discovered that the prospective tenant had debt problems—he had a county court judgment against him—they demanded six months’ rent up front. We can see the vicious circle here. I see some of the ideas put forward by organisations such as Crisis, which I will come on to talk about, as possible solutions to such cases.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My hon. Friend will come on to talk about various organisations that help people with homelessness. Shrewsbury Homes for All in my constituency does a good job of trying to help homeless people. Does he agree that the Government ought to do more to help such organisations?
Richard Benyon
Unless we are extremely hard-hearted, we are all moved not only by the huddled figures in doorways and the cases that come to us of people who are either homeless or likely to be homeless but by organisations in our constituencies such as the one my hon. Friend mentions. It is when those organisations work with local authorities and a Government and all point in the same direction that we can get real solutions to this problem, and I am sure that that happens in his constituency.
The Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research found that 55% of landlords said they were unwilling to let to tenants in receipt of housing benefit, and even more—82%—were unwilling to rent to homeless people. The majority of local authorities agree that it has become more difficult for single homeless people to access private rented accommodation.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. Does he acknowledge that the number of private landlords who turn away housing benefit claimants is partly to do with cuts to housing benefit and the fact that it is more of a struggle for tenants to pay the difference to their landlords?
Richard Benyon
It is for a multitude of reasons, but the hon. Gentleman is right that that factor has contributed in certain areas. I applaud private landlords who take housing benefit tenants. Not all of them do, and they need to be supported in trying to do so. I recognise that that is part of the problem, and some of the solutions that I will talk about go precisely to that point.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The all-party parliamentary group on refugees has found that landlords increasingly are not taking another category of people: newly recognised refugees. They are unable to provide sufficient documentation to prove their status and struggle to get a deposit and first month’s rent in the 28-day move-on period to ensure that they get the tenancy that they deserve.
Richard Benyon
Many local authorities are doing noble work in trying to provide accommodation for the refugees—particularly the Syrian refugees—who we have taken in. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s local authority for doing its best. However, there will be several problems at the next stage, because we want those people to be assimilated into our society, get work and be able to function like any other person. We want to ensure that we have systems in place to allow them to transition from the support that they get at the moment. I have direct experience of that in several areas, and I am keen to talk to him about trying to find longer-term solutions to the issue.
The problem that we are talking about is coupled with the capping of local housing allowance and the shortage of available accommodation at the shared accommodation rate. Those burdens can result in people ending up on the street. However, I believe that there are ways of making the private rented sector work for vulnerable people, and innovative solutions are being delivered every day. Homeless and vulnerable people are being helped and guided into the rental market and, most importantly, given the tools and support that they need to sustain lengthy tenancies. Creative change in the market has the potential to improve not only access but standards in the private rented sector.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
On standards, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is potentially an important role for private rented sector licensing schemes, such as the one in my borough of Newham, in helping to tackle the minority of landlords whose accommodation is below standard?
Richard Benyon
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, whom I respect greatly for his understanding of this problem, says that it exists among a minority of private rented sector landlords. One could have got the impression from yesterday’s statement that nearly every private landlord was a rougue who managed substandard accommodation. As he says, that is far from the truth. I entirely accept that in many cases, local solutions are better suited, but the Government should be given credit for really trying to move things on through a variety of measures, which are sometimes extremely burdensome to landlords but seek to raise the standard of accommodation and improve the way that landlords treat their tenants.
Evidence shows that when a vulnerable person is in secure and safe rented accommodation, they can leave their homelessness behind them and make a fresh start. That also makes good economic sense, which I hope will be a theme of the debate. If we get this right, there will be an entirely virtuous circle. Both the Residential Landlords Association and the National Landlords Association believe that, with the right support, financial risks can be reduced and letting to vulnerable people can be a viable business model. Even if hon. Members forget everything else that I say today, I hope that that will resonate with them. By changing perceptions, we can truly make the private rented sector work for all.
Siobhain McDonagh
How does the hon. Gentleman feel that the private rented sector will become a viable alternative for vulnerable tenants when rental claims under universal credit are taking an estimated nine weeks—in reality, it is three months in my part of south London—to be assessed?
Richard Benyon
I recognise that that is a problem. If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will come on to talk about that. If I do not, I am sure she will intervene again. I very much want to talk about the variety of different factors that influence homelessness.
I want to tell the Minister about two potential solutions that may be of help. A lot of work on this has been done by the homelessness charity Crisis, which I cannot praise enough. It is totally focused on outcomes, working with us, whatever side of the House we sit on, to try to find solutions that work. There is nothing particularly new in the two schemes I am proposing, and they will be familiar to some. The first is a help to rent scheme and the second is a national rent deposit guarantee scheme.
WPI Economics developed a model to assess the cost-benefits of the services over a three-year period and identified that £31 million would be required per annum over that period. That would be made up of £6.7 million for the rent deposit guarantee scheme and £24.1 million for a help to rent project. In a time of cash-strapped Treasury forecasts, I want to show—if the Treasury is listening—that this makes economic sense, because it will reduce the cost of the burden of homelessness that sits on the taxpayer.
From 2010 to 2014, Crisis, with funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government, ran the private rented sector access development programme, which funded specific help to rent schemes across the country, which helped homeless and vulnerable people access affordable and secure accommodation in the private rented sector. I have seen that work in my constituency in a different scheme run by the Two Saints hostel in Newbury, which moves people from the wayfarer beds and being the huddled figures in the doorway I described earlier through to supported accommodation and then on to independent living. That works only because all the complex problems that we know exist in homelessness, particularly in rough sleeping—mental illness, relationship breakdown and alcohol and drug abuse—are dealt with throughout the process, which allows a sustainable solution to each individual’s problems.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I agree with many of the points he has made. However, those people with chronic and enduring mental ill health find it very difficult to access any suitable social housing accommodation, particularly in big cities. That group has been let down badly by the private sector and I am not sure whether the solutions he is proposing will change that, given that those people are often going in and out of mental health hospitals. What thoughts does he have on helping that particularly vulnerable group?
Richard Benyon
Mental health problems can cause homelessness and homelessness can cause mental health problems. In this place we think of things only in silos. We have a very good Minister here from one Department, but if we really are to deal with this problem we ought to have a whole range of Ministers from the Department of Health, the Ministry of Defence and people from all the organisations who care for people sitting down on the equivalent of the Treasury Bench here so that we can do so in in a much more cohesive way.
The schemes I have been talking about matched tenants with landlords and provided financial guarantees for deposits and rent, with ongoing support for both parties. They provided the landlord with a deposit and insurance throughout the tenancy were problems to arise. They also offered the tenant training in budgeting and help to gain and sustain employment. During the programme, more than 8,000 tenancies were created with a 90% sustainment rate, which is an incredible achievement.
Another person we should have here is an Education Minister. One statistic I find fascinating is from the Centre for Social Justice, which showed that while the national average of educational attainment is that 60% achieve five A* to C grades at GCSE, the figure is only 27% among those who have to move more than three times during their secondary school education. We can therefore see the knock-on problems caused by people having to move frequently, and that sustainability in one home is so important.
The schemes also saved the Government money. In just three months of operation, 92 schemes saved almost £14,000 in non-housing costs. The schemes created homes for those who need them most and helped some of the most vulnerable navigate a complex market. With the security of a home and the floating support from a help to rent scheme, a vulnerable person is less likely to need assistance from other services. That is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) will appreciate. Schemes varying in geography and specialisms still exist, yet without the funding they need they are unable to deliver all the services they would like to the number of people who need them. By working with landlords, such schemes have the potential to unlock the supply of private rented sector properties, which could particularly benefit areas where housing demand is highest. Local authorities could also incentivise good practice through the schemes as well as eliminate bad practice through enforcement policies.
Crisis is also calling for the second project I want to touch on: a national rent deposit guarantee scheme. To reduce up-front costs, help to rent schemes often offer bonds or guarantees to landlords in place of deposits, which cover certain types of costs that the landlord may incur at the end of a tenancy including damages and, in some cases, rent arrears. That was the case in the example from my constituency that I outlined earlier, where private sector landlords were demanding six months’ rent in advance. That means that vital funds are tied up in admin costs and reserves in case those guarantees are called in rather than in going into funding the support that helps vulnerable tenants sustain their tenancies. If the Government established a national rent deposit guarantee scheme, that would provide help to rent projects with greater financial security, with landlords safe in the knowledge that their property is protected and that the help to rent projects are providing the right support to help tenants maintain rent.
Crisis has found claims on bonds by existing schemes to be relatively low, within the 15% to 20% margin. That is one of the reasons why the schemes are attractive to the private sector trade bodies. It seems only fair that, along with help to buy, there is a similar scheme to help those who are just about managing and for whom purchasing a home is just not realistic. Crucially, both the Residential Landlords Association and the National Landlords Association support those asks of the Government.
Currently, schemes attract landlords through the development of a suite of services to mitigate the risks associated with letting to a vulnerable or homeless person or family. We could, and should, actively encourage more landlords to view working with those schemes as an effective business model. The moral argument aside, there are fiscal incentives to working with such schemes. For example, a targeted intervention by a scheme and a national rent deposit guarantee reduces the financial risks for landlords. Also, clients using the access support who have a history of homelessness are much more likely to be deemed vulnerable under universal credit and therefore they should be offered universal credit direct payments for a limited period, which landlords may welcome. I think that goes a little of the way to addressing the concerns of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
Help to rent schemes give landlords a layer of security that they do not currently receive from letting agents or the local authority. Such interventions could significantly increase the landlord’s confidence to let to this vulnerable sector or to those in housing need, and that could be part of an agreed longer-term tenancy. Among landlords with experience of letting to homeless people, 59% said they would consider letting to homeless households only if that were backed by such interventions. I therefore believe that the rationale for Government is clear to see. These policies are cost-effective schemes that will provide stability in the private rented sector for the most vulnerable, helping to prevent and tackle homelessness. Investment in the private rented sector access support would build on the Government’s recent announcement for homelessness prevention trailblazers and the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment to put prevention at the heart of a new approach.
Government investment has the potential to reduce spending on temporary accommodation and the costs of rough sleeping. This would allow cash-strapped local authorities, such as mine in West Berkshire, to allocate more of their homelessness budget in a more targeted way—for example, West Berkshire Council continuing to support the mental health triage service, which is doing great work. Independent analysis commissioned by Crisis estimates that if access were available to all households approaching their local authority for homelessness assistance, some 32,000 people could receive support annually. The model assumed that if 60% of people leave temporary accommodation as a result of the scheme being available, savings amounting to between £175 million and £595 million could be realised from one year of the scheme.
Investing in the private rented sector access support fits with the Government’s wider agenda on universal credit and homelessness prevention. I was pleased to support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and will continue to do so. It will make a difference. My worry is that unless parallel schemes, such as those I have outlined, are introduced and accompany a review of the impact of the freeze on local housing allowances in certain areas, we could get into the mad situation where inadvertent actions by the Government create one problem on the one hand that my hon. Friend’s Bill has to solve on the other. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has made housing a priority in her wish to lead a Government that help those people left behind who have not benefited from recent economic growth. The White Paper is an important indication of that intent. I suggest to the Minister that here are two possible schemes that would work and put the private rental sector at the heart of achieving the Government’s ambitions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 5.10 pm so there is not much time left and a number of Members have indicated that they want to be called. If you could look at the clock and try to be as sparing as possible in your own contributions, that would help the general debate.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on securing this debate. I am here because I am full of rage. I am full of rage at the number of homeless families I see on a weekly basis who do nothing worse than work for their living and raise their children and who find themselves homeless because of a lack of security of tenure in the private sector. It is about time that MPs from all parties address the issue as it is, rather than as they might like it to be. Our constituents—the people out there—look incredulously at us as we seem to consider that, somehow, things are okay. They are not okay.
When I had a proper job, before I entered this House almost 20 years ago, I worked in the homelessness and housing association sector. Today, I see things in my suburban constituency that I never thought possible. The major reason for homelessness in my constituency—and, I am sure, in others in London—is mature families being evicted from assured shorthold tenancies in the private sector. These are not tenants who have been there a short while, abused the property or not paid their rent. In my experience—I am willing to share with any hon. Member the 147 cases that I have seen since 1 September that fall into this category—they are families with children at the top of primary school and the middle of secondary school. They are simply being evicted because the landlords can get more rent from somebody else and can realise the value of their assets. Neither of those things makes them bad individuals, but it makes for a very bad housing situation for someone to find themselves in.
There are consequences to this. I sit there and I go through the process. I say, “They’ll issue you with a section 21, then they’ll go off to the county court, then they’ll get a possession order and then you must wait for a bailiff’s warrant. You will get 10 days’ notice of the bailiff’s warrant, and when that comes, the council will put you in temporary accommodation in Luton.” We live in south-west London. Some of the people I have talked to did not know that a place called Luton existed, but they will soon find out. I am sure that Luton is a fine place, but if someone works in south-west London and their children go to school in south-west London, it is not the place where they want to live.
Mr Burrowes
I have had similar experiences in my constituency surgery. Does the hon. Lady hope that the ambition, not least behind the Homelessness Reduction Bill, to deal with this matter might be realised? Sadly, responsibility is sometimes triggered only once the bailiff notices have been served. There is also the issue of the inappropriate placements in Luton. The ambition needs to be fulfilled by the housing White Paper—by ensuring that there is sufficient supply, but also that prevention duties are in place that actually mean something for the 147 families to whom she refers.
Siobhain McDonagh
I have a controversial view on the prevention of homelessness Bill. I believe that it is a sticking plaster and does not resolve the problem. It simply puts more demand on local authorities, which cannot cope with what they have at the moment. At the heart of the matter is supply. At the heart of it is control, whether that is control over how much rent people have to pay, some control over landlords who are not prepared to maintain their properties or some control in terms of security of tenure. Unless those things are addressed, and addressed in numbers, the problem will not be resolved.
What are we doing to the children who find themselves in this position, who find themselves moving year on year, or six months on six months? These are kids who do well at school and want to be ambitious at school, but who never know or never experience the simple security of living in the same place for a reasonable length of time. That is life for people in my constituency, and the scary thing is that it is life for an ever growing proportion of people, not just people in poor, low-paid work—
Siobhain McDonagh
I will not.
Increasingly, that is life for people in middle-class jobs who simply cannot get on the housing ladder and cannot rent something that is in any way affordable.
When the White Paper was presented to the House yesterday, the Minister talked of families for whom rent is 50% of their income. I regularly see working families whose rent is 200% of their family income. We have a crisis. I realise that everyone wants to speak and I do not want to prevent anyone from speaking. It is about time that we stopped pussyfooting around. We have to build homes that people can afford. Anything else does not address the issue.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I will try to limit my remarks, because I am acutely aware that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) wants to speak.
I have been very interested in this issue since I was at school in the constituency of the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) in the 1970s. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I did a lot of work talking to some people who were living in very damp accommodation. It was very important that we got them moved and got the house condemned as well. If we can actually sort out some of the homelessness issues, it is very important to ensure that people move into properties that are dry and acceptable, rather than, frankly, in an appallingly bad state.
When I was living in London full time, apart from making visits down to my constituency in Plymouth, I went to church at the Savoy chapel, which is in the heart of London, and the chaplain told an horrendous story about how, if someone is homeless, they feel dirty, no one talks to them and everything is all very difficult indeed. We have to take some action to try to deal with that.
My constituency of Plymouth, Sutton is an inner-city seat. It is south of the A38, running from the River Plym to the River Tamar, and has a significant level of deprivation, as evidenced by the 11 or 12-year life expectancy difference between the north-east of the constituency and the south-west, around Devonport. That is a very big issue, and we have to do something about it, and it is not helped by people being homeless. I am delighted that we have a hostel in my patch, where a lot of the homeless end up going, but I am appalled that the national health service has decided to close one of the GP surgeries in my constituency that deals with homeless people who live in that kind of hostel accommodation.
Dr Poulter
I was particularly distressed to read about that in my hon. Friend’s local paper because I think I opened that GP surgery for him. However, the point is that hostels are not the answer to the problem, particularly for vulnerable people with mental illness, because they need to be properly housed, and they are not being properly housed due to a lack of housing supply, particularly in the social sector. Hostels must not be—and are not—the answer.
Oliver Colvile
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. However, it is better for someone to be living in dry conditions than on the streets, and I think that is important.
Oliver Colvile
I will not, because I am acutely aware that the right hon. Member for East Ham also wants to speak and it would be wrong of me not to leave him enough time.
On Christmas day, I spent the morning visiting several places that were providing lunch for the homeless. They included Hamoaze House, the Shekinah Mission, Stoke Damerel church and Davie hall in north Plymouth, where a number of events were being held for the homeless and I was able to hear for myself what was going on. It is very important that we provide the homeless not only with accommodation, but with access to GP surgeries. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) for all the work that he did in opening that GP surgery. I feel real frustration that NHS England has decided to try and close it.
Next week I will be doing a surgery at the food bank, because it is important that people should use my offices to try to make sure we can sort out their benefits too. Without further ado, I am going to shut up, because I want to make sure that the right hon. Member for East Ham can speak as well. Next time, however, we need longer to debate this issue.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) for his considerateness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) is right that the problem is growing. In 2001, 17% of the residents in my borough—Newham in east London—lived in the private rented sector, whereas today almost half do. That rapid growth is continuing and has led to problems. Regulation in this area is weak. The hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, was absolutely right to make the point that the great majority of landlords do a perfectly good job and provide decent accommodation, but a minority do not. The private rented sector has a number of virtues, as we have rightly been reminded. However, when there are problems, vulnerable people suffer disproportionately. They frequently do not know what their rights are and get a very bad deal, which was why my local authority—it was the first in the country to do so—introduced borough-wide private rented sector licensing in 2013.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on securing the debate. I will make a few quick points. There is hesitancy among private landlords about renting out property to homeless people. They want long-term tenants; however, the most important thing is the benefit system. If things are not in place when people have to reapply for housing benefit, they then have to be reassessed and can fall behind. Landlords in many places worry about that, as do tenants in particular.
Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman is right about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden made the point that universal credit is making the problem worse because of the long delays before any payment is made.
I want to make a point to the Minister about the Newham private rented sector licensing scheme, which will end in December. The London borough of Newham is asking Ministers to allow the scheme to be extended for another five years. I would ask him to look sympathetically at that proposal and allow the scheme to go forward.
Graham Jones
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Will he comment on two points relevant to that? Landlord licensing deals with antisocial behaviour and other conditions, but not stock condition. Stock condition in the north is poor, and conditions in landlord licensing should be allowed to deal with that. If the Government were on people’s side, they would allow licensing conditions to include elements to do with stock condition.
Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend said, the private rented sector has grown, but it has also grown into former social housing, which existed to help poor people to rent. I find, as I am sure do many other Members, that former council housing is being offered in the private rented sector at twice the rent of properties currently in the stock. That should be stopped.
Stephen Timms
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the Newham scheme, licence holders are bound by conditions, as he described, to prevent overcrowding and deal with antisocial behaviour, and to make sure that properties are well managed and safe. He is right to say that wider stock issues are outside the scope of the scheme.
Perhaps I can give an example from my constituency of what has happened. In Waterloo Road there is a typical terraced house with three rooms on the first floor and two on the ground floor. All five were being used for people to sleep in. In the main bedroom upstairs, which by ordinary standards is appropriate for a couple to sleep in, four single, unrelated people were sleeping. There were six others staying elsewhere in the house. That was 10 people in total, no doubt with a number of cars between them and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) pointed out, there were antisocial behaviour problems for the neighbours as well as grim conditions for those living in the house. Because the scheme was in place, the local authority was able to intervene. There was a fine of more than £8,000 and the position was brought under control.
Altogether, licences have been issued for 38,880 private sector properties in the borough and there have been 1,000 prosecutions since the scheme was introduced. Just 28 landlords have been banned for failing to meet the borough’s “fit and proper” test, in relation to 230 properties. The places where enforcement action is necessary are a small proportion of the total, but the fact that it is possible for the council to intervene in serious, problem cases is an important help to vulnerable people and others living in the borough. For that reason as well, I would particularly ask the Minister to respond sympathetically to the approach that I think he has already received—at least informally—requesting that the scheme should be extended for a further five years after it ends in December.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate with you in the Chair, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on securing the debate. I thought his speech was an honest assessment of the country’s current situation. It was refreshing and followed on from the honest title of the White Paper presented yesterday: I remind hon. Members that that is based on the situation in England.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made a passionate speech and touched on short-term tenancies and tenancy insecurity, and on the building of homes. What she said is right: it is the only way we shall get around the housing supply problems we face across these isles. I understand what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) was saying about hostels, but we must surely be capable of providing something more secure and dignified to homeless people in this day and age. The constituency example outlined by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) reminds me of looking at census data from Victorian times. It is shocking and highlights the desperate situation that people find themselves in, particularly in London. Action must be taken on that.
The private rented sector has a clear role to play in assisting those experiencing or facing the prospect of homelessness. However, the problems it creates are also well known: affordability, landlords’ reluctance to rent to housing benefit recipients, a lack of security of tenure, poor quality housing and a lack of support for vulnerable people. All these make what is a potential source of vital support for homeless and vulnerable people more difficult for them to obtain.
The focus on seeking private rented solutions for homeless and vulnerable people presents challenges. Although there has been a growth in the private rented sector, changes to housing benefit entitlement since 2010 mean that it is more difficult for housing benefit claimants to cover the full amount of rent due, as I said in an earlier intervention. That is especially so for young people, who are seeing their support cut away. In the light of all of the UK-wide issues caused by the Government’s social security policies, I believe that the effective approach being taken in Scotland should be commended and articulated.
All local authorities in Scotland have a duty towards all unintentionally homeless households, regardless of whether they are classed as being in priority need. That is one reason why, in April 2016, Crisis recorded that Scotland has been on a “marked downward path” for the past five years in relation to homelessness. That downward path can be seen in the Scottish Government’s statistics from 2016, which indicate that 81% of unintentionally homeless households in Scotland that had an outcome between April and September of that year secured settled accommodation—not only in social housing but in private rented tenancies as well.
Mr Burrowes
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says about that progress, but I was in Edinburgh over the weekend and I was particularly shocked by the level of street homelessness. I am a London MP and have sadly seen an increase in that on our streets in London, but in Edinburgh it was extremely significant.
Neil Gray
I would not for a minute even begin to suggest that we have all the answers in Scotland, nor that, just because the evidence from organisations such as Crisis suggests that things are going the right way, we cannot do more. Clearly, more can be done. I live near Edinburgh and know the situation there very well, which is a smaller version of what we see here in London. That is why some of the Scottish Government’s interventions, which I will touch on, are directed at that.
If private rented accommodation is to be a viable solution for homeless people, it is clearly imperative that protections are put in place to ensure that it is secure and affordable and provides an acceptable standard of living conditions. I will focus on some of the measures introduced in Scotland in the past decade that help to address some of those issues. In 2006, Scotland was the first part of the UK to introduce a mandatory landlord registration scheme, which we touched on earlier, in terms of licensing. The local authority must be satisfied that the owner of the property and the agent are fit and proper persons to let the residential property before registering them.
Commencement of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 will remove the “no fault” grounds for repossession, and should mean that there is no risk of a retaliatory eviction in Scotland. When commenced, that Act will also introduce a new type of tenancy for the private rented sector in Scotland to replace short assured and assured tenancies for all future lets. The new tenancy will be known as a “private residential tenancy”, which will be open ended and will not have a “no fault” ground for possession equivalent to the current notice that can be given under section 33 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.
Finally, the 2016 Act will allow local authorities to implement rent caps in designated areas—“rent pressure zones”; one such zone is in Edinburgh—where there are excessive rent increases. Applications must be made to Scottish Ministers, who will then lay regulations before the Scottish Parliament. Tenants unhappy with the proposed rent increase will also be able to refer a case to a rent officer for adjudication. Each of those rules and pieces of legislation help in different ways to ensure that the private rented sector is up to standard when used as an option for homeless and vulnerable people. There is clearly no point in placing homeless people in privately rented accommodation when it will only lead to an unaffordable rent, unacceptable standard of housing or an insecure tenure.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Mr Jones, you have literally one minute. I am allowing you to speak only because I did not see your indication that you wanted to do so.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Alan. I quickly say to the Minister that there should be a slight review of landlord licensing to include the stock condition of individual properties, because that is not in the legislation. One issue that we need to tackle is sofa sleeping—the hidden homelessness. We talk about building new housing being the answer. It largely is, but not in my area; we have plenty of empty properties because of a lack of skills and a poor economy. We have to address skills in the economy if we want to get people into housing. The houses are there.
Finally, I want to raise housing benefit for under-21s. The cuts will start in April, but the Government have still not been clear what they will be or where they will apply. That affects supported housing. I know youngsters in Crossroads in Accrington, which is a fantastic resource. They are really vulnerable 16 to 19-year-olds from troubled families, who have tried to find a way for themselves. The situation they are in is not their fault. They rely on housing benefit. Even if housing benefit is not cut, Crossroads may close because Lancashire County Council may pull the funding. Local authority cuts may undermine supported housing even if housing benefit for under-21s is protected. I ask the Minister to clarify what he is going to do about housing benefit for under-21s to prevent further homelessness.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Alan. I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for raising this important subject. I will say a little more at the end of my speech about his specific proposals, which are worth while and which I commend to the Government—we will see what the Minister says about them.
However, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I take my cue more from the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who spoke with extraordinary passion and knowledge. I have known her long enough to know that she is one of the most assiduous constituency MPs in the House and that she speaks from absolute experience. I am sure that her experiences have been shared by all London Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and increasingly by other Members from around the country.
Let us start by making it clear where the problem started. It started, to a large extent, with the Localism Act 2011 and the permanent discharge of homelessness responsibilities into the private rented sector, alongside lack of security for social housing and an almost complete cut of capital expenditure. Suddenly, the private rented sector was on the frontline, faced with problems that it was neither ready nor able to deal with.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) mentioned housing benefit cuts. We could add the benefit cap or the freeze on the local housing allowance, which the hon. Member for Newbury himself acknowledged. Those are among the reasons why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said, more than 40% of homelessness cases are principally caused by the eviction of people on assured shorthold tenancies, largely because of landlords simply wanting higher rents or not wanting to deal with people who are on benefits. Those are the real problems.
There is also the problem of shared accommodation. In 2012, the shared accommodation rate for under-25s was extended to under-35s. In its briefing for this debate, Barnardo’s asked that those who are leaving care be protected from that at least until the age of 25. The Minister may respond to that request, but it will still not resolve the principal problem.
The budget of the Supporting People programme for vulnerable people was cut by 45% between 2010 and 2015. These are huge sums. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Newbury is asking for relatively modest sums by comparison, but they will have relatively modest results.
Richard Benyon
Does the hon. Gentleman concede that there are some landlords in London—I speak with a little experience—who are in it for the long term? They want to build a relationship with their tenants and they have never evicted somebody at the end of their lease, because they want to continue that relationship. I want to work with Members on both sides of the House to create a longer-term offer to tenants so that they can have certainty, whether it is about the education of their children or about their own retirement. There are opportunities to work together to find solutions.
Andy Slaughter
Nobody denies that the majority of landlords are good landlords, but I ask the hon. Gentleman: why has rough sleeping more than doubled—it has gone up by 133% since 2010—and why is statutory homelessness increasing hugely? He mentioned that the White Paper might give some detail. I do not know whether he has had time to look at what the White Paper says about the private rented sector, but he will not get much detail from it. There are five paragraphs with three proposals, two of which are ideas pinched from us but watered down, and one of which the Secretary of State has already pooh-poohed.
On letting fees, which are an important issue, the White Paper states:
“We will consult early this year, ahead of bringing forward legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows”.
I thought that we were going to get something rather more quickly than that. The White Paper also states:
“The Government will implement measures introduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which will introduce banning orders to remove the worst landlords”.
Again, that is good, but I heard the Secretary of State say in the House yesterday that looking for greater restrictions to deny houses unfit for human habitation was “frivolous”. I think that was the word he used. That does not show particularly good intentions. What on earth does it mean that we are simply going to encourage landlords to have longer tenancies? We need to legislate. We need longer tenancies if we are to stop the terrible curse of insecure accommodation.
The Homelessness Reduction Bill has the support of the Opposition, but we are waiting and taking our cue from local authorities, who know what they are talking about in this respect, on whether the funding will be adequate to the task. All the indications are that that will not be the case, despite the funding that the Minister announced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said, we are just putting more burden on local authorities, which are already charged with the responsibility without having the resources to deal with the problem.
This is a real housing crisis. I appreciate the intention of the debate and the specific measures. We are blessed with some extremely good, very sophisticated organisations now. I have a lot of facilities from what used to be Broadway and is now St Mungo’s Broadway in my constituency. It previously ran a scheme very much of this kind off its own bat. People went out and identified private sector accommodation, took vulnerable people and matched the landlord to the tenant. They gave that degree of support, as well as supporting people with deposits. That is an excellent thing to do and it is what the organisations do well, but it does need support and some funding.
I fear that we are not going to address the key issues. It is not just I who think that. Yesterday, at the launch of the White Paper, I did media with the former housing Minster, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). I never thought that I would agree with him on any matters in relation to housing, but his view did not differ much from mine, which is that the Government proposals are a sticking plaster and a missed opportunity. I do not say that with any pleasure, because this is the biggest social problem of our age. It is a problem that has accumulated over time. It is extraordinarily difficult for everybody, but it is particularly difficult for vulnerable people, young people and people who are made homeless through no fault of their own.
I hope that we are going to hear something from the Minister today. I welcome the engagement of all parties, including the landlord organisations. [Interruption.] I do not particularly want to be heckled; I am taking half of my time, which I am entitled to do. If the hon. Member for Newbury thinks that I am dealing with “frivolous” issues, as the Secretary of State does, he is welcome to say that, but let us have some home truths about what the real problems of the housing crisis in this country are.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Minister, I know time is going to be very tight, but if you could leave a minute for Mr Benyon to wind up, I am sure Members would be appreciative.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I will do my best, Sir Alan. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on securing this important debate. I know that tackling homelessness is a priority for him. It is certainly a priority for me and the Government. I say at the outset that nobody should find themselves without a roof over their head.
Yesterday, the Government’s housing White Paper was published, which makes it clear that we are determined to make the private rented sector more affordable and secure for people. We have taken action to increase the supply of affordable and secure rented properties through the promotion of Build to Rent homes. That and other measures proposed in the White Paper will ensure that local authorities put more emphasis on planning for those rental schemes. We will certainly encourage the take-up of longer-term tenancies.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury about securing private rented sector accommodation, as he set out in his speech, we have made a significant investment of £14 million from 2010 to 2016, working with Crisis, to develop a programme for single people to access private rented accommodation. More than 9,000 people were helped and 90% of those maintained a tenancy for more than six months.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the banning of letting agents’ fees for tenants. As he knows, we have brought forward proposals on that in the White Paper. We will consult on those proposals before we bring the policy forward. We have also set up a private rented sector affordability and security working group. On that working group, we have Shelter, Crisis, Generation Rent and landlord and letting agent representatives, and it is in the process of finalising its report. We have asked those organisations to work with us to see how we can reduce the costs and barriers people face in accessing private rented accommodation.
Homelessness, as has been discussed, is not just a housing issue. I am proud that we are giving our full support as a Government to the Homelessness Reduction Bill, the private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). The Bill has benefited from the support of Members, many of whom are here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury spoke passionately about the Bill on Second Reading. We are also bringing forward £50 million of homelessness prevention funding. That money has been awarded to 84 projects that will work across 225 local authority areas in England. A number of those projects include working with the private rented sector. We hope, through that funding, to support more than 1,000 private rented tenants and help those who are at risk of losing their tenancies.
Turning to some of the specific questions that have been asked, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury mentioned the complexity of homelessness, particularly in terms of mental health. He rightly said that there should be a line of Ministers here to respond to the issues. In that spirit, I chair a ministerial working group that brings together various Departments and Ministers to see what more we can do to deal with the underlying issues that relate to homelessness. My hon. Friend will know that in the Homelessness Reduction Bill is a duty to refer. That is an important first step in putting an obligation on public sector bodies to refer people who may be at risk of becoming homeless to the relevant local authority.
My hon. Friend mentioned schemes and the proposals from Crisis. We continue to discuss a number of issues with Crisis on an ongoing basis. He also mentioned giving areas the ability to get people into private rented tenancies and out of temporary accommodation. That was a very good point. We are devolving the temporary accommodation management fee, which we believe will help local authorities to move people out of temporary accommodation and into settled accommodation more quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) mentioned the challenges with people who are not in the right place. They may be in a hostel and need to move on. He will be glad to know that the Government have committed £100 million to move-on accommodation. That will create places for up to 2,000 people to move on from hostel accommodation.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned tenancies. The average tenancy is four years, but there are challenges in areas where affordability is an issue. The bottom line is that we need to significantly increase supply, and we are doing that in London, as she will know, by giving £3.15 billion to the Mayor to bring forward a significant number of affordable housing units.
To conclude, I will write to Members who have asked any other questions, in particular the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who made a very good point about licensing schemes. I will leave it there, but we are absolutely committed to tackling this important issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury for the debate, albeit a short one, although that was not his fault.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Mr Benyon, I understand that you have ceded your one minute to Mr Burrowes behind you.
Richard Benyon
No, Sir Alan, I was conceding the time to the Minister, but if I may have the 30 seconds I would appreciate it.
There is an all-party group in this House called the all-party group for ending homelessness. Some people roll their eyes when we talk about ending homelessness, but it is only with such ambition that we can address the kind of outrage we all feel when we see someone who is homeless. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. I hope he will work with Crisis, the Centre for Social Justice and other organisations to try to bring some of the ideas forward. Together, we can achieve a lasting solution.
Written Statements
Votes A Annual Estimate 2017-18
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
The Ministry of Defence Votes A Estimate 2017-18, has been laid before the House today as HC968. This outlines the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for each service in the armed forces during Financial Year 2017-18.
[HCWS465]
Immigration
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Government take the welfare of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children extremely seriously, and the UK has a proud history of providing protection for those in need, including some of the most vulnerable children affected by the migration crisis. The Government’s strategy is to support international efforts to find a comprehensive and sustainable solution to the refugee crisis; we must deal with its root causes, as well as respond to the consequences. That is why the UK has been at the forefront of the response to the events in Syria and the region, pledging over £2.3 billion in aid—our largest ever humanitarian response to a single crisis. We are also one of the few EU countries to meet our commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid.
We have a comprehensive approach to tackling these issues both at home and overseas. By the end of this Parliament, we will have resettled 20,000 Syrian nationals through our Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and a further 3,000 of the most vulnerable children and their families from the middle east and north Africa region under the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme. We also received over 33,000 asylum claims in the UK last year.
The number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children arriving in the UK has risen over the last few years, including in response to this Government’s commitment to the transfer of hundreds of children from Calais and to address the humanitarian needs of the most vulnerable children. The UK has contributed significantly to hosting, supporting and protecting the most vulnerable children affected by the migration crisis. In the year ending September 2016, the UK granted asylum or another form of leave to over 8,000 children. This includes those who claimed asylum in the UK, those who were brought to the UK through our resettlement schemes, those transferred from within Europe, and those granted a refugee family reunion visa.
In 2016, we transferred over 900 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to the UK from Europe. This included more than 750 from France as part of the UK’s support for the Calais camp clearance. Over 200 of those children met the published criteria for section 67 of the Immigration Act. The remainder were transferred under an accelerated process based on the family reunion criteria of the Dublin regulation. This was a one-off process, based on the principles of the Dublin framework but operated outside of it, and was implemented in response to the unique circumstances of the Calais camp clearance. All children not transferred to the UK are in the care of the French authorities.
The UK can be proud of its record of helping refugee children and I can today announce, in accordance with section 67 of the Immigration Act, that the Government will transfer the specified number of 350 children pursuant to that section, who reasonably meet the intention and spirit behind the provision. This number includes over 200 children already transferred under section 67 from France. It does not include children transferred to UK where they have close family here. We will announce in due course the basis on which further children will be transferred from Europe to the UK under section 67 of the Immigration Act to the specified number.
As required by the legislation, we have consulted with local authorities on their capacity to care for and support unaccompanied asylum-seeking children before arriving at this number. Local authorities told us they have capacity for around 400 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children until the end of this financial year. We estimate that at least 50 of the family reunion cases transferred from France as part of the Calais clearance will require a local authority placement in cases where the family reunion does not work out. We are grateful for the way in which local authorities have stepped up to provide places for those arriving and we will continue to work closely to address capacity needs.
The Government will continue to meet our obligations under the Dublin regulation and accept responsibility for processing asylum claims where the UK is determined to be the responsible member state, ensuring that it is in their best interests to come here. We are working closely with European partners to ensure the timely and efficient operation of the Dublin regulation.
Of the over 4,400 individuals resettled through the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme so far, around half are children and last year we welcomed the first families to the UK under the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme. We are fully committed to an effective response in the affected regions and to resettling the most vulnerable directly from those regions. Within Europe, the UK has also established a £10 million refugee children’s fund to support the needs of vulnerable refugee and migrant children arriving in Europe. The fund includes targeted support to meet the specific needs of unaccompanied and separated children.
Here in the UK, we have launched the national transfer scheme to ensure a fairer distribution of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children across England and ease pressure on the children’s services of those local authorities with large numbers of unaccompanied children. To implement the national transfer scheme the Home Office has established a dedicated team to process the transfer of children quickly while at the same time acting in accordance with the child’s best interests. The Home Office also published detailed guidance for local authorities setting out the processes involved in transferring unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from one local authority to another, including the need to ensure that the scheme is driven by the welfare of the child.
As announced on 1 November, the Government will also deliver a safeguarding strategy for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. This will ensure the Government put in place a comprehensive safeguarding strategy for unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children living in or being transferred or resettled to the UK.
To further support the transfer arrangements and underline our commitment to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, the Government significantly increased the funding they provide to local authorities who look after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Local authorities now receive £41,610 per annum for each unaccompanied asylum-seeking child aged under 16 and £33,215 per annum for unaccompanied asylum-seeking child aged 16 and 17. This represents a 20% and 28% increase in funding respectively. In addition, the Government went further and also increased the funding they provide to local authorities for those young people who turn 18 and go on to attract leaving care support by 33%. These significant increases in Government funding will have a very positive impact on local authorities’ ability to care for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
The Government have also announced the £140 million controlling migration fund in England, which is intended to cover a broad range of costs associated with migration. It cannot duplicate or top up unaccompanied asylum-seeking children rates, but it may support short-term costs not included in the mainstream unaccompanied asylum-seeking children grant and costs related to family reunion cases. This could include costs such as the safeguarding assessments, recruitment campaigns for social workers or support workers, specialist counselling or training on the specific needs of unaccompanied children. Additional funding has also been offered to strategic migration partnerships across the UK to help them bolster local structures and ensure they are equipped to deal with the diverse needs of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
The Government have taken significant steps to improve an already comprehensive approach to supporting asylum-seeking and refugee children. This latest announcement provides further evidence of the Government’s commitment to playing its part in the global migration crisis. In addition to the tens of thousands of children in conflict regions and in Europe that are benefiting from UK aid and development assistance, we are providing protection to thousands of children in the UK each year.
The UK should be proud of its overall contribution.
[HCWS467]
Foreign National Offenders and British National Offenders: Repatriation
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
A minute has been laid before Parliament regarding the Ministry of Justice’s escorting of foreign national offenders and British national offenders and specifically in relation to incurring a contingent liability.
My Department is responsible for the transfer of foreign national offenders (FNOs) to their home countries and the repatriation of British national offenders (BNOs) held overseas. This role was carried forward by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) from the Home Office at the time the MOJ was established.
The escorting of FNOs continues to play an important part in reducing the number of Foreign Nationals who are held within our justice system.
Previously, the Home Office had provided Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd (formerly BAA) with confirmation of HM Government’s agreement to indemnify them against any claims in respect of damage or injury caused to third parties in the event that the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) were found to be negligent in the discharge of their duties. The National Offender Management Service was an Executive agency of the Home Office and was transferred to the Ministry of Justice at the same time as the Ministry was established.
The Ministry of Justice will continue to provide this assurance and I am updating the House on this new agreement. NOMS has prepared written assurance for Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd and other third parties (e.g. airlines) which may be affected by our operations. This assurance covers the following amounts:
Up to £50 million for damage or injury per incident to third parties caused airside in the event of negligence of NOMS.
Up to £250 million to damage or injury to third parties per incident in the event of negligence by NOMS while on board an aeroplane.
Up to £10 million for personal accident and/or sickness for NOMS staff while on escorting duties.
The addition of a contingent liability to the accounts of a Government Department or agency is a standard approach that ensures full disclosure of all assets and liabilities and is in line with the rules laid out in the financial reporting manual.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which the minute is laid before parliament, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection, and the existing indemnities will continue.
[HCWS466]
Prisons and Probation
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
A new Executive agency of the Ministry of Justice, called Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, will replace the National Offender Management Service from 1 April 2017. The service will be responsible for the roll out of the Government’s programme to improve the way we reform offenders to protect the public and tackle the unacceptable levels of reoffending. Michael Spurr will become the Chief Executive of the new HM Prison and Probation Service from 1 April 2017.
HM Prison and Probation Service will have full responsibility for all operations across prison and probation. The Ministry of Justice will take charge of commissioning services, future policy development and be accountable for setting standards and scrutinising prison and probation performance.
The creation of HM Prison and Probation Service will build a world-leading, specialist agency, dedicated to professionalising the prison and probation workforce, backed by an additional £100 million a year and 2,500 additional prison officers. The service will be a place that staff are proud to work, attracting the brightest and best talent to deliver modernised offender reform, strengthened security, counter-terrorism and intelligence capability.
In recognition of the vital work carried out by prison and probation staff, new schemes to improve promotion opportunities have been launched, including enhanced professional qualifications for probation officers, a new leadership programme, an apprenticeship scheme to launch in April and higher pay and recognition for specialist skilled officers dealing with complex issues such as counter-terrorism, suicide and self-harm support and assessment.
This forms part of our far-reaching organisational reforms to the system, which will make services more accountable to Ministers for delivery and performance. This will be further supported by measures within the prison and courts Bill, which will create a new framework and clear system of accountability for prisons.
Probation services will also offer improved training and learning opportunities for offenders to ensure they do not return to a life of crime, working hand in glove with prisons to ensure a more integrated approach. We will set out more details later this spring.
A key priority of HM Prison and Probation Service will be to focus on the particular needs of offenders. To meet the needs of women offenders across the whole system, for the first time there will be a board director responsible for women across custody and community. Sonia Crozier, Director of Probation, will take on this responsibility (reporting directly to the CEO) from 1 April 2017. We set out also in December 2016 the Government’s plans for the youth justice system, putting education and training at the heart of youth custody. We are working closely with the Youth Justice Board to review existing governance arrangements and will set out changes in due course.
[HCWS468]
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Wednesday 8th February 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeNeighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 105KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dear) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung, and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 60
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Change of use of drinking establishments
(1) In regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, after paragraph (6)(o) insert—“(p) as a drinking establishment”.(2) Before exercising his or her powers under section 41(1) of this Act, the Secretary of State must exercise the powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 and 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove permitted development rights relating to the change of use or demolition of “drinking establishments”.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken today, I refer the Committee to my entry in the register of interests. I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and one of many vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. I should probably also mention that I am a member of CAMRA and a supporter of pubs and the important role they have at the heart of local communities, be they in cities, towns, villages or more rural areas.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley for putting their names to my amendment, which seeks to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide further protection for pubs. I am looking for something from the Minister in response to the amendment, and I am very hopeful. We have to take further action to protect our pubs, and there are a number of problems that have to be addressed.
I pay tribute to CAMRA which has, since its formation in 1971, stood up for the enjoyment of beer, responsible drinking, the pint, and pubs at the heart of our community. It is without doubt one of the most successful consumer organisations ever in this country.
Permitted development rights, as noble Lords will be aware, remove the requirements for a building owner to seek planning permission before making changes to a property. That includes change of use and even, in some cases, demolition. The permitted development rights we are talking about here allow pubs to be changed to retail or temporary office use without securing planning permission. The effect is that local people are prevented from having a say over the future of their local pub. We should be clear that these are small businesses, not failing businesses, but decisions are often taken elsewhere and the community loses its pub without any say whatever. That cannot be right.
Pubs are a much-loved part of British life, and if noble Lords have not worked it out already, I like pubs. They bring people together to meet, socialise, watch the football or other sports, listen to live music, enjoy a conversation with family and friends. After our council meetings in Lewisham, we often end up in the Catford Conservative Club. Actually, it is no longer a Conservative club—it went bust, was taken over by another developer and is now called the Catford Constitutional Club. It is used by many people from the town hall after council meetings, although it was not used much before.
Pubs are also much loved by tourists. Both my brothers and my father are or have been London black taxi drivers, and they can tell you of the number of tourists who, arriving in London, want to get in a black cab and visit a traditional pub, as well as seeing some of our amazing sights. It is not uncommon for a Prime Minister to take a visiting head of state to the Plough at Cadsden for a pint and indeed, after the former Prime Minister took the President of China there, the Chinese bought the pub.
Permitted development rights, as they are presently in force, are estimated to contribute to the closure of up to 21 pubs a week. Of course there is the assets of community value scheme, which was introduced by the coalition Government. It has been a success, and we are pleased about that, but although it is a popular initiative, it has led to other unintended consequences. When a pub applies to be covered by this scheme, that can be a costly and time-consuming burden on local authorities, community groups and pub landlords and owners. For whatever reason, one or two local authorities do not like pubs and will not register them as a community value. They will seek to frustrate the process, giving all sorts of reasons why they cannot do it, often citing the fear of costly appeals. That cannot be right.
There is also the problem, which, again, is definitely an unintended consequence, that when a pub is listed as an asset of community value and its landlord seeks to raise capital he will have problems because the listing will be a charge against the pub and the financiers will have a problem with it. That cannot be right and, although it is unintended, we must deal with it.
The amendment would probably lead to fewer pubs needing to be registered under this scheme. It would put them on a level footing with other businesses so that a developer looking to convert a pub, for whatever reason, would need to go through the proper planning application process. It is, of course, possible that at the end of that process they will get planning permission, but the amendment would allow communities and local people to have a proper say in what happens to their local asset before it is lost. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I must advise your Lordships that if Amendment 60 is agreed I cannot call Amendment 61 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I come at this from a rural angle. In most cases a village or market town pub is an essential part of its community. We do not have many social venues or centres for leisure activities in the countryside; there are very few cinemas or discos, and in most places even restaurants and the like are quite rare. So, all too often the pub is the only hub where all those over 18—and even those who are younger, if they come with their families—can mix and socialise, and generally create the social cohesion that is the vital glue for any community. It is often in the pub that friendships and relationships are formed between young and old, rich and poor, that have such beneficial effects outside of it. People get together after a discussion in the pub to improve their community by, for example, painting the village hall or mowing the village green. And when old Mr Jones is sick or needs a lift to town, he can call on friends of all ages, who he has probably only met in the pub, to help him. As I say, the pub is all too often the only hub.
As I am sure your Lordships know, Pub is the Hub was a movement started at around the turn of the century to encourage publicans and their pubs to branch out and become more than just an outlet for beer, alcohol and food. As a result of this initiative, many entrepreneurial pub landlords started to provide other services to their communities, including morning coffees, internet cafes, office services such as photocopying, et cetera, and their pubs even became part-time village shops and post offices. These added services helped many pubs to survive where otherwise they might not have done so. The point is that when a pub is becoming run down and underused, it is often not because it is inherently a dying asset. All too often, it just needs a new, vibrant, energetic, imaginative, entrepreneurial and, probably, charming landlord, under whom it would suddenly flourish Sometimes planners, and others, cannot see that but it really can happen in the most unlikely venues. Pubs can flourish in the most unprepossessing buildings in the remotest of spots just because they provide a unique service that attracts customers from a variety of backgrounds and distances. I could probably take noble Lords to a few—provided they buy the first round, of course.
I know that the Minister will say that villagers can always apply to have their pub registered as an asset of community value. But—apart from all the expense and complications that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, highlighted—what average rural villager thinks in advance like that? For them, the pub is there; it has always been there, and, of course, it always will be. But then suddenly, a brewery or an ageing landlord decides to cash in on the high price of houses—as opposed to their currently non-profitable pub—and, often, it is too late for villagers to do anything: a vital asset is gone, and almost certainly for ever. This is because, in the same way that nowadays you can never get permission to open a village blacksmith, it is quite unlikely that you could overcome the unnecessary fears of neighbours if you proposed to have a new pub in your village. Only the existing ones will be able to offer this vital service.
It seems strange to me that a pub does not need planning permission to convert to a house when other less important changes in use clearly do require it. It seems that the most vital asset of all for a community—the pub—can be thrown on to the scrap heap without so much as a murmur from the planning department. This will not do.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment and every word uttered by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Cameron. I am not exactly a drinker, let alone of real ale, even when it is warm, but living where I do I have sadly seen the onward march of more and more soulless developments. Much-needed housing—of course, there is a housing crisis—is often built contrary to the wishes of the locality and the people living there. With the march of housing, the hubs that have made living in certain parts of the country so agreeable have been lost. It is all the more important to keep the local pub, whether in a suburb or village, as more housing is added. Those pubs add to integration and help to cement a community.
I find it particularly upsetting, having participated in neighbourhood planning, that the wishes of the residents of a locality are so often ignored. It is very important, before any pub is removed or changed, that the local residents be consulted and that we all do our best to promote more integration and mixing as more housing is built, as it will continue to be in the years to come. I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 60 but speak to Amendment 61 in my name, which broadly reflects the amendment moved by Greg Mulholland MP in the other place a few weeks ago.
I too am grateful for the advice given by CAMRA. It has summed up the case in three lines:
“The removal of Permitted Development Rights relating to the demolition and change of use of pubs will substantially reduce the need for Asset of Community Value nominations and reduce the associated burdens on communities and business”.
There are other considerations about the rights of neighbourhoods and communities and so on, which I fully support.
The previous Government introduced the asset of community value register. It is particularly impressive that it has been reported that 2,000 pubs are now registered as assets of community value. It raises two questions: first, it could be argued that because 2,000 have been registered, the system therefore works. The other way of looking at it, which I prefer, is to say that if 2,000 pubs have been felt by their communities and neighbourhoods to need registration, that is a problem because the volume is so great. A simpler method of dealing with the problem is required.
I understand that the London Borough of Wandsworth has applied Article 4 direction in the borough. I am particularly interested in that as a solution. As I well know from having to introduce Article 4 directions in my own council in Newcastle years ago, it is a very complex procedure. Anyway, it is quite difficult to introduce Article 4 in a rural area; it suits an urban area better.
I hope the Minister will take this seriously, because we will be back to this on Report. There is a simple remedy. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my amendment provide that simple remedy, which is to remove permitted development rights. If the Government did that, someone wishing to change the purpose of a pub to something else would have to apply for planning permission, which seems to me entirely reasonable. I hope that when we get to Report, the Minister will see the justification for this case.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Shipley’s amendment, which I think has the same purpose as that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I declare my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am not sure whether a liking for real ale is a declarable interest, but I am happy to declare it.
I support the amendment because of a particular local interest. When I looked at the website for a Member of Parliament in a neighbouring constituency, I found his campaign to save one of his local pubs. It included the statement:
“I would be interested to hear your views. I do have real concerns about the loss of pubs, which are an important focal point for local communities”.
The constituency is Croydon Central; the Member of Parliament is one Gavin Barwell. To be fair, it was a year or two ago, but the quote is still there on the internet—it is there for ever. I wonder how much he still has that concern, because the situation for pubs has certainly not improved in the year or two since he put that statement on his website.
I am particularly motivated to speak because of an issue causing considerable community interest in the ward that I represented until three years ago. A pub in that ward for most of the time I was a councillor was known as The Cricketers but more recently it became known as The Prince Regent, because allegedly the Prince Regent used to pass it on his way to Brighton and there was a vogue for changing pub names. We are talking about an outer London suburb and a time before the railways had brought the population to outer London. This pub had its origin in cottages built in the 1790s. That may not be very old in many parts of rural England, but in suburban London, the 1790s is quite old—it is one of the oldest buildings in London. In the 1850s, the Sutton Cricket Club was formed as the suburb started to grow. It used to play on the green opposite the pub, hence the pub becoming known as The Cricketers for more than a hundred years. So it has considerable historic interest. Whether it has architectural or historical merit is for others to determine, but it certainly has considerable historic relevance for the people who live there.
There is now a proposal to demolish the pub and build instead a nine-storey block of flats, considerably larger than the 18th or 19th-century building. The local community is campaigning hard to prevent the demolition of this historic monument, one of the very few in the area. It has applied to register it as an asset of community value, which has been exempt from permitted development rights only since 2015, so not too long ago. That process is under way and will, I hope, be successful, because the pub is considerably valued by the local community not so much as a drinking establishment but more because it represents something historic in a London suburb before the railways came, and is therefore of considerable historic significance. I hope that it will achieve registration as an asset community value, but I understand that even the status of assets of community value have their drawbacks.
I have spoken to our planners about this issue. They are very much in favour of this amendment and point out that if permitted development rights were withdrawn for all pubs, it certainly would not mean that they would all be preserved for ever regardless of the circumstances. Of course that would not happen; it would be absurd. If a public house is not viable and has no other beneficial use, it does not deserve to be preserved. However, simply to knock down a pub because it might make more money if it was turned into nine-storey flats is not in itself a justification for doing so. The removal of permitted development rights would mean that any proposal for demolition or development would be subject to the normal planning regime and to consideration by the planning authority. A decision would be made on whether the pub was viable and should be retained as a pub, with marketing conditions and a planning policy if necessary, or whether it was not viable but the building should be retained as part of a street scene, which may well be appropriate in the circumstances I am describing, or whether a complete redevelopment of the site should take place.
Another drawback to assets of community value, which I think was one of the most valuable measures introduced by the coalition Government under the Localism Act, is that the registration is valid for only five years. After five years you can apply to have the asset registered again, provided somebody remembers to do that, but there is no guarantee that it will be registered again. Therefore, while the provision is extremely valuable, it is not necessarily long term and is not without risk. Given the value that is attributed to pubs in particular circumstances, we are losing them speedily. I am told that 16 of the 69 pubs that existed 10 years ago in my London borough have gone. That is two a year disappearing from a London suburb with a growing population. Therefore, I strongly support both these amendments. I hope that our Minister will share the views expressed by the Housing Minister before he was the Housing Minister. I hope he will recognise that this is an important issue, that there is a way properly to resolve the situation, and that these amendments provide that solution.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, if my noble friend has ever studied the history of the most successful political party in Britain, as I am sure he has—I refer, of course, to the Conservative Party—he will know very well that for many periods in its long history it was supported financially by the brewers. The brewing industry played a very large part in supporting the Conservative Party in times gone by. They obtained some recompense for that support. My noble friend will recall that there was a period in history when the peerage was known as the “Beerage” because of the amount of compensation received by individuals who had supported the Conservative Party. Those people would turn in their grave if they thought that the Conservative Party of modern times was in any way against public houses which, as has been said eloquently by many noble Lords and noble Baronesses, perform an important role in not only our urban but our rural life.
I am familiar with a pub in the West End of London off the Edgware Road which dedicated itself to members of the Royal Air Force during the war and had pictures of all the great names from The Few, and so forth. The chap who ran the pub had a handlebar moustache; the pub was an object of great interest to tourists and others and was a great business. However, that pub has gone because the value of the property as a residential building was much greater than it was as a pub. Frankly, that is a tragedy for the tourist industry and for London. The closure of pubs affects the personality of our country not only in London but also in rural areas. I plead with my noble friend as a Conservative Peer to look at this issue most sympathetically. I hope that he will do so when it comes back on Report.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not participated in proceedings on the Bill before, so I apologise to the Committee for coming late in the day. In the light of what I am going to say, I also owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other noble Lords who have put their names to the amendments in this group as I am going to urge my noble friend to resist them. They are perfectly well meaning, but they are the statutory equivalent of trying to make water flow uphill. They can only inhibit, or slow, pub closures. The brutal truth is that there are too many pubs for modern Britain, too often they are in the wrong place and the whole sector is insufficiently profitable. In cases on the margin, where they could, perhaps, be profitable under other ownership, the opportunity to list as an ACV exists, as several noble Lords have said. Pubs are perfectly adequately protected.
This is an issue which arouses strong emotions. Until February 2014—more than three years ago, and therefore outside the time during which I have to declare a past interest—I was a non-executive director of a major integrated brewery and pub operator. It had five breweries from Cockermouth in Cumbria down to Ringwood in Hampshire and operated more than 2,000 pubs. Some were managed—there was an employee running the pub—and some had tenants and were tied, as was the case in those days. It is often overlooked, but that is a very easy way for people to set up their own business because you have a business offered to you, which you can operate, and you can begin straightaway without having to put up much, if any, capital. While under the old system, you had to buy your beer and soft drinks from the owner, food was down to you. I declare that interest because it is important as this is an issue which arouses strong emotions. The last time we got into this discussion, which was last summer, I managed to obtain a starring role in Private Eye as a result of CAMRA’s intervention. My speech was described as “the high point in an otherwise undistinguished political career”, which I thought was fair dues. So are you listening, Private Eye, as I want to get that on the record?
Why does this issue arouse such strong emotions? The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, touched on it. It is because of how people view a community. A community has three aspects that people think are important. They think there should be a shop or post office, some place of worship—a church—and a pub. They do not necessarily want to use them a lot. They will go to the shop or the post office when they have forgotten to buy bread and milk at Tesco. They will not go to church very often. They will go at Christmas and Easter, if they are Christians. They may want to get married there, they may want to have their children christened there and to be buried there—hatches, matches and dispatches—but they will not go much apart from that. They will go to the pub occasionally, but not regularly. The reality is that if you do not use it, you lose it. Most of the pubs that are under pressure are not attracting sufficient custom to be a profitable operation, but because of what is in people’s view of a community, if any of those three pillars is going to close down, people will get exceptionally excited about it and believe that somehow, something must be done—hence the emergence of the ACV procedures.
The second reason people feel so strongly about it is the belief which CAMRA has assiduously fostered—I pay tribute to its campaigning capability because it has been the most enormously successful pressure group—that somewhere in this operation there is a pot of money, that someone is making a lot of money somewhere, and if only it got down to the pub and the pub owner all would be right and the pubs would be happy and we would be in the sunlit uplands once again. The reality is that the sector is under enormous economic and societal pressures. There is not a lot of money in the sector and the idea that somehow pub owners or brewers are making huge profits at the expense of landlords does not tie in with reality. The reality is very different. It is a sector under stupendous strain—and I shall give the Committee three or four quick reasons for that. First, there is exceptionally cheap supermarket alcohol. If noble Lords go to a supermarket on the weekend before a bank holiday weekend, when things are on offer, they can probably buy lager for 60p or 70p a pint. If they go to a pub, they will pay £3 for it. So a lot of people are increasingly buying alcohol in the supermarket and drinking it at home.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my local government interests and should also, having regard to what the noble Lord has just said, express an interest in Leicester City, which is my second team after Newcastle United, although it is not doing too well at the moment.
Noble Lords might be surprised to learn that I cannot pretend to be a great frequenter of pubs, but the noble Lord, in his remarks, overlooked one important aspect, which is that increasingly public houses are not just places to drink. For example, I suspect a lot of people in Leicester, Derby and elsewhere tonight will be watching the football match to which he referred on the television in the pub, in company. More particularly, pubs are now very much part of the hospitality industry. Gastropubs are common, and I can cite many examples in the north-east of where all the pubs, both in rural villages and in towns, provide very good eating. It is a relatively new thing, but very much part of the social life of the area and of the appeal to visitors in so many places, and I do not think the noble Lord has really taken that into account. I certainly support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I also support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and my noble friend Lord Shipley. I declare my interest in the register as a member of Sheffield City Council.
I listened particularly to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I think he needs to understand that nobody is talking about trying to make it more difficult or easier for pubs to stay open. This is about a sense of fairness in the planning process. A pub, like any other commercial organisation, before it decides to change use for whatever reason, whether it is failing, or as my noble friend Lord Tope said, to make a profit from land, has to go through the planning process and the community has a say. The decision will be made on planning criteria about whether it is right to convert and change the use of a pub.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Is the noble Lord therefore intending to apply this to every restaurant, every Starbucks and every community activity, or is he picking out pubs and making them the one group to which he wishes to apply these restrictions?
Lord Scriven
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said at the start, most businesses do not have this automatic permitted right. There is something particular about a pub, especially with regard to its community value. As a leader of a council, I can tell noble Lords that communities do not usually come out to fight if there is a change in a supermarket or garage. There are two commercial organisations that people fight to protect because of their uniqueness in binding the community together: one is the post office and the other is the pub. Because of a pub’s social asset—not just its commercial asset, to which the noble Lord referred—and the way in which it binds people together and has a significance beyond the commercial element, it is really important that this is looked at by the planning process. It is fair for the community and the planning process to decide whether it is right to change the use of a particular pub.
In my city of Sheffield—noble Lords are welcome to come and have a tipple because the New York Times recently defined it as the “beer capital of Britain”—we have lost 68 pubs since 2011. There is one, the Plough in Crookes, which I think typifies why we need to have a change and why these amendments are important. The pub is at the heart of the community. Sheffield is not just an urban mass; it is made up of communities within an urban setting. That is what most cities and towns are like. The pub in Crookes is the glue that binds and yet, without any reference to the community or any understanding of whether it was viable or not, the pub chain decided to change its use and turn it into a supermarket. The community had no voice; it had no say and had to go through the asset of community value process.
It is interesting that the asset of community value was accepted by the council and now the pub is going through the planning process. However, the issue is that the community should not have to fight to be able to have a say about whether a pub changes; it should be automatically within the planning process. That is all the amendments seek to achieve. They ask for a sense of fairness and for the community to have a voice. Then the normal and natural planning process will take place and a decision will be made on planning grounds about whether it is right or wrong to change the use of that pub.
These amendments are about fairness and communities having a voice, and making sure that good decisions are made on planning grounds. Planning is not just about the commercial use; it is about what binds and makes good communities. Commercial organisations should not have an automatic right to change a community asset when they consider it viable and profitable because changing it into flats or a supermarket would make them more money.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. A local village pub gives the opportunity for people to go out for a drink, and possibly a meal, and to walk home rather than having to drive. If you go out for a meal and cannot or should not drink because you have to drive home, it can wreck the evening for at least one member of the party. If you walk home then even if someone has had a little too much, they can be helped quite easily. The local pub is a very useful institution. In the 40 years that I have been in my village, three pubs have closed down and we are now left with two. One provides some form of entertainment at least once if not twice a week throughout the year and the other, as well as being a pub, has a very good restaurant and rooms for people to stay in—so they serve different communities. The village had five pubs in the past because it is on the main route for pilgrims coming from the continent to Canterbury Cathedral. Nowadays, they come in on coaches from Dover and do not use their legs, which perhaps might atrophy in due course. For these reasons, I support this amendment.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but I do so in support of the amendment, mainly because I am very fond of pubs. I am a great pub user and always have been—paying great tribute to Adnams bitter in Suffolk is, I think, in order.
Perhaps it is necessary for us to appreciate just how important the pub is in village life. The local post office is too, but we are talking about pubs. In modern terms, you either get that or you do not, but it is absolutely crucial. In my village of Mellis in Suffolk, we have a pub called the Railway Tavern. Many years ago it broke away from the brewery. That was a problem because it had to buy all its alcohol from it, which affected its profitability. That did not work and it was boarded up for a while. It was then bought, but that landlord did not make it work and it was boarded up again. Then the village got together and, with the present landlord, ran it for two to four weeks to get it going—such was the village feeling about the pub. It is now going well and Frank, the present landlord, does an extremely good job. The pub does everything: it has wi-fi, fish and chips regularly on a Friday night and quizzes. It really is the heart of the village.
Noble Lords have referred to the number of village pubs there used to be. We could all talk about our towns and villages that used to have 20 pubs and now have only one. We have reached the stage where this is very serious. Those who feel strongly about the role of the pub in towns and villages—about how crucial they are to village life—must stand up for them. If this amendment will do anything to make it a little more difficult to transform a pub quickly and commercially into something else, I am all for it. I therefore very much support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on Amendments 60 and 61. I also thank those noble Lords who attended the briefing session this morning on the White Paper and I urge others to pick up a copy from the Printed Paper Office. We will put on further sessions on it but as I had undertaken to hold a session before Report, I thought it was important that we did so. I am very grateful to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Gavin Barwell, both of whom were there. As I said, we will have more sessions; in the meantime the consultation on those items we are consulting on is open until 2 May.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Shipley, for speaking so eloquently on Amendments 60 and 61. I will concentrate first on what we have done and are doing, then look at the substance of the debate and pick up the points made by noble Lords. I do not think we have had this much interest on anything in the Bill, and certainly not since we debated ancient woodlands. These things are clearly central to our well-being and life in our country.
Noble Lords have raised a number of concerns about the loss of valued community pubs. I would therefore first reassure the Committee that we recognise the role that pubs can, and do, play in local communities. They provide valuable local hubs that strengthen community relationships and encourage wider social interaction, as well as contributing to our wider economy. The nature of the pub has changed massively in our lifetime; they are very different now from 20 or 30 years ago, when I think many were still primarily drinking establishments. Those are very much the exception now. It is now not at all unusual for people to go to a pub for a meal, and come out not having had an alcoholic drink. For a party of four or five, one person will perhaps be nominated as driver and others may just have a glass of wine with a meal. We can all see that it is very different from the way it used to be.
The importance of the pub is recognised in paragraph 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires local planning authorities:
“To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs”.
In doing so, it says that those authorities should,
“plan positively for the provision and use of … community facilities (such as … meeting places, sports venues”,
and “public houses”. Before turning to the detail of the amendments, I take this opportunity to set out the important steps we have already taken to support valued community pubs.
First, alongside Power to Change, an independent charitable trust that supports community businesses across England, we are co-funding the “More than a pub” community pub business support programme. This will provide £3.62 million of grants and loans to enable up to 80 communities to buy their pubs between 2016 and 2018. We also recently announced funding of £50,000 to support the organisation Pub is the Hub’s work on community-focused pub-based services. This will help more pubs diversify to provide essential community services, which would otherwise have been lost. As an example, the Codrington Arms in Gloucestershire recently reinstated the local post office and village shop by utilising an outhouse on the premises of the pub, which is to be applauded.
Communities can also use the powers given to them through the community right to bid to list their local pub as an asset of community value. To date—I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has already given this figure—local communities all over England have listed nearly 4,000 assets, of which 2,000 are pubs, so I would say that this has been successful. Views have differed; I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, indicated that he was not as impressed by that as others have been. We will continue to listen to evidence on the operation of this legislation and examples of good practice. It would be helpful if those noble Lords who said that the process is complicated or costly, which I do not accept although I do not have evidence to counter it, were able to come up with some evidence that it is costly or difficult—or even that communities are unaware of it. I would be interested in that. Separately, we scrapped the beer and alcohol duty escalators and froze beer duty in Budget 2016, having reduced it in each of the three preceding Budgets.
I would like to respond in more detail to the noble Lords’ amendments. Both Amendment 60 and Amendment 61 seek to remove the permitted development rights allowing a pub to change to a restaurant, financial or professional service or shop, or to be demolished. This would be for all pubs and mean that a planning application would be needed in all cases. Noble Lords will, I am sure, be familiar with the important changes that we made on 6 April 2015. These were precisely to remove permitted development rights from pubs which are valued community assets, so that a decision in those cases would be made at local level. From this date, permitted development rights allowing the change of use or demolition of pubs are removed in respect of pubs and other drinking establishments which the community has demonstrated it values by nominating them as an asset of community value.
Permitted development rights therefore do not apply for as long as the pub is nominated or listed as an asset of community value. This means that a planning application is then required, allowing for local consideration and providing an opportunity for the local community to put forward its views to the planning authority. To guide decisions in these cases, it is important that local planning authorities have relevant policies in place in line with the National Planning Policy Framework.
I therefore urge local communities to come forward and nominate their valued community pubs. The community in Charing did this fairly recently and successfully prevented a change of use of its pub. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to an example in his community, too. I say in passing that there is separate protection for historic buildings. If a pub qualifies on that basis, that is in addition to the normal planning requirements. That would apply to quite a lot of village pubs, although I accept that not all pubs would qualify in that way.
If there are local concerns about the prospect of a pub that is not nominated or listed changing use under permitted development rights, the local planning authority can make an Article 4 direction—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned the Wandsworth example. A direction can be made in respect of an individual pub or pubs in an area. We consider that this approach provides valuable protection while avoiding blanket regulation, which would add bureaucracy and costs to all pubs.
Although it is not a declarable interest, I should say that in another life, when I was in the National Assembly for Wales, I was the co-chair of the Cross-Party Group on Beer and the Pub. Before someone trails my biography, finds that and says, “You didn’t mention that”, I mention it now. So I speak with a bit of experience of visiting pubs—mostly in Wales, but not exclusively. There are many thriving pubs that are worthy of protection. When you have to queue at the bar to get a drink or order a meal, that cannot be because they are doing badly. There are, on the other hand, pubs—I can think of many, although of course I will not name them—where you walk in and you know straightaway that it is in trouble. The person behind the bar looks indifferent. The pub does not do food; it may do a bag of crisps, but that is about it. I cannot see why we should seek to protect such pubs. They are often in dreary buildings—it is just the feel of the place.
That said, there are many pubs of which you think, “This is an important, integral part of the community”. I have been in community pubs that do a range of things; there may be a citizens advice bureau, a visiting library or the village shop. When you speak to the people who go there in the evening, you find that some did not go until it started to do all these things. Some people past the retirement age who would not have set foot in a pub when they were younger go there and help with the meals, for example. They just generally like the life that is there. That applies to young people, too. I have seen this. The nature of the pub is changing. Some pubs are, as I said, an integral part of the village. I associate myself with what was said about the closure of a village shop, post office or pub. That often excites interest from the community, because these things are community assets. I understand the point that is being made.
Let me turn to some of the comments that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, talked about the vital glue that holds a community together— entrepreneurial flair is needed and engendered in some communities, while there are other communities where that is just not happening. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, talked about the cement for communities; again, I understand the point that is being made. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, correctly said that the protection as a community asset is only for five years. I find it hard to believe that successful community pubs will not know that they have to reapply. They will be aware of that. After you have made the initial application, it will not be difficult to make the reapplication five years on, if that is still appropriate. My noble friend Lord Horam talked about the historic connection of the Conservative Party with the brewing industry. My noble friend Lord Young has asked me to make it absolutely clear, as I do, that he has no connection with the brewing industry—nor do I, in a financial sense. We now have that on the record.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, we have discussed this group of amendments for over an hour, so I feel that we are getting close to “closing time” on it. However, I wish to make a few brief comments. I join the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, in paying tribute to Pub is the Hub. It is a great organisation for the very reason it has kept village pubs going and offering all sorts of other services. That is an excellent initiative. I first saw a pub being used as a corner shop, post office and other things in the Republic of Ireland. Many pubs in Ireland—or bars, as they are called there—do that very successfully.
CAMRA is a great organisation. I am sorry that it appears to have irritated the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, perhaps in a previous life. CAMRA’s website used to boast that its membership was bigger than that of any political party in Britain. It now says that its membership is bigger than all but one, that being the Labour Party. That has involved us in all sorts of other issues that I shall not enter into today. However, I noted that interesting change on CAMRA’s website.
I very much agreed with most of the comments made by many noble Lords on this issue. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, may have misunderstood our amendment. Nothing in it seeks to keep open a failing pub, and noble Lords seemed to support that. A failing pub will close. I accept the point he made about how things have changed. I grew up in south London and when I was a young boy there was a pub on every corner of almost every street in my area. Most have gone. One or two are now hotels and some have been converted into houses or shops. The noble Lord is absolutely right that life has changed in that regard. He was also right about supermarkets. Certainly, on a bank holiday weekend, you cannot get past the beer mountain as you walk in the door. Equally, people have other leisure activities, so certainly pubs have changed. However, I still think that a successful community pub, whether in a city, town or village, which works well deserves our support. There is nothing in the amendment about pubs that are not successful.
A Leicester City v Derby match has been mentioned. I am interested in the result of that match as the winner will get the pleasure of playing Millwall at The Den in the next round of the FA Cup. I know that people will watch that match with interest tonight in pubs all over Lewisham. They will perhaps do so in a traditional pub such as The Rising Sun. However, further down the road from that pub is The Talbot which serves excellent food, so different pubs cater for different uses. It is important to come back to this issue.
As regards the ACV issue, I am sure that when the Minister talks to representatives of CAMRA they will be able to give him examples of councils which, for whatever reason, do not want to use this power or have frustrated local publicity campaigns. I can give him the relevant names. I hope that the Government will consider how they can deal with that as it is an issue.
The other point is about being able to raise finance. If a pub is listed as an asset of community value, and the landlord or the owner wants to raise some finance but finds problems as a result of being listed, that is an unintended consequence. I hope that CAMRA can give examples of that and we can look at how to change it. It cannot be right that listing your local pub could cause the business problems. We need to deal with that as well.
I thank other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for his response. I look forward to meeting CAMRA and hopefully I can talk to the noble Lord between now and Report. As I said at Second Reading, I fully intend to bring this or a similar amendment back on Report and will be very likely to push it to a vote unless we get some movement from the Government. We have raised some important issues, and as the noble Lord will have seen in today’s Grand Committee, we have support all around the House on this. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
If the noble Lord has information independently of CAMRA ahead of the meeting, that would be useful, to avoid delaying things, as CAMRA might not come with that information. I should also have noted a rare moment of accord—actually not that rare—with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Leicester City is my first team, and has been since childhood. I look forward to the occasion, after we beat Derby, when we come to Millwall. Perhaps we might share the experience over a pint of beer on that occasion.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Connection between national infrastructure and neighbourhood planning
(1) The National Infrastructure Commission, where appropriate, shall provide advice on national infrastructure projects to local planning authorities, including advice about—(a) how national projects will link with local projects, and(b) how national projects may affect specific neighbourhoods during their construction phase and operation.(2) Local planning authorities must provide any necessary advice on national and local infrastructure projects as requested by neighbourhood plan makers.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I hope that we will be a bit quicker on the next few groups. Amendment 64A, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to put into the Bill a clause that sets out clearly a role for the National Infrastructure Commission in providing advice to local planning authorities in respect of how national projects will link with local projects and how the national projects may affect specific neighbourhoods through their construction phase and operation. The National Infrastructure Commission did not of course make this Bill in the end, for whatever reasons, but it is important that we get this clause into the Bill.
The Bill, as we know, gives significant powers to the Secretary of State in respect of planning, and some of us think one or two of these clauses go too far. There can often be a conflict between the local and the national in terms of construction infrastructure. I want to make it clear at this stage that I am not a nimby—I certainly support the construction of projects that are needed to drive the economy forward and are in the national interest—but where national considerations come into play, we need to look at local concerns, local plans and local policies. We need dialogue, advice and support, and my amendment seeks to allow for all those factors.
The amendment also seeks to provide local authorities with a similar obligation to deal with the neighbourhood plan makers. This is a probing amendment which seeks to draw a response from the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven
My Lords, I have a little concern with the amendment—not with the thrust of where it is trying to go, but the way it is worded and the implications of proposed new subsection (2), which says:
“Local planning authorities must provide any necessary advice on national and local infrastructure projects as requested by neighbourhood plan makers”.
That seems to me to be a little top-down. If they have information, it should be automatically given to those making the neighbourhood plan. To paraphrase the words of a former American Defense Minister, sometimes there are the known knowns, and sometimes unknown knowns. I am sure this is not the intention of the amendment, but it needs to be a bit stronger in terms of automatically giving the right to the neighbourhood plan makers rather than them having to ask for it. I hope that those who tabled the amendment will reflect on that.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his intervention on Amendment 64A. Noble Lords have raised a valid issue. Large-scale national infrastructure projects are, of course, crucial to the economic health of the nation. We must always recognise that national infrastructure will have impacts, positive and sometimes negative, on local areas. Our existing legislation provides planning policy and guidance together with any endorsed recommendations made by the National Infrastructure Commission and provides the means for ensuring that local planning authorities and neighbourhood planning groups are aware of national infrastructure projects in their area.
The importance of national infrastructure is already recognised at the local level. The National Planning Policy Framework in paragraph 21 and planning guidance provide that the local planning authorities should identify the need for strategic infrastructure in the policies in their local plans. Once adopted, local plans form part of the statutory development plan for the area, which is the starting point for planning decisions. Further to this, paragraph 162 of the framework makes it clear that local planning authorities consider and take account of the need for strategic infrastructure, including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas.
On 24 January, the Government published the National Infrastructure Commission framework document that sets out how the commission will operate, making it clear that the commission has operational independence to make recommendations as it sees fit, and on the basis of robust evidence will advise government on all sectors of economic infrastructure, operating independently and at arm’s length from government. This includes discretion to engage with stakeholders as it sees fit, and to address commission recommendations to the most appropriate bodies, including local planning authorities.
I value, as do the Government, the support of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission, and of my noble friend Lord Heseltine as a commissioner in helping to set out national infrastructure policies. Many of the infrastructure projects that may be proposed by the National Infrastructure Commission will in due course need to seek development consent as nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008. This planning regime already requires significant local engagement and consultation; applicants are required to engage and consult local communities and local authorities from the outset, with local authorities having a role in assessing the adequacy of that consultation. Once an application for consent has been accepted, it will proceed to an examination. Anyone can make representations to the examining authority on any aspect of the project; local authorities are also able to submit local impact reports that set out the impact of the proposed infrastructure in their local area.
I hope that this reassures noble Lords that sufficient mechanisms are in place so that local authorities and local communities will be able to engage with national infrastructure projects, both when they are being considered by the National Infrastructure Commission and when they come forward through the planning process. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and my noble friend Lord Heseltine are very happy with how things are operating. As I say, they are at arm’s length; they are not an arm of the Government.
I turn to the specific part of the amendment on advice to those preparing a neighbourhood plan. As I explained during our debates last week, local planning authorities have an existing duty to advise or assist neighbourhood planning groups. Clause 5 will ensure that authorities must set out the support that they can provide in a more transparent way. When a national infrastructure project is relevant to a neighbourhood planning group, we would expect the local planning authority to advise the group accordingly.
I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but I say to noble Lords who have participated in the debate and more widely that we do not think that this is the way forward, and I urge the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his contribution to the debate. I fully accept the points that he makes; he said what I want to do here but more succinctly and clearly. I also thank the Minister for his response to the amendment. I shall reflect on what he says and may or may not bring the amendment back on Report. I see the point that he makes. We are raising the issue of how the National Infrastructure Commission deals with local areas and planning authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
“(1) Subsection (2) applies where a person (an “acquiring authority”) could be authorised to acquire land compulsorily under another enactment or under subordinate legislation.”
Lord Shipley
I shall speak also to Amendments 68, 72 and 73. This group is the first of several about the procedures to be followed by an authority taking temporary possession of land. Current legislation permits only permanent compulsory purchase. As an example of what I think the Government are intending, we could take the building of a bridge. There may be a permanent compulsory purchase order for the bridge itself with a temporary compulsory purchase order for the building compound to store equipment and materials for the period of the building works.
This group of amendments relates to Clause 14. Other groups will follow which address further issues around temporary possession. For the avoidance of doubt, I state that all the amendments in my name are probing amendments to help to improve and clarify the meaning of the Bill. I thank the Compulsory Purchase Association for its advice on what I shall say on this group and on later groups.
Clause 14 sets out the power for acquiring authorities to take temporary possession of land if they could otherwise be authorised to acquire interest in that land permanently, but it could also be an opportunity to codify various statutory instruments authorising temporary possession, and it may prove beneficial for powers of temporary possession—for example, for post-construction inspection and correction of minor defects—to be incorporated. Can the Minister confirm whether codification that would provide a single process for temporary possession might be introduced? Amendment 65 substitutes a new subsection which makes it clear that a single code is envisaged.
There are several government amendments in this group, but at present I think that the wording of the four amendments in my name in this group is more suited to the ambition of the proposed change. Amendment 68 contains words which may not be needed, and I would appreciate the Minister’s guidance on that. Amendment 72 clarifies and emphasises that temporary possession of land need not be taken compulsorily but can be by agreement. Perhaps that needs to be emphasised. Amendment 73 explains the rights and responsibilities of an acquiring authority and proposed paragraph (c) protects the rights of tenants, particularly where a tenant maintains an intention to resume occupation when the acquiring authority ceases temporary possession. I am very happy to listen to the Minister’s response and to look at this again when the government amendments have been incorporated in the Bill, and so I am happy to wait for Report before speaking further on this group. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 69 and 75. They are pretty much self-explanatory. The former simply requires that guidance should be provided when there are temporary rights that can be granted at the same time over the same piece of land. Amendment 75 is rather more important because it provides that the section should not come into force until guidance has been published in relation to it. I assume that is the Government’s intention, and I hope they will accept that amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the co-pilot is back in charge. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham, for tabling their amendments to Clause 14. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made it clear that his amendment was probing. Before I move on to discuss these and the government amendments to this clause, it may be helpful if I begin with a brief description of Clauses 14 to 26, which introduce the new temporary possession power.
All acquiring authorities may need to enter and use land for a temporary period. For example, they may require land to store materials for a scheme or to provide access to a construction site, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained. The problem is that, currently, only certain acquiring authorities have temporary possession powers—for example, under special Acts which are needed for very large schemes such as the Crossrail Act 2008. Crucially, compulsory purchase orders cannot authorise temporary possession. There is no good reason for this difference, and it is unfair to those who do not have the powers. Clauses 14 to 26 seek to create a level playing field by giving all acquiring authorities the same power to take temporary possession of land. It may also be in the interests of those on the receiving end of a CPO to have the possibility of being deprived of their land temporarily rather than permanently.
In giving acquiring authorities this power, we shall ensure that those whose land is taken are fairly compensated and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect their interests. That is set out in Clause 19. For example, temporary possession will have to be authorised in the same way as compulsory acquisition. Also, in certain circumstances, owners and occupiers will be able to require the acquiring authority to acquire the land permanently instead of occupying it on a temporary basis, if that is what they want.
Government Amendments 66, 67, 70, 71, 74 with Amendments 105 and 106 and amendments to other clauses, which I shall deal with later, remove the requirement for the temporary possession to be linked directly to a scheme for the acquisition of other land either by compulsion or agreement. Decoupling is the word that the professionals have been using. The reason for this change is that there may be situations where an acquiring authority needs to take only temporary possession of land. For example, an acquiring authority may need temporary possession of land for a contractor’s compound when they have been able to buy all the land needed for their scheme by agreement, or they may need access to land temporarily to maintain a highway. That is the impact of some of our amendments.
Government Amendments 105 and 106 are consequential on Amendment 66; they simply remove definitions of terms that are no longer required. Non-government Amendments 65, 68 and 72, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also seek to remove the requirement for the temporary possession to be directly linked to a compulsory acquisition scheme. I hope, therefore, that he will agree they are unnecessary in the light of the Government’s amendments.
On Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, I agree with the noble Lord that we need to ensure that the interests of leaseholders are adequately protected in introducing this new power. However, I believe that that amendment is not needed, because we have already built in a safeguard which would deliver the same outcome that is requested, but in a more flexible way.
Amendment 69 would restrict the temporary possession power so that it could never be used when a leasehold interest would have less than a year to run after the land was handed back, even if that was the preference of the leaseholder, the freeholder and the acquiring authority. It sounds counterintuitive to prohibit that. The effect of this amendment would be that, if the land was essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority would instead be driven to exercising the more draconian power of compulsory acquisition of the land permanently. However, as I have said, we have already built in a safeguard for leaseholders, which I believe will achieve the outcome that noble Lords are seeking. The safeguard is in Clause 17(3), which allows leaseholders to serve a counternotice preventing the acquiring authority taking temporary possession of the land. On receipt of the counternotice, if the land is essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority can proceed as if the land were subject to compulsory acquisition and take the land permanently. In these circumstances, the leaseholder would, of course, be compensated for both the value of his lease and losses caused by reason of being disturbed from possession of the land taken. I believe this is a neater solution, which gives leaseholders the flexibility to decide what is right for them.
Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to clarify what will happen when a tenant’s land is subject to compulsory purchase. As government Amendment 103 seeks to do the same thing—although our approach is different—I will speak to both amendments together. Government Amendment 103 provides that the terms and obligations under the tenancy, with the exception of the payment of rent and the length of the tenancy, will be disapplied to the extent that the temporary possession prevents reasonable compliance with them. Any expenditure which a leaseholder incurs as a result of the temporary possession would be claimed back from the acquiring authority. The noble Lord’s amendment, in contrast, provides that all the terms and obligations are unenforceable for the period of temporary possession.
The reason we have disapplied the terms and obligations only to the extent that the temporary possession prevents reasonable compliance with them is that there may be circumstances in which only a small part of land subject to a lease is also subject to temporary possession. In these situations, there may be no easy way in which to separate out the terms that relate to the land subject to temporary possession from terms that relate to the remainder of the land.
The second point of difference is the exclusion of the payment of rent and the length of the tenancy. We have done this because, again, where only a small part of a tenant’s land is required, making these terms unenforceable could result in a tenant having to pay an uncertain portion of the rent for the land not subject to temporary possession. The loss that would be compensated is not the rent payable for the existing lease, but any rent payable for alternative premises, as that is the loss that has been caused. Under the Government’s amendment, responsibility for paying the rent for the land under temporary possession remains with the tenant. However, the tenant will be entitled to claim compensation from the acquiring authority in relation to any expenditure which a leaseholder reasonably incurs as a result of the temporary possession.
The other point of difference with the noble Lord’s amendment is to do with proposed subsections (4) to (6), which make provision with regards to those who have protected tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Occupiers with such a protected tenancy have a right to apply for the grant of a new tenancy, provided they remain in occupation. However, if their land is subject to temporary possession they will no longer be in occupation and will lose this right. Government Amendment 103 and non-government Amendment 73 both seek to preserve this right to renew the tenancy. However, in doing so, the government amendment imposes a requirement for the tenant to confirm in writing to both the landlord and the acquiring authority that they intend to resume occupation after temporary possession. I think it is clear that both amendments are after the same thing: greater clarity for tenants and landlords as to what happens during the temporary possession period, including the treatment of rent.
Finally, in this group, I will respond to Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The noble Lord made a very valid point, which I entirely agree with, that where the Government intend to provide guidance on the use of a new power, that guidance should be available by the time the provisions come into force. That is, of course, the Government’s intention. The particular element of the temporary possession provisions that the noble Lord has identified is in Clause 15(3)(a), which will allow both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition powers to be obtained concurrently for the same piece of land.
Although this so-called doubling-up of temporary and permanent powers can be authorised, it will not give acquiring authorities carte blanche to double up in all cases. It would not be fair to claimants if there was not a very good reason for an acquiring authority to make an order which included this doubling-up. It would not be wise to anticipate precisely what might be in the guidance at this point, but as I have just said, there would be a high bar to justify doubling-up. The most likely circumstances would be linear transport projects where the final design is not complete by the time compulsory powers are obtained. We know of a handful of orders in the last dozen years where this has been authorised, such as the Docklands Light Railway and the Nottingham tramway.
As for compulsory acquisitions, each case would be considered on its individual merits at a public inquiry before an inspector, and considered by the relevant Secretary of State, before a decision was made whether doubling-up was justified in the public interest.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, with a firm undertaking that the Government will be seeking views on the draft guidance and will publish it before these provisions come into force. I apologise to the Committee for a somewhat lengthy oration on these amendments, but there are quite a few of them. When the time comes, I will move government Amendments 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 103, 105 and 106. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 65 and for noble Lords not to press Amendments 68, 69, 72, 73 and 75.
Lord Shipley
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I draw his attention to two facts. First, the Government have brought 34 amendments for consideration this afternoon, this Bill having passed in the other place. Secondly, some of them were tabled quite late, and after I tabled my amendment. I understand the need for all this to be brought together for Report, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
(a) has a power conferred by an Act to acquire land compulsorily (with or without authorisation from another person), or(b) is or has been, at any time, otherwise authorised to acquire land compulsorily.”
(a) by agreement, or(b) compulsorily, if authorised to do so in accordance with section 15 .”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I must advise the Grand Committee that if Amendment 67 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 68 due to pre-emption.
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Beecham
“( ) This section may not come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted on and published guidance in relation to section 15(3)(a).”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance. In those circumstances, I will not move the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, we now move to the second group of amendments on temporary possession. Clause 15 deals with the procedure for authorising temporary possession of land, requiring it to be authorised by the type of authorising instrument that would be required for the permanent acquisition of land—for example, a compulsory purchase order.
Government Amendments 76 to 79 remove redundant wording in Clause 15(2) as a consequence of government Amendment 66 to Clause 14(1). Government Amendments 80 to 82 amend Clause 15(3) to clarify that the same land may be subject to both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition powers concurrently. We debated the need for guidance relating to the clause a moment ago on Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, so I shall not repeat what I said about that. Government Amendments 83 to 85 and 87—the last also, happily, endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—all remove redundant provisions in the context of the previous amendments. For example, Amendment 87 refers to “relevant land”: this is no longer needed because the concept of relevant land is removed by Amendment 66. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, Amendment 86 is in my name, and I want to ask the Minister a question. Clause 15 sets out the procedures for authorising temporary possession. It is not clear from the clause whether it is intended that there be a time limit for the life of a temporary power—for instance, three years for service of a notice post the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. Do the three-year and five-year standards for compulsory purchase orders in statutory instruments apply, and does the power apply to post-construction maintenance during a defect period?
The Government’s amendments to remove superfluous words are helpful. I am not sure whether Amendment 87, which deletes subsection (7), is right—I am having second thoughts about it. I think it is right, but as the relevant land is the land required for the scheme, it seems appropriate to make it clear that temporary possession can be taken after action to secure the land required permanently. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment.
Lord Young of Cookham
I may need to write to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the specific issue he has raised on Amendment 87 and subsection (7) relating to relevant land. As I said, this is no longer needed, because the concept of relevant land has been removed by Amendment 66, with which we have just dealt. However, I will make some inquiries following his representations.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has proposed in Amendment 86 that Clause 15(6) should be omitted. This is intended to be helpful clarification. It confirms that the authorising instrument—for example, a CPO—does not need to include the dates for any particular period of temporary possession. It would be difficult for an acquiring authority to do that, because it would not know the date of the confirmation at that stage. The cross-reference to Clause 16 points users to the provisions which specify the dates of temporary possession. The Government believe that there is no need for users of this legislation to be deprived of this clarification. He also asked a question about whether CPO powers would expire after a certain period. Again, I will write to him about this when I have made some inquiries. In the meantime, I hope that he will not move his Amendment 86.
Lord Young of Cookham
“( ) if it authorises the compulsory acquisition of land, may authorise temporary possession of the same or other land,”
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am aware that I have tabled a number of amendments to this section of the Bill. I am also aware that some detailed discussion has taken place outside the Chamber. I am generally content that we are moving in the right direction and do not intend to delay the Committee for long.
We welcome the statutory framework for dealing with temporary possession. Amendment 88 seeks to make it clear that an acquiring authority may serve one or more notices under the clause. I was concerned that that was not very clear from where we stand at the moment. I would like to hear a response from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in respect of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 89, 91, 92, 93 and 94 in my name. These five amendments relate to Clause 17, which makes provision for a person affected by temporary possession to serve a counternotice to limit the total period which the temporary possession can last to 12 months in the case of a dwelling and six years in any other case. Leaseholders can also serve a counternotice providing that the acquiring authority may not take temporary possession. Having received the counternotice the acquiring authority must decide whether to accept it, withdraw the notice or proceed to take the land permanently.
As drafted, Clause 17 seems unnecessarily complex. The hope is that the Government might be able to simplify it without losing any of its statutory force. Regarding Amendment 89, Clause 17 applies wherever an acquiring authority gives notice of intended entry on to land for a temporary period to a person who is either the freeholder of the land affected or a leasehold owner. The clauses that follow seem to have a different counternotice procedure, depending on whether it is a freeholder or a leaseholder. So in connection with Amendment 89, is there a need to distinguish between leaseholders and freeholders? This amendment and the consequential amendments seek to avoid that and therefore to simplify the clause.
Amendment 91 refers to Clause 17(3), which allows a leaseholder to give the acquiring authority a counternotice to prevent it taking temporary possession of the land. It appears that this right is not available to freeholders, who can serve only a counternotice limiting the period of temporary possession. Surely, this right should be available to freeholders. This amendment therefore seeks to clarify the matter by stating:
“The owner may give the acquiring authority a counter-notice which provides that the authority may not take temporary possession of the owner’s interest”.
We then have consequential Amendments 92, 93 and 94. Clause 17(10) states that nothing in that clause,
“prevents an acquiring authority acquiring land compulsorily after accepting a counter-notice or withdrawing a notice of intended entry”.
My question is: should a permanent acquisition be available for temporary land unless a counternotice has been served requiring a permanent rather than temporary acquisition? Clause 17(8) is relevant in this respect. Amendment 94 would therefore leave out lines 38 to 40 on page 15. The concern is that landowners could potentially face a period of six years of temporary possession with the acquiring authority then deciding to acquire the land permanently. In the interests of fairness, the land should surely have been acquired permanently in the beginning. Scheme promoters should know how they wish to use the land and whether it needs to be permanently acquired from the outset.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling his Amendment 88. I appreciate that his aim in doing so was to make things clearer, an ambition which I fully support. However, on this occasion I do not think that an amendment is necessary because subsection (7) provides that Clause 16 must be complied with,
“in relation to each subsequent period of temporary possession”.
That makes it clear that acquiring authorities can serve more than one notice. Having said that, this is the sort of thing that could usefully be covered in guidance. We will update our compulsory purchase guidance in light of the reforms in the Bill, and in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I will ask for this matter to be looked at again.
Amendments 89 and 91 to 93 deal with the counternotice provisions in Clause 17. These provisions are an improvement on the current temporary possession regimes, which have no counternotice procedure in them. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling his amendments. No one would be keener than I to simplify all this, if it were possible so to do. I doubt whether it would be realistic wholly to redraft this clause between now and Report but I endorse his sense of direction. He is quite right to say that there is a difference between the treatment of leaseholders and that of freeholders. This is because the Government believe that there could be a greater impact on leaseholders than freeholders when their land is subject to temporary possession, as the leaseholder may be left with a useless lease at the end of the temporary possession period—for example, when there is only a short period left to run on the lease. We considered this in debate on Amendment 69.
Clause 17(3) affords leaseholders additional protections in these circumstances by giving them the option to serve a counternotice, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, providing that an acquiring authority cannot take temporary possession of their land at all. However, no such issues arise for freeholders. The justification for the temporary possession of the land will have been carefully considered on its individual merits at a public local inquiry before an independent inspector and confirmed only where it is in the public interest.
Lord Beecham
I would not say that I was unduly disturbed, but I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on it.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am sorry for doing a disservice to the noble Lord.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, seeks to limit the period of temporary possession of land not occupied by dwellings to three years rather than the six years proposed in Clause 17(2). It is a matter of judgment whether one draws the line at three, six or nine years. The limit of six years is designed to give those affected greater certainty on the total period that non-dwelling land can be subject to temporary possession. Restricting the period to three years, as suggested, would limit the usefulness of this new power, as the lower the upper limit, the more likely it is that an acquiring authority would, on a cautionary basis, decide to take the more draconian and unnecessary route of compulsory, permanent land acquisition instead.
As I said, there needs to be a balance between giving acquiring authorities the power they need to deliver their schemes and ensuring that the interests of those whose land is taken are protected. We consider that an upper limit of six years strikes the right balance. It is an upper limit and, of course, in many cases temporary possession will be for far less time and the issue will not arise. Where possession will need to be for infinitely longer, acquiring authorities might go for compulsory acquisition in the first instance. I assure noble Lords that we can and will keep this under review as the new power begins to take effect. The regulation-making power in Clause 24 will allow the Government to make changes if required. With those assurances and explanations—and with apologies for trying to take a short cut—I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response in respect of Amendment 88. He is entirely correct that the intent of our amendment is just to get clarity as we debate the legislation. With compulsory purchase, I am conscious that there is the risk of lawyers getting involved at a later date and arguing about what something does or does not mean—although I know my noble friend is of course a lawyer, and I would not wish to deprive him of any work. I may be reading it incorrectly but Clause 16(7) appears to refer just to the one, single case. All my amendment sought was to add that you can have more than one. I may well be wrong about this, and the Bill may be perfectly correct, but I would not mind if the noble Lord and his officials looked at it once more before we get to Report. It may well be that guidance is all we need, but we are trying to get absolute clarity so that we do not get any problems in the future on this. Other than that, we are in complete agreement on this clause as it stands.
Lord Shipley
Lord Shipley
My Lords, in moving Amendment 95, I will also speak to Amendments 96, 97 and 102. Clause 19 makes provision in respect of the payment of compensation to those who suffer loss or injury as a result of the exercise of powers of temporary possession, but there are concerns about a number of subsections in the clause. Amendment 95 addresses Clause 19(2), which provides a person—the “claimant”—with an entitlement to compensation in respect of,
“any loss or injury the claimant sustains as a result”.
I have two points here. First, would it not be better to replace “injury” with “damage”? Is there a legal reason why the word injury is used? Damage is of course more wide-ranging. Secondly, should the subsection be redrafted to make it clear that the loss or damage—or perhaps injury—must have been sustained as a result of the temporary possession of the land? The amendment would bring the drafting into line with the usual form adopted in clauses relating to compensation for the temporary possession of land, which typically state that the loss, injury or damage must have resulted from the exercise of the powers—I refer in particular to the Crossrail Act 2008. In addition, are those subsections still needed, given that other amendments are being proposed?
Amendment 97 refers to Clause 19(7), which is intended to clarify that, for the purposes of the statutory limitation period, time will not begin to run until the expiry of the last day of the temporary possession period. I understand that the Bill originally sought to achieve this objective by stating that a “claim for compensation” would “accrue on the last day of the temporary possession period”. The Compulsory Purchase Association’s view is that the original drafting would have caused problems, but that the revised drafting is not complete. The original drafting would have left claimants exposed to a potential argument that, because the claim was stated not to accrue until that time for the purposes of Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980, they also had no cause of action enabling them to claim for compensation or refer the matter to a tribunal at any earlier time. Thus, in cases where temporary possession is to last a number of years, it could result in claimants having to bear losses without compensation for a number of years, which seems unfair.
The government amendment is intended to address that problem, but it may still permit an argument that, if the cause of action is to be treated as accruing on the last day of the temporary possession period for the purposes of the Limitation Act, notwithstanding that it would otherwise be regarded as accruing before or during the temporary possession period, the cause of action should also be regarded as accruing at that later time for other purposes, including the making of a claim or reference.
The advice that I have received is that an addition should be made to the subsection to confirm that the deemed accrual applies for the purpose of the Limitation Act alone. As such, I am advised that my drafting for Clause 19(7) helps to avoid doubt. The amendment states:
“for all other purposes a claim will accrue as the possible damages suffered as a claimant is not precluded from making a claim pursuant to subsection (2) prior to the last day of that period”.
I understand the complexity of this, and that the Minister may want to respond in writing; the 34 government amendments this afternoon reveal that this is a complex matter. I am not necessarily looking to the Minister to reply to this now. I just hope that before we get to Report, the matter can be clarified so that we have a Bill that is clear in its meaning and will not end up being challenged in the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, speaking as a lawyer, although happily not practising, I see no need to amend the term “injury” to “damage”. Legally, injury embraces damage of all kinds. I would not go to extremes to defend the Government on this or any other occasion, but if the Minister felt disinclined to accept the amendment, I would not dissent from his judgment.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful for this growing cross-party alliance on how to deal with one of the amendments. I shall deal with as much as I can in writing, but some government amendments are tucked into this group which I need to address.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling his amendments, which, as he said, deal with compensation for temporary possession. Clause 19 provides that claimants will be entitled to compensation for any loss or injury which they sustain as a result of the temporary possession. Where the claimant is operating a trade or business on the land, they will be entitled to compensation for disturbance of that trade or business.
I turn to Amendment 95, for which the noble Lord has explained his reasons. I think this comes down to a difference in approach to drafting. The Government have used the term “loss or injury” instead of “loss or damage”, as the noble Lord has suggested. Both terms have been used previously. In this instance, the Government have opted to follow the precedent of Section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.
The important point is that both formulations have the same meaning. I am reinforced in my view by the recent intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.
On the second part of this amendment, adding,
“as a result of the temporary possession of the land”,
is unnecessary because subsection (1) makes the same point.
Lord Shipley
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification of that and look forward to further discussion and any correspondence that may help us reach Report with absolute clarity about what we are dealing with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I must advise the Grand Committee that if Amendment 101 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 102 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 101
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
“Impact of temporary possession on tenancies etc
(1) Subsection (2) applies where an acquiring authority takes temporary possession under section 14(2) of land subject to a tenancy.(2) A person is not to be treated as being in breach of—(a) any term of the tenancy, or(b) any other obligation associated with the tenancy or the land subject to temporary possession,to the extent that the person cannot reasonably comply with the term or other obligation as a result of the temporary possession.(3) Subsection (2) does not affect terms or obligations about—(a) the length of the tenancy, or(b) the payment of rent.(4) Subsection (5) applies where—(a) an acquiring authority takes temporary possession of land subject to a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (security of tenure for business tenants) applies immediately before the period of temporary possession,(b) the tenancy expires during the period of temporary possession, and(c) prior to the period of temporary possession the tenant notifies in writing both the acquiring authority and the landlord that the tenant intends to resume occupation of the land after the period of temporary possession.(5) For the purposes of Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 the tenant is to be deemed to continue to occupy the land in accordance with the tenancy mentioned in subsection (4)(b), and any tenancy which succeeds that tenancy, despite the period of temporary possession.(6) But if the tenant notifies in writing both the acquiring authority and the landlord that the tenant no longer intends to resume occupation of the land after the period of temporary possession subsection (5) ceases to apply.(7) In this section, “tenancy” includes a sub-tenancy.”
Baroness Parminter (LD)
“(2A) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) which have the effect of modifying any procedures that apply specifically to the acquisition of land belonging to the National Trust and held by the Trust inalienably.(2B) In subsection (2A), “held inalienably”, in relation to land belonging to the National Trust, means that the land is inalienable under section 21 of the National Trust Act 1907 or section 8 of the National Trust Act 1939.”
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 104 stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who is no longer able to be in her place. It aims to preserve Parliament’s current role as the ultimate decision-maker on whether it is appropriate for National Trust inalienable land to be compulsorily purchased for a temporary period against the judgment of the trust.
As currently drafted, Clause 24 is sufficiently broad to allow, in the case of temporary compulsory possession, for the modification of current procedures regarding National Trust inalienable land.
The Government have shown already that they recognise the need for special provisions to retain protection for National Trust land. Following the Bill’s publication, the Government’s policy paper issued in December proposed that such land could be temporarily possessed under the new power only if the confirming authority considered that there would not be serious detriment to the inalienable land in question. However, the Government’s proposals would not provide an equivalent level of protection for National Trust inalienable land as is currently the case and subsequent regulations may further reduce the protection of inalienable land held for the benefit of the nation.
Because National Trust land has been declared inalienable, it is very likely to have heritage interest or natural beauty in its own right. As noble Lords might be interested to note given earlier discussion, it might also be ancient woodland or a significant habitat. The land might contribute to or enhance neighbouring land of historic interest or natural beauty—for example, preserving the setting of a historic property and its parkland.
The trust does not obstruct development by unreasonably opposing appropriate acquisition, but clearly seems to be looking to work proactively in partnership with scheme promoters to find solutions which enable schemes to go ahead as sympathetically as possible. I am well aware of that because I live very close to the Hindhead tunnel scheme, where just that process of consultation and working constructively with developers worked incredibly well. Indeed, there has only been one occasion when the National Trust has referred compulsory purchase matters to special parliamentary procedures in the past.
Undoubtedly, there should be continuing recognition of the special nature of National Trust inalienable land held for the benefit of the nation in the Bill. I accept that there is a clear case for improving procedures for the temporary compulsory possession of land, but I believe that the National Trust is not the problem that the Government are trying to address with this legislation, but has been swept up in the wider issue. At least, I hope that may be the case and look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and speak to Amendment 104A which requires the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to make provision for the reinstatement of land at the end of a period of temporary possession. This is not drafted particularly for the benefit of the residents of Aberystwyth or places in the vicinity; it stems from the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which draws attention to a number of issues, only some of which are embodied in this amendment.
In dealing with the issue mentioned in Amendment 104A, the committee regarded it as inappropriate to leave the discussion of whether or not to include provisions about reinstatement in the regulations to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers. Hence, it recommended that the clause should be amended to impose the duty referred to in the amendment. However, that was not the end of the committee’s concerns. In particular, it also took issue with Clause 24(2)(a), which it regarded as,
“inappropriately wide and should be redrafted to reflect the narrow policy intention referred to in the DCLG document which explained the power to modify provisions”.
In particular, the committee felt that the power goes much further than the declared objective in the policy document and,
“it would enable the regulations to make substantial changes to Clauses 14 to 26 in a wide range of cases, for example, by excluding the provisions about compensation”.
I confess that the document, only having reached us at the end of January, shortly before the amendments were drafted, ought to have been subject to an amendment specifically dealing with that issue. I do not expect the Minister to respond immediately, but I hope that, before Report, he will indicate whether the Government would be minded to accept the redrafting recommendation referred to by the Delegated Powers Committee. If not, I give notice that we will remedy the omission this evening and table an appropriate amendment.
The committee was clear about the issue that I have raised, but it also makes a more general point about the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers exercising this novel power, which could potentially have far-reaching consequences without first being required to consult interested parties. It therefore considered a consultation duty even more important, in view of the provision dispensing with the House’s hybrid instruments procedure. That raises issues about secondary legislation that have so often been raised. As I say, I would not expect the Minister to respond to something of which he did not have notice by way of an amendment tonight. I hope that the matter can be resolved en route to Report, but reserve the right to table amendments if it cannot be.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I shall deal first with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has just made. Of course, I have read the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and there are three relevant recommendations relating to this Bill, two of which he mentioned. We take this very seriously; we are considering all three recommendations very carefully, and intend to respond before Report, so I hope that the nuclear option mentioned by the noble Lord may not be necessary.
I turn to Amendments 104, 104A and 129B. Clauses 14 to 26 of the Bill set out the broad framework for how the temporary possession power will work, establishing protections and providing for the payment of compensation. Further technical provisions will be necessary for the implementation of the temporary possession power. Clause 24 gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to make further provision in relation to the authorisation and exercise of temporary possession powers where necessary. We will respond on that—and in the meantime we set out in the policy document what we propose to do. There is something there about reinstatement.
On Amendment 104, certain special kinds of land, including land held inalienably by the National Trust, are afforded additional protection under the compulsory acquisition process. This additional protection provides that a compulsory purchase order may be subject to special parliamentary procedure when an objection is sustained to the relevant order by, for example, the National Trust, or when exchange land for that to be acquired cannot be given, perhaps because no suitable land is available. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that National Trust land should benefit from additional protection under the temporary possession regime; this is also true of those other special kinds of land. The Government have set out their intention to do precisely that in a policy document; we propose to do that through regulations made under Clause 24. Paragraphs 48 to 51 of that document set out more details.
The Government’s proposed approach under temporary possession differs from that under compulsory acquisition. Where the temporary possession of special kinds of land is happening without any associated compulsory acquisition, the special parliamentary procedure would not apply. Instead, the temporary possession will be allowed only when the confirming authority is satisfied that it would not cause serious detriment to the owners and users. Such serious detriment could include, for example, irreparable damage to the land concerned, or blocking access to other land or assets. When both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition of a special kind of land is included in the same order, and the compulsory acquisition is subject to special parliamentary procedure, the temporary possession land would also be subject to the special parliamentary procedure. However, I have listened with great interest to the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who raises an important issue, and the Government will, therefore, give further careful consideration to it before confirming our approach, to which I have just referred.
Baroness Parminter
I thank the Minister very much for his consideration of my comments and his commitment to engage in careful consideration of those points between now and Report. I think that was the phrase he used. I hope that that will result in the Government tabling an amendment on Report as I strongly believe that Parliament should remain the final arbiter on issues around temporary compulsory purchase orders concerning the National Trust’s inalienable land. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Shipley
Lord Shipley
Clause 27 relates to the no-scheme principle. In moving Amendment 107, I wish to speak also to Amendments 109 and 111.
Clause 27 seeks to put the no-scheme principle in the compensation code on to a statutory footing. The Bill defines the no-scheme principle as,
“any increase in the value of land caused by the scheme for which the authority acquires the land is to be disregarded”.
Amendment 107 seeks to take this further to make the Bill state that,
“any increase in the value of land caused by the scheme or the prospect of the scheme”,
should also be disregarded. The Government have tabled a very similar amendment. I welcome that amendment and do not plan to say any more about it.
I turn to Amendment 109. New Section 6A(3) on page 21 of the Bill states:
“In applying the no-scheme principle the following rules in particular … are to be observed”.
This amendment seeks to delete the words “in particular” given that new Section 6A contains five rules which are clearly defined. I will come on to Rule 4 in a moment. If one has rules defining what the position is, why do we need the words “in particular”? That implies that there are other rules that might be considered and there is no indication as to what those might be. The current position is that only the statutory disregards can be taken into account in disregarding the scheme. This provides clarity over the valuation exercise to be undertaken. I hope the Minister will agree that “in particular” on page 21, line 28 should be taken out.
Finally, Amendment 111 relates to Rule 4. The purpose of scheme cancellation being on the valuation date is to avoid the need to speculate on what may have happened between the date of cancelation and valuation because they are the same. It is not clear what the purpose of Rule 4 is. It seems to be unnecessary and likely to create confusion, particularly in the context of the other four rules. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why it forms part of the Bill and why the words “in particular” need to appear in new Section 6A in Clause 27. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I will be brief. In this group, I have Amendments 116, 117, 118 and 119. The first three seek to leave out “highway” on page 24, lines 14, 16 and 17, and insert “transport project”. We thought that would make the issue clearer. New Sections 6D(3), 6D(4)(a) and 6D(4)(b) in Clause 27 use “transport project” and I therefore did not understand why later in the same clause it was referred to as a highway scheme. Can the Minister explain why that is the case and if my amendments are not necessary? If they are, I hope he will accept them as it is odd to move from the wider and encompassing definition of transport project to the narrower definition of “highway”.
Amendment 119 seeks to provide further clarity by removing “announced”. In these sorts of schemes you get into arguments about when things were announced so we thought it would be much clearer to put,
“first proposed in consultation with the public”.
There will be an actual date on which a consultation is started and when papers and a clear plan are sent out. We thought this would be much better as we do not want disputes later because everyone is arguing about when the scheme was formally announced. That is the purpose behind the amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, we have moved on to the no-scheme principle. The problem with this principle is that since it was first established it has been interpreted in a number of complex and often contradictory ways. Clause 27 is intended to clarify the position. It creates a statutory no-scheme principle and sets out a series of clear rules to establish the methodology of valuation in the no-scheme world. It also extends the definition of the scheme to include a relevant transport project in circumstances where land acquired in the vicinity for a regeneration or redevelopment scheme is facilitated or made possible by that project. We are extending the scheme because we want to ensure that an acquiring authority should not pay more for the land it is acquiring by reason of its own or someone else’s public investment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for explaining the need for Amendment 107. The Committee will have observed that it is similar to government Amendment 108, so I am pleased to say that I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord. It is entirely correct that increases, as well as decreases, in the value of the land caused by the prospect of the scheme should be disregarded.
Amendment 109 was also proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He argues that the words “in particular” should be omitted from the introduction to the rules defining the no-scheme world as they imply that some other rules might also be in play. He argues that the rules set out in new Section 6A should be an exclusive list. The Government’s expectation is that in the vast majority of cases the application of the rules as set out will be sufficient to establish the no-scheme world. There may, however, be rare cases in unforeseen circumstances where the Upper Tribunal considers that the application of the rules alone would not give a fair result. Retaining the phrase “in particular” gives the tribunal sufficient flexibility in these rare cases to fall back on the underlying no-scheme principle set out in new Section 6A(2) and its own common sense to arrive at a fair outcome. While I appreciate the noble Lord’s point about the need for clarity, the Government’s view is that the Upper Tribunal should retain this flexibility in order to reach a fair outcome in such unforeseen circumstances.
With Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and government Amendment 112 we now move to consideration of the rules themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, argues that Rule 4 is unnecessary and should be omitted. The Government’s view is that it remains necessary in order to complement Rule 3. Rule 3 assumes that there is no prospect of the same scheme or any other project to meet the same or substantially the same need as the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase. Rule 4 assumes that there is no prospect of any other scheme taking place on the land concerned. As currently drafted, this is too wide, so Amendment 112 restricts Rule 4 to disregarding only those schemes that could be undertaken only by the exercise of statutory functions or compulsory purchase powers. This means that the prospect of schemes brought forward by the private sector would still be considered as part of the no-scheme world. This is a fine point of valuation practice. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I think that the Government should further consider this issue very carefully with the expert practitioners who may conceivably have been briefing the noble Lord to find a solution.
Amendments 116, 117 and 118 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. New Section 6D(6) specifies that when the scheme to be disregarded under Rule 3 is a highway scheme, the reference to “any other project” includes another highway scheme to meet the same need as the actual scheme. This provision reflects the planning assumption in Section 14(5)(d) of the Land Compensation Act 1961. It is important that the assumptions for the no-scheme world and the planning assumptions that should be applied in that no-scheme world should be consistent. The current Section 14 was substituted by the Localism Act 2011. A similar provision was added to the original version of Section 14 by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The noble Lord put forward a powerful case that this clarification could apply equally to other transport projects. If it did, Section 14 would also need to be amended to keep the two sets of assumptions in step. I think that this is another issue which the Government should reflect on with expert practitioners.
Turning to the definition of the scheme that must be disregarded before compensation may be assessed, government Amendments 113, 114 and 115 make some small adjustments in the context of the extension of the scheme to relevant transport projects. These have arisen from discussions between the Government and the Greater London Authority and Transport for London, which have only recently been concluded. I am very happy to give details if noble Lords would like them, but as they are relatively small adjustments, I propose to skip that part of the text.
I now return to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Amendment 119 seeks to clarify new Section 6E(3) which disapplies Section 6E for land bought after a relevant transport project was announced but before this Bill was published. If such land were to be included in a redevelopment or regeneration project in the vicinity of that relevant transport project, it would be valued as if the relevant transport project was not part of the scheme to be disregarded.
The noble Lord’s amendment is much more specific than the Bill as currently drafted. The Government’s view is that such precision may not be necessary. The provision refers to an event that has already happened, and it is quite possible that a project may have been announced in some other way than that specified by the announcement. If so, it would be unfair to restrict this provision because the announcement did not fit within the somewhat narrow definition proposed.
However, having said that, it might be possible to clarify, perhaps in guidance, exactly what is meant by an announcement. That is certainly something that I would like to reflect on. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw Amendment 107.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 107. I look forward to reading carefully in Hansard what the Minister has said, with a view to potentially coming back to this on Report.
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
“(a) section 333ZA of this Act, and(b) paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980,”
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, we now move on to Clause 31, which deals with the joint acquisition of land by the Greater London Authority and Transport for London, and whose purpose I will briefly explain.
At the moment, for the GLA to bring forward a comprehensive redevelopment scheme in London involving both transport and other development, two compulsory purchase orders are needed: one promoted by the Greater London Authority for the regeneration or housing elements of the scheme, and the other promoted by Transport for London for the transport or highways elements of the scheme. This division makes no sense. It adds complexity and delay to the process and causes confusion among those most affected. Clause 31 removes this unnecessary division and allows the Greater London Authority to promote joint compulsory purchase orders with Transport for London and vice versa. It inserts new Section 403A into the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which enables either the Greater London Authority or Transport for London, or both, to acquire all the land needed for a joint transport and regeneration or housing scheme on behalf of the other.
The government amendments make two changes to the provisions as currently drafted. Amendments 120, 121 and 123 enable the Greater London Authority to promote a joint compulsory purchase order with Transport for London using Transport for London’s compulsory purchase powers as a highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in addition to its general compulsory purchase powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
Government Amendment 124 delivers the second change. New Section 403B of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 will enable a mayoral development corporation to promote a joint compulsory purchase order with Transport for London for a joint transport, including a highway, and regeneration project as an alternative to the Greater London Authority itself. Having set up a mayoral development corporation to regenerate an area, such as at Old Oak Common, the GLA would not normally seek to use its own powers in that area. I hope the Committee will agree with me that these are sensible provisions. With that explanation, I beg to move government Amendment 120.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I have Amendments 122, 125 and 126 in this group. I will speak to them very briefly and look forward to the noble Lord’s response to the points I raise. Amendments 122 and 125 seek to make the situation clearer and to avoid the suggestion that a beneficial interest may exist, by removing the words,
“on behalf of the other”.
We do not think those words are necessary, and I propose to remove them in Amendments 122 and 125.
Amendment 126 would insert a new subsection into Clause 32, which would ensure that the GLA, TfL or a mayoral development corporation has the power to acquire land compulsorily for purposes under the Housing and Planning Act if it was previously able to do that under Sections 403A and 403B of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I hope that we again get a positive response from the Minister accepting that I have highlighted an important issue to which, if nothing else, the Government will respond on Report.
Lord True (Con)
I see the wisdom of what is proposed in these amendments, reinforced by government Amendment 124, where an MDC is involved. I take it that it means only one compulsory order so that TfL is able to acquire land to advance housing projects, et cetera.
This may be my ignorance or otiose, but it appears that the way that this is drafted, based on the Greater London Act, TfL could exercise this new authority only in concert with the GLA or an MDC. However, there are other development authorities and planning authorities in Greater London: the London boroughs. I can envisage circumstances where there is neglected land alongside on a red route where TfL is the highways authority and a borough has an interest, but it may be too small to attract the interest of the Mayor of London. I simply raise the question to seek elucidation. It may not be necessary. Will it be possible when this is liberalised for TfL to use this power in concert with a borough without needing to go via the GLA or to set up a mayoral development corporation?
TfL gets cross when I say this in your Lordships’ House, but it is not always the most nimble authority when it comes to development. Some boroughs might be able to encourage it a little. I do not expect an answer now, but perhaps my noble friend will consider the need for such flexibility if TfL is to be given this new partnership power to acquire.
Lord Young of Cookham
My noble friend Lord True invites me to go way beyond my negotiating remit by extending to London boroughs the powers under the clause, which is intended to remove an existing duplication. However, I will of course consider his suggestion.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Lord, Lord True, makes an interesting point. I am a member, although not the leader, of another London borough council. I think he makes a valid point which the Government could look at.
Lord Young of Cookham
It is indeed a valid point, but it goes wider than the narrow issue before us. As a former member of a London borough, albeit in 1968, I have an interest in enabling the boroughs to fulfil their full potential. I shall make some inquiries and write to my noble friend.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling Amendments 122, 125 and 126. They deal with two different clauses—Clauses 31 and 32—but as Amendment 126 is consequential on Amendments 122 and 125, I shall deal with them together.
I shall briefly explain what Clause 31 does. The Housing and Planning Act 2016, which will be fresh in the memory of many Members of the Committee, extended the statutory power to override easements and restrictive covenants when undertaking development to all bodies having compulsory purchase powers. Clause 32 amends this power to ensure that it operates as intended for the GLA and Transport for London and brings land acquired by their landholding subsidiary companies within the scope of the powers so that development on that land is not hindered.
I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendments 122 and 125. The Government’s intention in bringing forward the measure in Clause 31 is to allow the Greater London Authority or a mayoral development corporation and Transport for London to use their powers more effectively by allowing them to promote joint orders, as I explained. The amendments the noble Lord is proposing go beyond that and are not quite as innocuous as the noble Lord implied. They would effectively allow both organisations to acquire land for purposes for which they have no statutory power. For example, they would allow Transport for London to acquire land compulsorily for housing or regeneration purposes. This raises broader issues about competence. For those reasons, the Government do not think they are appropriate. It is a key principle of a compulsory purchase system that acquiring authorities should be allowed to acquire land by compulsion only for purposes associated with their statutory functions. Housing is not a statutory function of Transport for London.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 126 relates to the power to override easements in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and appears to be consequential on Amendments 122 and 125 being acceptable, which, for the reason I have outlined, I am afraid they are not. I know it will come as a disappointment, but I invite the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, not to press Amendments 122, 125 and 126, for the reasons that I have given.
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham
“403B Acquisition of land by MDC and TfL for shared purposes(1) This section applies where a Mayoral development corporation and Transport for London agree that the purposes for which they may acquire land compulsorily under—(a) section 207 of the Localism Act 2011, and(b) paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980,would be advanced by one or both of them acquiring land for a joint project.(2) The purposes for which the Mayoral development corporation may acquire land compulsorily under section 207 of the Localism Act 2011 are to be read as if they included the purposes for which Transport for London may acquire land compulsorily.(3) The purposes for which Transport for London may acquire land compulsorily under paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980 are to be read as if they included the purposes for which the Mayoral development corporation may acquire land compulsorily. (4) The Mayoral development corporation and Transport for London may agree that one of them is to acquire land on behalf of the other.(5) Where subsection (4) applies, a compulsory acquisition is to proceed under—(a) section 207 of the Localism Act 2011 if it is agreed that the Mayoral development corporation will acquire the land, or(b) paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 11 to this Act or Part 12 of the Highways Act 1980 if it is agreed that Transport for London will acquire the land.(6) Subsection (7) applies where—(a) the Mayoral development corporation and Transport for London both propose to acquire land compulsorily for a joint project, and(b) the proposed compulsory acquisitions require authorisation by different confirming authorities.(7) The proposed compulsory acquisitions are to be treated as requiring the joint authorisation of the confirming authorities.(8) The Mayoral development corporation or Transport for London may acquire land by agreement for the same purposes as those for which that body may acquire land compulsorily by virtue of subsection (2) or (3).(9) The joint project mentioned in subsection (1) is to be treated as the scheme for the purposes of the no-scheme principle in section 6A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (impact of scheme to be disregarded when assessing value of land for compulsory purchase).””
“Review of compulsory purchase process
The Secretary of State must, by the end of 2018, have completed a review of the entire compulsory purchase process and brought forward proposals to ensure compulsory purchase legislation is both fit for purpose and included within a single Act of Parliament.”
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, compulsory purchase powers are a necessary tool for any market-based but property-respecting society that wishes to progress. Progress cannot be achieved without change and very often that change involves compulsorily acquiring rights in land. I believe that in our post-Brexit world we need to focus hard on how we change and develop, and also improve our living spaces, in a way that is fair and equitable and that can be achieved without unnecessary delays and expense. Speed will more and more be of the essence.
The principle underlying compulsory purchase is that the scheme should be for the benefit of society and that the powers used are only a last resort. In the old days, the powers were almost always only used by Government or local authorities. Rather like paying one’s taxes, that was hard to challenge and it seemed fair and reasonable. But of course nowadays it is frequently one privatised company—water, gas, electric, rail or even now telecommunications—imposing a scheme on other private businesses or owners for the benefit of their profit and loss account or balance sheet. Sometimes other private companies, such as supermarkets, are able to harness local authority compulsory purchase powers to achieve their ends for such things as car parks.
One might question whether a supermarket car park is a necessary public benefit. Indeed what a necessary public benefit is could form the basis of one question for the proposed review. In this context, as an interesting aside, in my researches I came across a case in the USA where an old lady defeated and stopped the unstoppable one, Donald Trump, because she proved that a car park for one of his proposed casinos was definitely not of public benefit—not a case relevant to us, but I thought it might amuse your Lordships.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My noble friend Lord Beecham and I fully support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord and look forward to a positive response from the Government on it.
The noble Lord mentioned Millwall Football Club. A couple of weeks ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Young, was speaking to an order on overview and scrutiny committees in combined authorities, I put it on record that I did not think the council got it quite right, to say the least. Thankfully the CPO has now been withdrawn and the council has made it clear that whatever goes ahead in future will do so only with the involvement and agreement of the club, local businesses and the local community. I was very pleased with that, and pay tribute to my overview and scrutiny colleagues for their work to prise information out of the council to enable them to convince the mayor and the cabinet that that was the way to proceed. I also pay tribute to the campaigners, fans, supporters and the club. We certainly had a lot of unhelpful publicity in recent weeks, but overview and scrutiny, in particular, did a very good job.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, argued eloquently for a comprehensive review of the compulsory purchase system, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I listened to the very pertinent questions that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said needed to be addressed, including international comparisons, looking at marriage values of freehold and leasehold and all the other issues, and I read the first line of his amendment, which states that by the end of next year we have to complete a review and bring forward proposals. It seems to me a mammoth task to embrace all the questions that he has raised—of course there may be others—within a very challenging timescale.
The advice that I have is that, were we to undertake this review, it would take three years and we would end up with 250-plus clauses. I do not know about other members of the Committee, but 24 CPO clauses seems to me quite a lot. Then there would be a number of schedules. There is no realistic prospect of doing that within the timescale that the noble Lord suggests. However, I recognise that there is a strong desire among many for the compulsory purchase system to be simplified. We have heard speeches to that effect during our proceedings. As my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said in the other place, he has some sympathy with that, but, as I said a moment ago, a comprehensive review would be a huge undertaking. While the Government do not rule it out completely, we would need very careful consideration before we took it forward, and there would need to be clear consensus on its terms of reference and objectives.
I appreciate that this does not go nearly as far as the noble Lord has suggested, but the Government have been tackling specific issues within the CPO regime which practitioners have identified as causing problems, and we have tried to do this in the Bill by introducing the temporary CPO processes and rationalising the Greater London Authority and TfL powers, as well as by clarifying the no-schemes valuation process. We hope that that will make a real, practical difference on the ground and allow the compulsory purchase system to operate more effectively.
It is relevant to mention briefly the White Paper published yesterday, Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, because it flags up two further areas, which I am sure that the noble Lord would want to add to his list. First, there is the role that the CPO could play in helping to kickstart development on stalled housing sites. The White Paper sets out our intention to consult on new guidance encouraging local authorities to use their existing compulsory purchase powers to support the build-out of stalled sites. Secondly, the White Paper sets out the Government’s intention to investigate whether auctions, following the taking of possession of the land, are sufficient to establish an unambiguous value for the purposes of assessing compensation payable to the claimant when the local authority has used its compulsory purchase powers to acquire the land. Furthermore, the White Paper also makes it clear that we will continue to keep compulsory purchase under review and notes the Government’s willingness to consider representations on how the process might be reformed further to support development.
As I said, we have an open mind on the need for further reform—but I hope that, in the meantime, noble Lords will agree that we should not delay progress on delivering the reforms that we already have in hand, including those in the Bill. So although I have enormous sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendment, it would be unrealistic to expect the Government to support it.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, for their support. The Minister seemed to hint that he is willing to accept the principle of the amendment; that is how he started off. I accept that it might take longer than we had anticipated. To be honest, until I came to write my few words, I did not know how many questions I was going to find in the maelstrom of information that there is out there. I believe that it really would be worth doing, if only to consolidate the legislation list that I read out. As the Minister rightly said, there are probably even more questions than those that I discovered. I look forward to further conversations on this point and hope that, sooner rather than later, the Government will address this area with seriousness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Amendment to TfL powers
In Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (miscellaneous powers of Transport for London) after paragraph 12 insert—“12A(1) Transport for London or any subsidiary of Transport for London may sell, exchange or lease its land for the purpose of providing housing of any description at such price, or for such consideration, or for such rent, as having regard to all the circumstances of the case is the best that can reasonably be obtained, notwithstanding that a higher price, consideration or rent might have been obtained if the land were sold, exchanged or leased for the purpose of providing housing of another description or for a purpose other than the provision of housing.(2) Transport for London or any subsidiary of Transport for London shall not be required to act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise for the purposes of paragraph 29 below if undertaking any activities at paragraphs 15(2) or (3) below with a view to selling, exchanging or leasing its land under this paragraph.””
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 128 is grouped with 129, both of which stand in my name.
Amendment 128 seeks to clarify the application of Section 31 of the Housing Act 1985 to TfL or its subsidiaries to dispose of their surplus land for housing development where that is considered appropriate as long as the price obtained is,
“having regard to all the circumstances of the case … the best that can reasonably be obtained”.
The amendment uses the wording of Section 31 of the Housing Act 1985 and contains a restriction in paragraph 29 to Schedule 11 of the GLA Act 1999 to ensure that the powers to sell and develop land for housing are consistent in this context. Amendment 129 is similarly worded and seeks to ensure that there is consistency between the TfL and the GLA in this regard. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, this will be my last contribution to this exchange. I am happy to end on a more consensual note than was the case on some of the earlier contributions.
Amendments 128 and 129 in the name of the noble Lord seek to make new provision in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which would amend the powers of Transport for London and the GLA to dispose of land.
Amendment 128 seeks to give Transport for London the flexibility to dispose of land for housing, even if a higher value use was available, provided the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved. To support this aim, Amendment 128 would also remove the requirement for TfL to,
“act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise”,
when disposing of land for housing.
Amendment 129 would make related provision in respect of the GLA. It would enable the GLA to dispose of land for housing without obtaining the Secretary of State’s consent, even if a higher value use was available, provided that the best consideration reasonably obtainable for housing use had been achieved.
I am very sympathetic to the intention of these amendments of providing flexibility to ensure that we can prioritise land for housing development. However, the legal issues involved are not entirely straightforward, and I think the public interest would be best served if a meeting was held between the Government, the GLA and TfL before Report to consider this further. With the reassurance that I will facilitate such a meeting, I hope that the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord very much for that positive response to these two amendments. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment and look forward to a very fruitful meeting between the various parties.
Lord Beecham
“( ) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.”
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 129A which stands in my name, I wish to speak also to the proposition that Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill. Both these provisions stem again from the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. My amendment refers specifically to a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Assembly Ministers—the noble Lord might be included for this purpose—before making regulations under Clause 38, or Section 38 as it will be when the Bill is enacted. The committee refers to the wording of Clause 38, which confers power on the Secretary of State to make such provision as he,
“considers appropriate in consequence of any provision”,
in the Bill. That is a very wide-ranging power. It includes, as the committee points out, Acts of Parliament of course, but also measures or Acts of the National Assembly of Wales. A justification of a kind is provided in the accompanying memorandum, which the committee quotes as concluding that,
“it is considered prudent for the Bill to contain a power to deal with these in secondary legislation”.
But as the committee points out,
“the Bill makes no provision for any procedure in the Assembly when the power is used to amend primary or secondary legislation enacted by the Assembly or Welsh Ministers … there is not even a duty to consult Welsh Ministers when amending Welsh legislation”.
That is an extraordinary position to have got into. The committee goes on to point out:
“Clause 2 of the Wales Bill provides that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly”.
However, that appears to be feasible under this Bill as it presently stands. As the committee notes:
“The Constitution Committee have raised similar concerns”,
and it therefore considers that the power should be amended to impose,
“an obligation to consult Welsh Ministers”.
That is what my Amendment 129A does.
There is a proposal to remove the whole of Clause 38—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that is in a different group.
Lord Beecham
I beg your pardon—it is grouped with this on the paper I have here. I will not make that point now but will deal with it when we get to that group. I beg to move Amendment 129A.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on Amendment 129A. I also speak, as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to express our surprise that there was no provision even for consultation, with the Welsh Assembly, when proposed changes to an Act or secondary legislation are made. As I understand it, if it is an Act, there would normally be a legislative consent Motion; if it is secondary legislation, a consent Motion. That was the original provision, and I assume it is still the same. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, fortunately, is an expert in this field.
I can only assume that this is an accidental omission, as I cannot see any policy in it. It seems to me ludicrous that a Secretary of State could, with a stroke of the pen, without any consent in Wales and without any consultation, simply amend the Act. I shall speak further on the clause stand part debate in a moment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for moving this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for speaking in relation to this issue as well. To deal with the situation in its entirety, I will need to look back to the provisions in the Wales Act 2017. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, may recall that we had a similar issue there—I think he was in his place when we discussed it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will certainly recall it
To put this in context, first, I make the point that any amendments here—this anticipates what we will be discussing in the next debate—have to be consequential, which limits it to matters that arise in the legislation and are consequential. Secondly, in these cases there are always minor issues. I think this has universally been the case—I have yet to be shown an example otherwise, and I have checked quite a few. In the context of the Wales legislation, it was anticipated that occasionally the wrong terminology would be used. For example, parish councils exist in England, but they are community councils in Wales, and this is about things of that nature, which one would not wish to have to bring back for primary legislation. That is not the sort of issue that should be in primary legislation.
In the context of the Welsh position, it is also worth noting that not only is there power in the Wales Act to amend legislation in the National Assembly for Wales, but it also operates in the other direction, giving the National Assembly—effectively, Labour Welsh Ministers —the opportunity to amend our legislation. I appreciate that not all noble Lords were steeped in the process of the Wales Bill. In practice, as is confirmed by an exchange of letters between the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, on which I hope to expand in a letter to noble Lords summing up what has happened in today’s Committee, where we identify an issue that needs a minor amendment, we notify both the First Minister and the Presiding Officer, the Speaker in the National Assembly, who, if she wishes —it is a she at present—can draw it to the Assembly’s attention. Of course, under devolved arrangements, it is a matter for her and the National Assembly as to what they do. So it is a reciprocal arrangement.
I anticipate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will say that, from a legal purist’s point of view, that is not ideal, but from a pragmatic point of view of dealing with minor amendments—if noble Lords can find anything major that is dealt with in legislation of this nature, I should be very interested to see it, because that would be an outrage. It is a tidying-up exercise. I hope that we can translate this to the Bill. I am happy to look at this point and deal with it in correspondence, but it is a common-sense approach to what is a relatively minor issue. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I am happy to discuss it with him and other noble Lords afterwards, but I put the substance of how this operates in the context of Wales, because I think there is a read across, and we would do something identical, mutatis mutandis, under the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, if that is the case and it is the practice to write to the First Minister and Presiding Officer of the Assembly, why not have that in the Bill so that there can be no slipup, if that will inevitably happen and is required to happen? It seems common sense that it should be in the Bill. An exchange of letters outlining a practice is in no way a safeguard against the arbitrary use of the power by the Secretary of State, widely drawn as it is.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord knows as well as I do the difference between convention and provision in statute. If everything that had been discussed in Committee on the Bill will put in statute, it would be a much longer and more complex piece of legislation. This is about finding the appropriate place to deal with it. As I said, I am happy to share the correspondence and discuss it further, but I do not think it should appear in the Bill.
Lord Beecham
I obviously cannot proceed to a vote on the amendment, but the Minister seems to ignore the explicit statement of the Delegated Powers Committee that,
“the power conferred by clause 38 of this Bill is inappropriate to the extent that it allows the Secretary of State to amend Assembly legislation without at least an obligation to consult Welsh Ministers”.
If that is the practice, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that it should be codified and expressed in the Bill. What is the problem?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, with respect, it is asking not for that but for an obligation to consult, and I have said that that is a reasonable request. It is effectively what is happening under the Wales legislation. I have said that we anticipate doing exactly the same, mutatis mutandis, under the Bill, so that, via the Presiding Officer, we are consulting.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Can the Minister tell us whether there is any provision in a Welsh Bill intended to amend English legislation, or legislation at Westminster, where no consultation is required, in the same way—mutatis mutandis?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am sorry, I have made the position clear. I am not sure what point the noble Lord is seeking to make. I am happy to discuss this further. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to withdraw the amendment on that basis, but I do not think I can go further than that at the moment.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in this session of the Committee, I declare an interest in that I have a legal case pending concerning a planning application. I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments and have been told that the sub judice rule does not apply here. I also have some interests in the register which I declare.
I will talk to the short version of the amendment, bearing in mind that we are coming to the end of this Committee stage. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. I have also read it and understand what it says. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is on that committee and will know the detail. I have also looked at the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which makes it very clear that Henry VIII clauses are a departure from constitutional principle and should be contemplated only when a full and clear explanation and justification is provided.
Throughout this Committee, there has been quite a divergence of views on the purpose of the Bill. The Government see it as a way of building the maximum number of houses in the minimum of time. Local people see it as an opportunity to make the best decisions for their towns and villages, and that should be sovereign—I use that word advisedly.
The Henry VIII clause is not justified in the Bill. The Bill is an attempt to overtake the Localism Act by giving more power to the Secretary of State. I have found this tendency threaded throughout the Bill. On another clause, when I voiced my concerns, the Minister told me that the Secretary of State would use his powers sparingly. In a previous debate, my noble friend talked about consequential and minor amendments and the rest of it. That might be true of this Secretary of State, but I do not derive any comfort from that because, as we all know, attitudes change and the situation could be very different with a future Secretary of State.
I urge my noble friend to reflect on what the Bill is all about. I think he will agree that it is part of a raft of planning Acts. It is not dealing with the security of the state in a time of war, or to tie the hands of the Government in foreign negotiations. It is about ordinary people having some say in their communities and in planning the future of their neighbourhoods. Yet the Secretary of State wants to introduce an autocratic power to rule over good people in case they do not conform to his aspirations. I find that outrageous. I seek to defend the aspirations of good people who have their communities at heart. I strongly resist the incorporation of the clause, as I feel it has no part in the Bill.
Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, cannot be here this evening. He has a family engagement that he tells me is a three-line Whip and he sends his apologies to the Committee. However, I am truly delighted that I have the support of the noble and learned, Lord, Lord Judge. He is a wise and wonderful person who is internationally admired for his in-depth knowledge of the British constitution, which is what we are talking about. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who has proved to be a doughty fighter throughout the Bill. I think of him not as a Rottweiler, but more as a terrier.
Lord Judge (CB)
It is the lion that represents Millwall, is it not? I shall be brief, but not as brief as perhaps I should be because, with respect, this clause is totally flawed. I shall not go over the debate I had with the Minister over what is now the Wales Act, but we still have to face the fact that under the clause as it now stands following the debate on Amendment 129, the Secretary of State in London will be empowered to overrule the legislation of the elected Assembly. There is no arguing; that is what it says, and that is what it means. I understand that the Minister would have no intention of telling us anything other than how he envisages this power being used, and of course I accept it from him, but the power is being given to wipe out the enactments of the National Assembly for Wales without so much as a reference to it.
In my respectful submission, it is subsection (2) of this clause that is so unacceptable: the Henry VIII clause, the legislation that will set aside the legislation. It will give power to the Secretary of State to say, “I don’t like this legislation any more” or “I don’t like this part of this legislation any more, I’m going to get rid of it”. That is what we are empowering if we allow this to go through.
With Henry VIII clauses, you have to ask whether they are justified. Here, you ask the question: how is it justified? The answer to that question is that it is not justified. I looked through the Explanatory Notes. They state:
“Part 3 Final Provisions … Clauses 37-40”—
that covers Clause 38—
“and 42 are self-explanatory”.
That is it. No doubt the clause is self-explanatory, but, with great respect, so what? Self-explanatory is no sort of justification. It is not even an attempt to justify.
Assiduously, I hunted further and found what the department’s memorandum tells us the clause is for:
“There are a number of consequential changes being made by the Bill, particularly those flowing from the addition of a new procedure for modifying neighbourhood plans, restricting the imposition of planning conditions, and amendments to compulsory purchase legislation”.
That is a very neat summary of a very complex piece of legislation, but this is the justification that the department advances:
“It is possible that not all such consequential changes have been identified in the Bill. As such it is considered prudent for the Bill to contain a power to deal with these in secondary legislation”.
Is that any sort of justification?
Going back to the wording, if,
“the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,
is an entirely subjective discretion, entirely uncontrolled in any way by the legislation. Is that really what the department wants? Well, the department may want it, but we are being invited to give powers to a Secretary of State years down the line to repeal an Act of Parliament, the whole Act, the Act that noble Lords have spent four days working on in this Committee. By this provision, if it comes into force, it can all be wiped out. That is what Henry VIII means.
I repeat that I totally accept the good faith of the Minister, I accept it completely and utterly, but he will not be the Minister 10 or 20 years from now, and the list of legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave us reminds us of how long this legislation could last. So because the department thinks there is a vague, undefined possibility that may arise in the future, I respectfully suggest that we are being landed with a hugely dangerous piece of legislation because it is totally unjustified. Of course the future is unsure. We all know that; Shakespeare told us that. It is the most important line he wrote. We know that the future is unsure, but it is not a justification for giving literally sweeping—sweeping away—powers to the Executive. That is not how we should operate.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I wholly support everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, just said, and what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said in introducing this debate. The matter that concerns the Delegated and Regulatory Reform Committee is on page 9 of its report, at paragraph 54. Not only is the power “very wide” in scope, but it,
“is to make whatever provisions—including ones amending and repealing Acts of Parliament … We note that it has become standard practice for provisions of this type to be included near the end of a Bill”.
This is appearing all the time. It is really an insurance policy: “We might make a mistake, and if we make a mistake we do not want to have the trouble of admitting it; we will just get some secondary instrument through Parliament, and that will be all that we have to do”. That is not a sufficient justification for such a wide power.
The committee suggested that at the very least, the power could be restricted by some type of objective test of necessity: to where it is necessary—to “where we have made a mistake” if you like—or to where something important has been omitted. We need something that gives substantive limitation to such a widely expressed power.
Lord True
My Lords, I will speak briefly, although I feel rather rash in doing so after the compelling interventions we have heard. As I understand it, this power applies to any enactment, not just, as the noble and learned Lord said—I am sure misspeaking—to what is in this enactment. My position is as a lay person, but also someone who was for a long time in the usual channels, interested in the drafting of legislation and how that was done by a Government whom I opposed for 13 years. I have to say that we would have looked a little askance at this sort of thing in those years in opposition. I understand the innocent intent and perfect integrity of the present Ministers involved, but the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rather anticipated my thought: if clear drafting instructions are given on what is required to be enacted and a Bill is properly drafted by expert draftsmen, there should be no need for the sweeping brush to be around afterwards. That is really how legislation should be presented to Parliament.
This is the second piece of planning legislation we have had in a year. I submit that there has been time to think through these things, but it is the wider point that concerns me. This is not an ad hominem, or a criticism of Ministers here, but this will become a practice—I was struck by that paragraph in the Delegated Powers Committee report. It will become part of the constitution if Parliament continues to accept, in Act after Act, that Ministers of the day can be given power to change any other enactment as a result of something that arises out of their further ruminations or representations on it. I hope that my noble friend will consider this carefully.
The other thing I would say, in the broader context of planning and the challenge of getting more housing and more things done, is that there is immense distrust out there—anyone who lives with the planning system knows the distrust and fear that people have that the system is loaded against them. The system is actually fair, and bends over backwards to try to be fair, but if government arms itself with powers to change the rules if something does not quite work out as might have been intended in the first place—instead of building that consent for new planning and new development that I want, and which I know the Government want—it may add to the sense, so eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, that the system is loaded. That must be something to avoid. Although my main objection is on the wider constitutional principle, as a practitioner—a local authority leader who has to stand between the forces of government and popular feeling—and as a layman, I argue that we should be particularly cautious in the context of this legislation.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I want to add my amateur voice to that of the professionals who have commented so far. At our previous sitting, we had an extended discussion about the sweeping provisions of Clause 12, making it a Henry VIII clause. The Minister went out of his way to reassure us about the very limited intent of Ministers in relation to that clause. One of the issues, which was perhaps not made very explicit in that debate, is exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord True, made about the lack of public trust in the system, which the Neighbourhood Planning Bill and the Localism Act were specifically introduced to reverse. The Act seems to be doing so in places where it is taking root, which is absolutely excellent, and anything which would tend to undermine that trust and lead to uncertainty about the effectiveness of the new system is certainly to be avoided if possible.
I look at this from a pragmatic point of view, though I absolutely accept and endorse the constitutional point of view that has been put forward. With Clause 12 and Clause 38 we basically have a Henry VIII clause followed by a William I Clause. William I galloped through England laying waste to everything he saw, and that does not leave a very favourable impression of the direction of travel of the Bill. I hope that on top of any constitutional considerations, issues of news management, at least, might penetrate and make a difference to the Government’s approach.
My noble friend Lord Thomas said that there is surely some wording that could be used to make this a clause about owning up to mistakes. A phrase limiting its application only to cases where there was manifest error or omission would at least put on record and in the Bill its intended limitations.
Lord Shipley
I tried to add my name to this clause stand part Motion but unfortunately the queue was too long and I was not able to. I understand that mistakes can be made and need to be rectified. I again draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we have, on day one of Committee, had 34 government amendments to a Bill which has passed to us from the other place. That shows that Bills have to be drafted better so that we do not end up with people wanting to change them because the right level of thought was not put in to them in the first place. In her emphasis on neighbourhood planning, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, had it absolutely right—a clause of this kind in a Bill to do with neighbourhood planning, which can, in effect, put a coach and horses through any aspect of it, is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister understands that, and I very much hope that this clause will not survive beyond Committee.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, there is a certain irony in a Henry VIII clause applying to Wales, given that the Tudor monarchy was based on Welsh lineage. I am also reminded of the lines of TS Eliot in The Hollow Men:
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper”.
The Bill is ending in the reverse order. We have had a generally mild and constructive discussion for the past four days in Committee, but we end with something of a bang, because if the Government stick to their position, what is being perpetrated in the clause will lead to significant disagreement.
It is particularly important that the Government should listen to advice from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Others of us have our own views—we perhaps have a political approach, even those of us who are lawyers of a senior vintage, if I may put it that way. To hear the noble and learned Lord’s critique must surely give the Government pause for thought. It is simply unacceptable to insist on a procedure that leaves so much power in the hands of the Government effectively to ignore the obligations which ought to apply in relation to the Welsh Assembly, in this case, but in general to the operation of secondary legislation. In the few years that I have been here, that has time and again been shown to be defective as a mechanism for sustaining proper parliamentary consideration at the appropriate time of important measures with significant implications for various aspects of public policy.
I hope that the Minister will take this back and respond constructively, or secure permission to do so, to the views of this Committee and those of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, it appears—for I had not noticed its report—to take the views of the Constitution Committee into account. Obviously, he cannot give us any firm commitments tonight but I hope that, after consulting his colleagues, he will be able to satisfy the House by indicating that. Otherwise, it will undoubtedly have to go to Report and, if necessary, a vote at Report. I hope that we can avoid that because, on the whole, the Bill has proceeded in a fairly consensual way. Most of us have endeavoured to work with the grain of the Government’s policy. It would be a shame if that were in contrast with a rigid decision to stick with very unsatisfactory drafting right at the end of the Bill.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, very much for his constructive approach and say that it is certainly not my intention not to engage on this between Committee and Report. I think that I indicated that on the previous amendment, which he so eloquently moved. I am very happy to engage with noble Lords.
I would like to say one or two things in response to the debate, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who has been totally consistent on this issue and obviously speaks from great experience. Contrary to what my noble friend Lord True thought there is a history to this, not just from going back as far as Henry VIII. Successive Governments have indulged in this. I appreciate that that does not make it right, but I have done a little research with my team. The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999, just in this area, have powers wider than those in the Bill. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to how important the Localism Act is; I quite agree but there are wider powers in that Act, which was passed under the coalition Government. I appreciate that that does not make it right, but I want to establish the point that a certain degree of consistency would be welcome on these issues.
That said, I am very happy to engage positively in looking at how we move forward on this matter. I very much echo what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about the way that the Committee has proceeded in a consensual way for the most part. We have not always agreed on issues but we have certainly disagreed agreeably as we have gone through the Bill. I am certainly happy to engage with noble Lords between now and Report in looking at this matter.
We have to keep this in perspective. However, if noble Lords can provide examples of where this provision has been misused in relation to any of that legislation, which, as I say, goes back a considerable way, or examples of where any Government have used it improperly, that would strengthen the case for looking at it further. This measure also does not give the Secretary of State the power that has been suggested; it is subject to an affirmative resolution, which means that it has to be presented to both Houses with a full explanation and carried by both Houses. That said, I understand the points that have been made during the debate. I thank those who have participated: the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, my noble friend Lord True and the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Shipley, as well as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who put their names to this measure. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Given the assurance I have just provided, I ask noble Lords not to press this measure.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his comments. We are trying to get a consensus. During our first debate in Committee, I was described as the hard cop. I really am hard as regards this issue. We have to think very carefully about including a clause such as this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that it was simply not justified, that there had been no attempt to justify it and that there was no control over it. He suggested that this clause could enable a future Secretary of State to repeal a whole Act of Parliament in the future. However, I totally endorse what the noble Lord, Lord True, and other noble Lords have said about the integrity of my noble friend the Minister in the Lords.
My noble friend has said that we ought to look at past experience. I am not interested in past experience. I am interested in the future. I am interested in this Bill and what could be done by a Secretary of State who does not have much integrity. Such a Secretary of State could wipe out the whole of this Bill. That is not respectful to Parliament. We are parliamentarians. We shape, discuss and put forward amendments. We agree and we disagree. In the end, we hope that we produce legislation that is good for this country. My noble friend and I had a very brief conversation outside the Grand Committee in which he talked about successive Governments. I say gently that just because a person has a bad habit does not mean that that habit should be condoned. It should be checked and better behaviour should be encouraged. I encourage the Government to mend their errant ways and follow the path of the righteous. To be righteous is to respect Parliament and not introduce these sorts of dangerous clauses. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, used the words “dangerous” and “unjustified”. Nobody has spoken in favour of this clause. When I read in Hansard the words used by judges and learned people who know the whole system and have worked in Parliament with the Constitution Committee and so on, it sends shivers down my back.
“( ) section (Notification of applications to neighbourhood planning bodies), for the purposes only of enabling the Secretary of State to make provision by development order under paragraph 8(6) of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;”
Refugee Camps
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make arrangements through refugee organisations for the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to visit refugee camps.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
While it is not appropriate to discuss future ministerial plans, we welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the UK’s commitment to refugees. Responding to unprecedented need, in 2015-16 the UK spent more than £1.4 billion on humanitarian assistance, including support for refugees. The UK’s pioneering new approach to protracted crises, leading to a shift from short-term assistance to longer-term change, is providing real help to those in need.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry but the Minister has not answered my Question. The Prime Minister should be asked to visit the refugee camps to see the situation for herself. Will the Minister affirm very clearly that there is no diminution at all in our pledge to welcome 20,000 refugees and up to 3,000 youngsters in the course of this Parliament?
Lord Bates
I accept that, but also in this context, the Foreign Secretary has been to a refugee camp, and the Secretary of State for International Development was in one of the camps just last week. Perhaps even more importantly, the Prime Minister was at the Valletta summit last week, where she announced an additional £30 million package for the very people the noble Lord and I care so much about.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I would be much happier if the Prime Minister spent time writing a full-page article for the Daily Mail explaining why international development is so important and why aid is so important to host nations in the Middle East whose own countries are suffering as a consequence of the influx of refugees. Will he urge the Prime Minister to do that?
Lord Bates
It behoves all of us who are strong advocates and supporters of the 0.7%, as I know that the noble Lord and his party are as well, to do everything we can to highlight the benefits that the UK is bringing around the world to those areas most in need. We have been able to help something approaching 20 million people in the region as a result of the generosity of British taxpayers, and our money is genuinely saving lives. That is the point that we need to make loudly and clearly to the British public and the media.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, how many officials do we have in France to identify adults and children who qualify to seek refuge in Britain? Those people are both in reception centres and outside them. Are our people receiving good co-operation from the French authorities?
Lord Bates
Some people from the Home Office have been relocated to France, in particular to their Interior Ministry. More importantly, in a lot of the projects in which we are involved—programmes such as the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme—we work very closely with the UNHCR. That body has established criteria for working out who are the people most in need and who therefore ought to be prioritised to come to this country.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, how many children have actually come here under that arrangement?
Lord Bates
The commitment was for 20,000 in the lifetime of this Parliament. As of December, 4,400 people have arrived, of whom 50% were children, so 2,200. In 2015, some 8,000 children were granted asylum through schemes in this country. Under the other schemes that we have, particularly the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme, the number is something like 700, and there was a further number under the scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which I think we will come to in a minute.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister anticipated my question because there are refugee camps in Greece as well, where the condition is dire. Would the Minister care to confirm the news that we have heard about the Government intending to bring to an end the scheme under Section 67 of the Immigration Act, which would have brought unaccompanied child refugees to this country from Greece?
Lord Bates
A Written Ministerial Statement will underscore that, far from doing that, Section 67 of the Act—and I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s work on that—stands. Under that scheme, some 200 children have been brought to this country already. I know that the noble Lord also visited the Greek reception area and saw the conditions for himself, but there is also the work that DfID personnel are doing on the ground there, trying to provide help.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that there are many informal refugee camps in Greece and Italy? Will Ministers visit those and familiarise themselves with the huge suffering and plight of those children there? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that of the more than 25,000 unaccompanied refugee children in Italy, only three have been transferred to the UK?
Lord Bates
We have schemes for identifying that. Certainly, the noble Baroness is right to identify a major problem, which is that half of those categorised as refugees are not in registered camps. That is often one of the greatest difficulties we have in reaching those people who are in need. The important thing is that the schemes we have committed to in this House are working and delivering benefits. Thousands of people have come to this country, which compares favourably with the EU internal resettlement scheme, which has so far helped only 170.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, repeated Questions to Ministers here have failed to answer this question. I know that local authorities are given additional funding initially, when communities welcome refugees, but the British people who are prepared to accept refugees into their communities need to know that funding will continue for as long as the refugees need extra funds for all the services they use. Will the Minister assure the House that extra funding will continue as long as the need exists?
Lord Bates
I can do more than that. One reason it has taken a little time to respond to the amendment to the Immigration Act of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is our requirement to consult local authorities about was needed. So far, 175 local authorities have offered to host refugees and they have people travelling to their regions. They deserve tribute. In recognition of that, we have also announced that the amount they will get per year has increased by an average of 20% over the period to help them to deal with the very needs that the noble Baroness has identified.
Economy: Productivity
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to improve productivity in the United Kingdom economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, through our modern industrial strategy we are taking steps to increase productivity and drive growth across the whole country. We will support key strengths, including science and research, and invest in technical training and infrastructure, which will sustain productivity over the long term.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
My Lords, we are now in our seventh year of productivity famine—of being the worst in the G7 and uncompetitive with our European Union partners, soon to be our competitors, against whom we flounder in our productivity rates. When will the Government rebalance the economy, as promised by the former Chancellor, by investing in people and their skills, and infrastructure in the regions, so that we can return to productivity, along with dealing with the balance of payments deficit, and return to the years of plenty?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. Since, I think, 2010, our economy has grown by 12%, which is the highest in the G7, yet our productivity growth over that period has been low, as the noble Lord said. The reasons for that are broad and manifold, but he puts his finger on it when he says that, in part, it is to do with a lack of investment in key infrastructure and technical skills. Both those things are absolutely centre stage in our new industrial strategy.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that one of the best ways of increasing productivity is to invest in higher education and research and development innovation? Would he also agree that we underinvest as a percentage of GDP in our higher education, compared with the OECD EU average, and way under America, and yet have the best universities in the world? When it comes to R&D innovation, we invest 1.7% of GDP compared with 2.8% in the United States and Germany. We would have to invest an extra £20 billion a year just to catch up with them.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord makes a good point. The fact is that the productivity of our investment in research in British universities is incredibly high and the output of our top universities is fantastically high by any world standards. He will know as well as I do that we are now committed to raising an extra £2 billion a year in research by 2021, which is a very significant increase. He is also right that even after that increase we are still not investing as much on a per capita basis or on a percentage of GDP basis as some of our biggest competitors—Germany and the US, for example. So we are making good progress but the job is not yet done.
Earl Attlee (Con)
Will the Minister say what we are doing to enhance the social status of professional engineers, and can he write to me and say how many professional engineers have received an honour for engineering, as opposed to financial services?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My noble friend raises the profound point that culturally in this country we have tended to encourage people more in the humanities than we have in engineering and STEM subjects. Perhaps the country is being run by too many people who have done PPE at Oxford and too few who did engineering at Cambridge—but there we are. On the honours given to people with a background in engineering, I will look into that and write to my noble friend.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, one factor that influences productivity is issues of health, particularly mental health. Something like nearly three out of 10 employees are reporting some sort of mental health problem each year, which analysts believe is costing employers something like £30 billion a year. Will the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to support employers in encouraging high levels of well-being and what is being done to lessen the stigma of mental ill health—in particular, encouraging employees to access mental health services that are already available to them?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. Not only is mental ill health a disaster for people individually, it also affects the productivity of the whole workforce. It is hard to answer the question because companies vary so much. There are some great employers who do an excellent job of looking after the well-being of their employees, and there are some who, as we know, do a rotten job. I would like to take away the question the right reverend Prelate asked and write to him in more detail.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, if we have two short questions, we can hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches and then the Labour Benches.
Lord Foster of Bath
My Lords, business investment in training is vital to improved productivity. We know that the apprenticeship levy was designed to help in that, yet the Government have missed the January deadline for setting up the online service and the IFS says that it is going to give poor value for money. How is business going to benefit when it is having to cope with this mismanagement of the apprenticeship levy by the Government?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the apprenticeship levy is designed to produce another 3 million apprentices over the next four or five years, which will mark a transformation in the number of apprentices we have in this country. The noble Lord referred to the online service. I shall have to investigate that and write to him.
Lord Cunningham of Felling
My Lords, sadly, this country has an appalling trade deficit in agricultural and food products, yet agriculture and food argument not included in the industrial strategy at all. Further, our exports of food and other agricultural products have been flatlining for the past 10 years. If we leave the European Union, which is one of the biggest export markets for agricultural and food products this country has, how are we going to make up for the loss of trade which that implies if agriculture and food are not included in our industrial strategy for the future? Before the noble Lord says it, I know that Defra is going to produce its own strategy—but should this not be a prominent part of our national strategy for industrial development?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, agriculture and food production will be a prominent part of our strategy going forward because they are hugely important to the economy. When we discuss our industrial strategy we sometimes focus too narrowly on manufacturing, which now accounts for only 10% of all employment in the economy. We are not going to get the step change in productivity across the whole economy if we do not have a strategy that includes services as well as agriculture.
International Criminal Court
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the composition and effectiveness of the International Criminal Court.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is committed to a rules-based international order and strongly supports the International Criminal Court. The ICC plays an important role in global efforts to end impunity for the most serious crimes of international concern by holding perpetrators to account and achieving justice for victims. Some 124 states parties have now adopted the ICC’s Rome statute and we work actively with the court and international partners to improve further its efficiency and effectiveness.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Can she tell us what assessment the Government have made of the decision reached only last week by the African Union at its summit in Addis Ababa calling for all African countries to leave the International Criminal Court, and indeed of the negative and disparaging attitude of both the Kremlin and the White House? How do we intend to rally international support in the UN Security Council and elsewhere to stop the unravelling of the court and to strengthen and enhance its efficacy in bringing to justice those who are responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the short answer would be by continuing to work hard to ensure that other states parties take seriously their responsibilities and by working with colleagues such as the United States to ensure that even when they are not states parties themselves, they support as they have done the work of the ICC.
Perhaps I may address the first part of the noble Lord’s question referring to the decision at the AU summit because it is important. I appreciate what the newspaper reporting has been, but it is our understanding that the strategy being referred to does not call for mass withdrawal, but actually for further research. When I read what was said by Ministers who attended the summit, I see that they voiced strong opposition. The list of those who opposed even the research is long and includes Nigeria, Senegal and Cape Verde—I could go on and on, so there is work that we can do.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, given that the Government of whom I was a member as Attorney-General played a major role in setting up this court, have Her Majesty’s Government expressed any views to individual countries proposing to leave its jurisdiction?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Yes, my Lords; it is absolutely right that we should do so. I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord asked the question. When I was in The Hague quite recently at the states parties meeting I had a long meeting with the Justice Minister of South Africa and was able to explore in technical detail the reasons why South Africa felt that the way in which the Rome treaty was being interpreted was not in accord with its understanding. Shortly I travel to Burundi and Uganda. Uganda has not withdrawn; it gave its support, although there has been some criticism. Burundi is one of those withdrawing and I shall continue my conversations in person.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, the United States of America is not part of the International Criminal Court; it fears the politicisation of the process. Are Her Majesty’s Government sympathetic to that position? It seems unlikely to change in the near future. Or do they sympathise with the idea that there should be complete and universal ratification of the Rome statute?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we continue to work towards universal and complete ratification of the Rome statute, while understanding that some countries, including allies such as the United States, may be supportive without being signatories to the Rome statute. I can tell my noble friend that since the election of President Trump we have worked closely with the Administration in the United Nations and the ICC in New York and with Nikki Haley, who has been appointed as the US representative to the United Nations, to ensure that United States co-operation with the ICC continues.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in April last year the House of Commons resolved that ISIS should be referred to the ICC. What action have the Government taken to raise this at the Security Council in order to secure an investigation?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that a United Nations Security Council resolution on these very matters was vetoed a while ago. We continue to press the issue of bringing ISIL/Daesh to account and also bringing Assad to account. Therefore I am pleased to say that on 21 December last year we co-sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution to establish a new international, impartial, independent mechanism to assist in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the most serious crimes under international law committed in Syria since March 2011.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, following the visit of Sudan’s President al-Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court, to many countries including Kenya, South Africa, China, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, what discussions have Her Majesty’s Government had with the Governments of those countries about their failure to arrest him? Does the noble Baroness agree that the failure to arrest someone indicted by the International Criminal Court devalues and discredits the work of the ICC?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Baroness raises a very important point. It is the case that countries which are states parties should, indeed, ensure that those who are indicted by them are then arrested. I was able, as I mentioned a moment ago to the noble and learned Lord, to discuss these wide matters with South Africa. The UK and EU partners have conducted demarches in countries which failed to arrest President Bashir. We agree with the noble Baroness that achieving justice for victims should be at the heart of the international community’s response to mass atrocity violence. It is important that fugitives from international justice do not just get away.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, the substantive decision of the African Union, as I understand it, was not withdrawal but a call for regionalisation of the ICC. Does the Minister agree that one very important issue that arises about that concerns the consequences of regionalisation and the need to ensure continuation of three principles: first, due process of taking evidence; secondly, penalties meeting an international standard; and thirdly, the ability still to make appeals at a global level?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as I mentioned a little while ago, I think there has been a little misreporting or misunderstanding of what was decided at the African Union. However, the noble Lord makes an important point. We welcome initiatives, whether at regional or international level, to support international justice and accountability, so we are willing to listen to all ways that can take us forward. The most appropriate forum for discussion of issues that states may have with the ICC is the Assembly of States Parties, which I have attended in the two years for which I have had the justification, as Minister, for doing so. We make our points very strongly there, both in the forum itself and bilaterally.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, if the African members were to withdraw, 34 of the total membership of 124 would have left, and this sole forum for global criminal justice would be lost. Is not the chief prosecutor, Ms Bensouda, collecting evidence in various countries, including Afghanistan and Iraq—and is there any prospect of further prosecution from such localities?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of Fatou Bensouda against sometimes very challenging conditions. We support her in her work. She is independent, and we do not try to influence it; that would be improper. I repeat that this was not a mass withdrawal, and we are not expecting a mass withdrawal of African states. I am certainly working towards ensuring that the ICC maintains its credibility. Changes in government in the Gambia show that there can be ways of ensuring that countries stay members of the ICC.
Imports: Vegetables
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure a guaranteed supply of vegetables in the United Kingdom, in the light of restricted availability from Spain and other European countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has a highly resilient food industry with effective supply chains providing wide consumer choice. The diversity of food supply from domestic and international sources allows for alternative products to be used when required. Retailers work with suppliers to ensure optimum availability, sourcing from alternative places if availability is restricted from usual suppliers. There are also many other fresh vegetable products fully available from seasonal UK production and international sources.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but he will have seen the news reports of empty shelves in supermarkets, with the crisis expected to last until the spring. Meanwhile prices have trebled, in part because it costs more to fly vegetables from the USA and Egypt than to bring them overland from Spain. Given the public health implications, is the department confident that there are sufficient alternative sources of vegetables, particularly in schools and hospitals? Is the department monitoring the prices to ensure that profiteering is not taking place? Finally, what lessons can we learn for future trade negotiations about the comparative price advantages of importing foods from the EU compared with, for example, importing from the US?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my officials have been discussing these matters with retailers and New Covent Garden, and the situation is improving. Climate conditions in Spain and the Mediterranean are enabling the situation to improve, and goods from other sources of supply, such as the Americas, are coming in. But this is a time when we should be reflecting on using our own wonderful nutritious British vegetables. In the last few years, food prices have fallen by 7.4%—I think that may deal with some of what the noble Baroness might have been implying.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, would not any rational man or woman think that to describe a shortage of lettuces in the supermarket as a crisis shows a lack of understanding of the meaning of the words in the English language?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I was seeking to be courteous to the noble Baroness—but there is certainly no crisis. The only shortage will be of iceberg lettuce, which we think will last for a few months, and there is a wonderful variety called cos which is even better.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, half the vegetables we eat in this country are imported, including native crops such as cauliflowers and onions. Is it not time that the Government’s forthcoming Green Paper on food and farming tackled this decline in home-grown veg?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thoroughly endorse the wish we all have to produce more home-grown veg. That will precisely be at the heart of the forthcoming Green Paper. I was pleased only this morning to hear that cauliflowers from Cornwall are coming on to the market, so we again have a great opportunity to buy some British vegetables.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, I come from Worcestershire, where the Vale of Evesham was once known as the garden of England. When I was young, field after field was of smallholders growing vegetables. Since we joined the Common Market, they have been outpriced or undercut by imports from the continent. Vegetable growers do not get subsidies like farmers do. Will Her Majesty’s Government look at ways to bring back growing our own vegetables with some sort of support?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the intention of the Green Paper, and all that will come through it, is that we want ideas about how we increase production of vegetables. I endorse that we have great nutritious vegetables in our midst, so please let us cook some.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, it is only fair we hear from the Greens on this particular subject.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I give huge thanks to the Leader of the House. Back in 2008, at the request of the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, I produced a report on how to make London’s food supplies more sustainable. Part of that was shortening supply chains. Would the Minister like me to forward a copy of my report for the Government’s use to contribute to the Green Paper?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I would like to see a copy. I am sure the paper endorses the importance of having lower food miles—which means food comes from this country.
Digital Economy Bill
Wednesday 8th February 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberDigital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 80-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 161KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
It might be convenient to have a short pause to allow those who are not involved in the next business to leave.
Amendment 214
Lord Lucas
“Evaluation of algorithms
(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) After section 134C insert—“Evaluation of algorithms134D Evaluation of algorithms(1) OFCOM may, in the interests of the end users of public electronic communications services, carry out and publish evaluations of algorithms, or of electronic systems embodying algorithms—(a) which are implemented electronically;(b) which impact substantially upon some such users or impact upon a substantial number of such users; and(c) where the details of the algorithm are not freely and publicly available.(2) In undertaking such evaluations, OFCOM may—(a) collaborate with any organisation using and affected by the algorithm in question; and(b) act as a “mystery shopper”, using assumed identities and information, despite any and all conditions that may purport to forbid such behaviour.””
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 214. We all know that Ofcom has a great interest in traditional media. As we can see, not least from Clauses 70 and 71, we are happy to give Ofcom a panoptic role when this is required. My amendment is designed to give Ofcom a panoptic role in new media.
We are all familiar with algorithms, particularly in such contexts as a Google search. It is just a set of rules and procedures that gets us to where we want to go from wherever we happen to be. I do not know of any great harm currently being done by any algorithms, but we ought to be aware of the power these procedures have in our lives. They govern the choice of what people see on the internet. The potential for this to interfere with news flow is obvious. If you type something into Google, it decides what you get to see. In the context of a referendum or an election, the potential for altering the result is clear. It also has an effect when you are just looking round to see what is there. Google has had trouble recently with its response to people typing in “are Jews”; it was autocompleting that with the word “evil”. This has now ceased, but it shows what influence algorithms can have in directing people to particular sources of information—in this case, with particularly nasty implications.
The function of an algorithm is to discriminate, but how are algorithms discriminating? What do we know about what they are doing in terms of fairness, when it comes to race or gender, in the context of job offers, accommodation or access? Referring again—I am sure unfairly—to Google, there was an episode last year when, if you put “three black teenagers” into the Google image search, you got mug shots of prisoners; but if you put in “three white teenagers” you did not. How do we know the effects of these things on our lives? If people start trying to correct them, what effect will these corrections have?
Most of these algorithms—or at least the big ones—are run by large, dominant, international organisations. Who controls them? We think we have some idea but there is no predictability; there does not seem to be any effective system of governance, least of all by government or institutions. They are a law unto themselves and they will continue to be so, unless something fantastic changes.
Under these circumstances, we ought to know what is going on. We ought to have the ability to take a look and make sure that it is fair and as we wish it to be, as we do in similar areas of the old media and of life. I hope my amendment will enable Ofcom to do just that. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment. There is a huge amount of power in the hands of search engines regarding the way they influence how people think. This could be used as a form of propaganda, as we have seen with the recent rows about fake news. From the point of view of protecting Britain, there could even be some security implications because of the way they could affect how people think. So it is quite a sensible power to have, just in case.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I too support the amendment. I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of what an algorithm is. I always found BBC Bitesize’s explanation rather helpful—a set of rules to solve a problem—along with its corresponding explanation of how an algorithm can go wrong: a set of rules designed for getting dressed that insists on your coat going on before your jumper. This would lead to a great many children arriving at school in sartorial disarray. It helpfully indicates that a set of rules is not benign—it has a purpose and a process, both of which are man or woman-made.
It is not possible to exaggerate the importance of an algorithm. I recently read Weapons of Math Destruction, by Cathy O’Neil, a Harvard PhD and Wall Street quantitative analyst. It goes step by step through the ways in which algorithms—apparently neutral and benign—have the capacity to change lives in huge ways and in an ever-increasing list of scenarios. If wrongly attributed or designed, they can have devastating effects on job prospects, education, financial outcomes or the reputation of an individual, with very little possibility of appeal, correction or compensation.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Yesterday, along with many of your Lordships, I attended a meeting with Channel 4 on the subject of fake news. Here we are not talking about opinion, where people can legitimately take one view or another in a democracy, but about things that are demonstrably totally false. Yet there is no mechanism at the moment for screening them out of social media. If in the United States 44% of the population regard Facebook as their primary source of news, there are dangers for democracy.
I do not know whether the noble Lord’s amendment will work. I do not know whether, for example, the companies will regard algorithms as commercially confidential and refuse to release them. I do not know what powers we actually have over these bodies, but it is worth exploring. It would be ridiculous if this massive Bill, which deals very well for the most part with a wide range of subjects, were to leave out the most topical and potentially the most dangerous of all: social media.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, this is an important amendment because it touches upon the bigger issue of the impact of artificial intelligence on all sorts of aspects of our lives. There is a law called Moore’s law, which says that every two years the power of computers doubles. That has been true over the past 20 or 30 years and we should assume that that power will continue to develop. Artificial intelligence in all its impacting forms will be more and more prevalent in our society and more and more potent in the hands of terrorists in the years to come.
We cannot ask Ofcom to solve all the problems in this area, but I would like to know where the ownership of these risks and the rapid changes in our society falls in the eyes of the Government. Perhaps Ofcom has a role in this regard—search engines or whatever—but it is really part of a bigger picture of how we get ahead of the game with the impact of artificial intelligence. We read in the papers about driverless cars appearing on our streets, and in many other areas of life artificial intelligence will impact upon us. Where is this owned in the corridors of government?
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend in his amendment. Algorithms are basically mathematical. The power of computers is used to record, classify, summarise and project actions that indicate what is happening in the world around about us. Algorithms can be applied in particular to social media, which other noble Lords have referred to, and to normal internet usage and browsing. They reach decisions about public interest, about you and about me.
According to a recent radio programme, algorithms are used to make individual decisions in the fields of employment, housing, health, justice, credit and insurance. I had heard that employers are increasingly studying social media to find out more about job applicants. I had not realised that an algorithm, programmed by an engineer, can, for example, take the decision to bin an application. If that is true, that is absolutely unacceptable. It certainly explains why so many jobseekers do not receive a response of any kind. There is a very real danger that a person could also be refused a mortgage or a better interest rate as the result of an algorithmic decision. Even now some companies use algorithms based on phone numbers to decide whether a caller is high or low value. Highs get to speak to a person: lows are left holding on until they hang up. Algorithm designers refuse to answer any questions, I understand, about the data that are used or their application on grounds of commercial confidentiality. There are real concerns that if we continue to allow such liberties, there will be an increasing risk of discrimination—intentional or accidental—against people of certain races, religions or ages. One example of algorithm use cited in the programme was that of differential pricing by Uber.
The EU intends that by July 2018 citizens will have the right to an explanation of decisions affected by the workings of these algorithms, such as the online rejection of a bank loan. I do not feel that we should wait until then, and although my noble friend’s amendment might not be perfect, I am really grateful that he has tabled it today and that we are having this worthwhile debate.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for putting down this amendment. Indeed, this amendment has many good aspects to it, but I will adopt a phrase which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, used the other day, which is, “It doesn’t go nearly far enough”. It really highlights—and I declare an interest as the co-chair of the new All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence—some of the issues that this Bill simply does not deal with. This does need huge consideration: all the ethics involved not only with artificial intelligence, but with the internet of things and the great many regulatory issues which spring from the new technologies. Algorithms are a part of it, of course they are, but we need further consideration.
I agree with those who have said that perhaps Ofcom is not necessarily the best regulator for this—I do not know—and it may be that we need to construct a purpose-built regulator for the world of artificial intelligence and the internet of things in ethical terms. I am not quite sure that Ofcom has got the necessary tools in terms of the ethics aspect of it.
I am very much in spirit with the noble Lord and I am delighted that he has raised it, but we are at the very beginning of a really important debate on a lot of these areas. The essence of all this is trust. We had a continuous debate through Part 5 about the government sharing of data. This is about the private sector and its use of a lot of our data and the way it sorts them and places them in the search engines. Trust is the overwhelming issue of our age, and we are not there yet. If we are going to reassure people who want to use these new technologies, we really do need to come up with a proper regulatory system. I do not think that this new clause quite provides it.
The Earl of Erroll
Before the noble Lord sits down, may I just ask him: is it not dangerous to make perfection the enemy of better? In other words, the amendment may not be perfect, but it is moving in the right direction, and to say, “Do nothing”, because it is not perfect is surely very unwise, given all the other stuff that he has said.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I know that the noble Earl himself is perfect in almost every way, so I would very much hesitate to argue with him. Still, I feel we need something rather broader than this proposal would provide.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I share the view that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has expressed, that the amendment probably is not the way to go about this. Algorithms are too ubiquitous, useful and powerful in this case. I do not know what we could do instead, but I note that one of the things we are looking at, together with the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has identified, is that the internet service providers and the big media companies are supposedly platforms, not publishers, and they do not have the responsibilities of publishers for that reason. Facebook will say that it merely hosts the material that individuals post. When individuals post material, they ought to think that it reaches an indefinite number of people because the algorithm spreads it through the echo chambers. It is the cyber silos that we are going to have to think about. With the greatest regret, I do not think the amendment would do that, but I very much support the principle of looking into this matter.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. We, particularly those of us of a certain age, often get to a point where we are scared of the technology that we are expected to use. We are in the hands of our children, who shout things like, “It’s intuitive! Just do it!”, but we do not have the faintest idea what we are trying to do. However, we should not be scared of technologies. History should tell us that the reason why Shakespeare’s Globe is outside the city walls of London is that people like us in those days felt that they were dangerous plays that should not be seen by too many people. Video nasties and indeed concerns about some of the issues that are in the Bill are examples of the same thing. We have to be careful that this is not just another “penny dreadful” story but a serious issue.
I was not that concerned about this matter in my own consciousness until I came across it personally and in relation to something that has already been mentioned in the debate. I work with a small charity that relies entirely on a website presence in order to try to help people who suffer from the condition that it serves. For the first seven or eight years of the charity’s life, we were ranked number one on a search engine—let us call it Google—so when you searched for the condition, we came up top. In the last six months, we have gone from top to, I think, 44th in the rankings for this condition, which means that no one now uses our services, rings up or communicates with us. We are now on page four of the search results and that turns out to have been achieved by a change in the algorithm, which prunes out the people who apply. The ISP put in a particular search term that managed to knock down the efficacy of the inquiries that were coming to us at our charity. So the charity, which was doing good work and reaching 2,000 or 3,000 people a year, is now reaching no one, and we cannot change that because the algorithm is behind a commercial confidential situation. So I pick up the points that are being made all round the Chamber about the need for us to get more clued up about this without being scared of it, and I support the amendment for that reason.
The second point that has been picked up, which slightly goes against the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, is that, where an algorithm is helping to achieve a relatively straightforward systems approach, it is probably not as much of an issue as where it is substituting its judgment for yours. It is not knowing what that judgment is that is the problem, and that is where the points that have been made need to be picked up. That is something that we would all benefit from. Whether or not this is the right amendment, there is an issue here that will need to be pursued, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. Clearly there is a principle upon which everyone is agreed, and that is that this is a serious and growing issue. It is certainly an issue that the Government take very seriously.
As my noble friend Lord Lucas has set out, the basis of the amendment aims to understand the impact of algorithms on users of digital services. As we have already heard, algorithms play an important role in modern life, from making recommendations for books you might like to read, to more important matters such as credit ratings and detecting fraud. Indeed, there is a real debate here on the extent to which the public are willing to compromise on what is termed privacy for a better service. Transparency itself is incredibly important in terms of knowing how information about oneself is used, for what and with whom it is being shared, and having some control over that.
Lord Elton (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, can she tell us a little more about the involvement of the Royal Society, when we might hear a result from it and whether it will be shared with this House? Can she in fact bring about a further debate in the light of its findings?
Baroness Buscombe
I believe that my noble friend’s idea is very good. We hope to hear from the Royal Society and British Academy later this year and, on the basis of their recommendations, it might then be timely to have a debate in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have spoken in this debate. This is something which the Government should have their mind on. I am delighted that my noble friend on the Front Bench says that the Government are paying attention to this, and that we will get something we can get our teeth into later this year. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 216.
It is common ground that anyone affected by Ofcom’s decisions should have the right to appeal if they consider that Ofcom has got something wrong. Ofcom itself makes the point that there needs to be an appropriate balance between properly holding it to account and enabling it to make timely and effective decisions in the interests of citizens and consumers and the wider UK economy. But in the brief for this debate, it goes on to say that,
“the current merits system for appealing Ofcom’s decisions does not achieve that balance. It results in some appellants effectively asking the courts to become the primary decision-maker in place of Ofcom rather than conduct an appeal which focusses on errors which Ofcom is alleged to have made. This is particularly the case in price control appeals, where appellants have consistently used the system as a second attempt to run arguments they have already made to Ofcom during its extensive consultation processes”.
Those propositions are hotly disputed not only by many telecoms and internet service providers but also by others such as the CBI and techUK. Their position was made clear on this matter as far back as September 2013, when the Government published their summary of stakeholder views on the appeals system.
I will take the House through the fundamentals of Ofcom’s case for the change embodied in Clause 75. First, it says:
“Almost every single decision by Ofcom is promptly appealed in the courts”.
Roughly one in eight decisions have been appealed over the past decade, and this has been declining significantly over the past five years. The potential for merits-based appeals is an incentive for high-quality regulation. Here is another claim:
“This has resulted in lengthy delays in putting through quite important measures”.
Almost invariably, Ofcom’s decisions take effect immediately and stay in place while an appeal is heard. In the case of price controls, no Ofcom decision has ever been delayed in its application while an appeal is heard. Here is another proposition:
“This change will bring Ofcom into line with other regulators”.
Virtually every other economic regulator faces scrutiny of its decisions to establish whether it is in error under regimes not limited to judicial review. I could take your Lordships through energy, water, post, the NHS, aviation, rail, but I will not go into great detail unless I need to respond to the Minister at the end of the debate.
The new approach in Clause 75 would therefore not be in line with almost all other comparable public authorities—that is, the economic regulators. The standard of appeal is not much lower in telecoms than in other sectors. All the UK’s major economic regulators have a form of statutory review that is in law or in practice merits review. All EU telecoms national regulatory authorities make decisions that must stand on their merits.
Here is a further proposition: Clause 75,
“should also free up Ofcom resource to deliver better outcomes for citizens and consumers”.
Far from being good for the consumer, Clause 75 would have denied the court’s ability to implement corrections to bad decisions which have resulted in something like £350 million to £400 million of direct consumer benefit over the past decade. Over a number of cases in the past 10 years—again, I can give the Minister references if he needs them—the tribunal’s decision was that Ofcom’s decision had not gone far enough in the consumer’s favour. This would not have been fixed through judicial review.
A further proposition:
“The big incumbents will no longer be able to use the process to hold-up regulatory decisions through aggressive use of the appeals process”.
Opponents of the change in fact represent the vast majority of the investing industries—small and large, ex-incumbent and insurgent. BT was joined by other industry appellants on most of the cases it appealed. Merits-based appeals work pretty well for SMEs, too, and are disproportionately used by them.
Here is another proposition:
“If material error is present it can be addressed in judicial review”.
Judicial review tests generally relate to illegality, procedural impropriety, irrational behaviour—in other words, has the decision-maker taken leave of their senses? To repeat, JR would have denied consumers benefits of something of the order of £400 million in value. Here is another proposition:
“JRs will be fewer in number and take less time”.
Increased uncertainty for this procedure could be likely to result in an increase in appeals. On average, judicial review takes 10 months from start to finish, versus 11 months on average for a merits appeal. Judicial review requires the decision to go back to the regulator, which can add years to the process, while a merits-based appeal provides powers to the appeals body to fix the problem.
Its final proposition is that:
“Ofcom wins 85% of cases”.
That is rather misleading. Ofcom wins just over 60% of appeals and in the rest it is found to have erred in some material respect. Ofcom’s statistics only tell us that in 15% of cases it lost absolutely every point in an appeal. That is the true 85% figure.
For all the above reasons, the vast majority of telecoms communications providers of the UK’s fastest-growing new fibre networks, the UK’s premier business organisation, the UK’s trade association, providers of internet services and the body which represents the UK’s technology sector, strongly oppose the proposed change. They fear the change will mean that regulation will become unpredictable and prone to risk, with no corrections for inconsistency, error, or lack of rigour in approach.
In summary, a move to judicial review will leave wrong decisions standing. Judicial review, as I said earlier, is solely concerned with whether the decision is unlawful in a technical sense—that is, was the correct process followed? The decision itself is not reviewed. Many decisions that have been found in merits appeals to be clearly wrong and that harm the interests of consumers would have been allowed to stand under judicial review. As I have emphasised above, the existing appeal regime protects the interests of consumers. Ofcom can and does make mistakes, and in the vast majority of cases, these mistakes have meant higher prices for consumers. Correcting those mistakes has delivered benefits of hundreds of millions of pounds.
These amendments steer a different and compromise course. We accept that there may have been some gold-plating of the original framework directive, and have tried to meet some of the criticism through these amendments. Amendment 215 is a direct copy of the European framework directive wording, without any gold-plating. As I have said, this is followed by all other national regulatory authorities in the EU. The tribunal must decide the appeal,
“by reference to the grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal and taking due account of the merits of the case”.
This version no longer requires the appeal to be decided on the merits but with “due account” of the merits being taken.
Amendment 216 is an alternative, focused on specific grounds used in appeals in other sectors. The tribunal must decide an appeal by reference to the grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal only to the extent that it is satisfied that the decision appealed against was wrong on one or more of the grounds set out in proposed new paragraphs (a) to (f). This version has a narrower scope than the current approach but allows for an assessment of whether the substantive decision is correct, not simply whether the correct decision-making process has been followed.
Clause 75 is a serious change to make to the telecoms regulatory regime. I very much hope that, in the face of these arguments, the Government will change their mind. I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, as I indicated at Second Reading, I am extremely uncomfortable with the proposed shift from a merits-based to a judicial review standard of appeal from Ofcom decisions, and I very much support these amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Indeed, he has made the case so thoroughly and strongly that I can be extremely brief.
It is inappropriate that in a market as innovative and fast moving—indeed, fast changing—as telecommunications, it should not be possible to test decisions made by the regulator not just on their legality but on their correctness and fairness in terms of the merits of the issues raised. As the noble Lord mentioned, I have received briefings both from Ofcom and from a group representing the bulk of the telecoms industry and industry more widely, through the CBI, as well as from the technological sector through techUK.
I remain slightly baffled at the apparent contradictions between the arguments cited by the two sides. I would encourage the Minister to look very carefully at these arguments to establish as clearly as possible where the evidence points—perhaps one could describe it as the merits of the case—before proceeding towards allowing only judicial review-based appeals.
I will not go through the detailed arguments because there is not a single one on my list that the noble Lord did not cover better that I could hope to do. However, from what I have heard, I am far from convinced that the proposed narrowing of the appeals standard will benefit either consumers or investors—and we need a great deal of investment in this sector—let alone the wider national interest in fostering a fair, competitive and vigorous telecommunications marketplace. I am therefore happy to support either or both of the proposed amendments. I hope the Minister will have another careful look at this issue and consider introducing amendments of his own, designed to ensure that important issues relating to the merits of Ofcom reviews can be properly challenged.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments, which seem a very good compromise. They ensure fairness and balance and avoid the very narrow approach of judicial review regardless of merit in any circumstances, without going into the substance of matters in a way that would turn the review into a whole general appeal. For those reasons, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is taking part in this debate. He will know a great deal about the subject from his private practice as well as his public practice. This is a good compromise. It may be that the Government can come up with something better, but this is certainly better than Clause 75 as it stands.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am not a lawyer—I feel a bit uncomfortable joining this debate; I am sure there are issues it is much beyond my abilities to deal with. But I say to the Minister before he responds, the point made about the degree of concern in the industry is important. This is a big and complicated Bill with many different aspects. It reaches far into aspects of our digital world. This clause, however, is the one that has generated the largest number of responses and—to judge from the meetings I have had with people—the most anger.
In a sense, so what? If it is the right decision, it should go ahead. However, it is clear that there is a lot of support for the current situation, even though there are arguments against it. The point was made time and again that the existing arrangements seem to work well, so why are we changing them? The industry, as I said, is pretty well united against it. One or two are speaking up for it but they do not represent the majority of voices we have heard.
There is also a real danger that—particularly at a time of uncertainty over technological change and regulatory positioning—having a period when we deliberately create confusion and delay until the new guidelines, or baselines, are established, is probably not the best way of making progress. Uncertainty over a long period will affect investment, which is not what we want. So there are reasons for asking the Government to be very clear that this is the right way forward.
We all share the same wish: we want an efficient and trusted regulator that can deal with this complicated, fast-moving and complex area. But it would be quite improper to have a situation in which there was a very limited right of appeal on any case determined not to have been carried out correctly—not so much about the judicial aspects, but on the merits of the case; in other words, where the evidence does not support the decision that has been taken.
I do not understand quite what the difficulties are. I have looked back over comments made by the noble and learned Lord when he was Advocate-General for Scotland. He is on the record in a number of places and a quick search with an algorithm of some complexity, which I could not possibly describe, reveals him to have said several things about judicial oversight. As it has developed, he says, it has,
“provided us with a flexible standard of oversight, which in many senses is wide-ranging”.
However, judicial oversight is the issue and that is what we have to emphasise. He might like to reflect on that in relation to what has been said. There are other things—I will not quote them as I am sure he is embarrassed enough already, or perhaps not. But the issue needs bottoming out—there is a serious point at its heart. There are issues that will affect the whole nature of the business we are regulating in this manner which need to be resolved.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising this matter because it has generated a great deal of heat and debate in the context of the Bill. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, with respect to the number of responses there have been. I just emphasise that judicial review is a form of judicial oversight, and a very effective one, but I will elaborate on that in a moment.
We are aware that the major telecoms operators in particular, and their agents, have lobbied vigorously and in detail on this point. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, brought out many of the points that have been made by their agents in the course of that vigorous and detailed lobbying. I shall not go into the detail of Ofcom’s position on this. It has expressed its position very clearly and we understand it. What I would say is that there is no single position for all utility sectors, and both judicial review and appeals on the merits may be used in the same sector for different kinds of appeals. It is not a black and white situation.
The Government’s case is not that this change is needed to ensure consistency with other utility sectors but that the public interest will be best served in the communications sector by an appeals regime that focuses on errors which Ofcom is alleged to have made, rather than asking the court to reach a different conclusion. Let us remember that Ofcom is a qualified regulator and its decisions are entitled to respect. They are informed decisions and they are not irrational. They are not determined on the toss of a coin. That is why judicial review is an appropriate approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also talked about consumers. I find that interesting. Perhaps I may refer briefly to the Which? response to Clause 75. It sees this measure as one of the most important currently contained in the Digital Economy Bill, saying that it will give the regulator the power and confidence to take the necessary actions to protect consumer interests without fear of costly and lengthy litigation procedures. Introducing a judicial review standard for appeals in telecoms will mean that decisions made by Ofcom in the interest of consumers should be easier to implement and quicker to take effect. That is a reflection of Ofcom’s own view of the matter. This is not necessarily about coming to the aid of Ofcom but about recognising these matters from the perspective of the consumer. That is extremely important.
Currently, appeals brought under Sections 192 to 196 of the Communications Act against Ofcom’s regulatory decisions are decided “on the merits” by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. That exceeds and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, acknowledged, effectively gold-plates Article 4 of the EU framework directive, which requires that the merits of the case are duly taken into account in any appeal. That is not quite the wording of the proposed amendment.
The result of this over-implementation is an unnecessarily intensive and burdensome standard of review that can result in very lengthy and costly appeals litigation, which in turn can hinder timely and effective regulation. Some of the appeals that have taken place have done so over extraordinarily lengthy periods. Of course, the very large communications operators are in a position to fund that sort of appeal process. Clause 75 will change the standard of review so that the Competition Appeal Tribunal will decide appeals against Ofcom’s decisions by applying the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review and, in particular, judicial review of other administrative actions. This will focus appeals on the key questions of the legality and reasonableness of Ofcom’s decision-making.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested that there might be cases in which there was simply no merit in a decision. If that was so, and if Ofcom proceeded without reliance on the facts of a particular case, that would be amenable to review under a judicial review standard.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Judicial review itself varies according to whether or not there is a European element. If the review is about a case where free speech under the convention is concerned or an EU directive is concerned, then judicial review embraces the principle of proportionality. However, if it is not about a case where European law can be involved—either system of European law—under the deciding case law, judicial review does not apply the principle of proportionality. In other words, it still—in my view, wrongly—does not look at whether the means employed to pursue a legitimate aim are necessary to achieve that aim. Is not what I have just said an indication of the unsatisfactory nature of relying on judicial review as the solution?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I have to say no, because here we are dealing with judicial review in the context of the EU framework directive, which requires that the merits of the case are duly taken into account in any appeal, therefore effectively introducing the issue of proportionality into that process. Therefore, even if there are cases which some might criticise as involving too narrow an approach to judicial review, that does not apply here. This is an incidence in which the issues of proportionality will arise in the context of judicial review. By taking this route, we are applying an appropriate standard to Ofcom’s decision-making.
As has been acknowledged by noble Lords, this is a fast-moving sector, and regulation needs to be able to keep pace with technological and market changes. This is rather difficult when appeals can drag out for a year after a regulatory decision has been made. As the UK’s expert regulator in the telecommunications sector, it is right that Ofcom itself should be given an appropriate margin of appreciation by the tribunals. That is why we have an expert regulator there—so that it can make an informed decision that should be given an appropriate margin of appreciation by the Competition Appeals Tribunal.
A judicial review basis for appeals is intended to be a flexible process that will ensure that those affected by Ofcom’s regulatory decisions can still challenge those decisions effectively within the framework of Article 4 of the EU framework directive. A number of Ofcom’s regulatory decisions are already appealable only on a judicial review basis. I made the point earlier that, with regard to individual regulators, you can find instances in which there is a merits-based appeal for some matters and a judicial review standard in respect of others.
By changing the standard of review to reduce over-lengthy and costly litigation, this clause will enable consumers to benefit sooner from the outcome of decisions made by Ofcom in pursuit of its statutory duty to further the interests of consumers. I emphasise that: one of Ofcom’s statutory duties is to further the interests of consumers. The clause will also remove a significant potential barrier to the participation of smaller communications providers in the appeals process, benefiting smaller, “challenger” communications providers. Again, they are inhibited by the prospect of massive merits-based appeals going before the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled two alternative approaches. Amendment 215 would replace the existing “on the merits” standard with a requirement for the tribunal to take,
“due account of the merits of the case”.
I acknowledge that the amendment essentially replicates the wording of Article 4 of the EU framework directive, albeit it is not identical to it. While this would in one view remove the gold-plating of the existing standard in a technical sense, the Government consider that it would not lead to any substantive change in approach. That might be why this proposal is being pushed so hard by the major operators in the telecoms sector. It would not, therefore, result in quicker appeals, timelier implementation of regulatory decisions or resultant consumer benefits.
Amendment 216 would alternatively replace the existing “on the merits” standard of appeal with a list of specified grounds. The tribunal would be able to uphold an appeal only where it was satisfied that Ofcom’s decision was wrong on one or more of these grounds. However, as noble Lords may be aware, the previous Government consulted on a similar approach in 2013 and we do not consider that this approach has merit. On balance, we consider that such an approach would risk significant satellite litigation if it were to be introduced—about the nature of the new standard of appeal, for example, which could lead to longer appeals and further regulatory delay. A standard of review based on judicial review principles, including the principles of proportionality in the context of the application of the European directive, which is well understood and used in many other sectors, will minimise this kind of uncertainty. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I will not disguise the fact that I am not happy with the Minister’s reply. But I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his support and I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Lester, who himself is a master of judicial review. I take very seriously what he has to say on the subject. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who raised a number of pertinent points. He is obviously a very good client when taken to Chambers. I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, was going to take part in the debate, as then a ruffle or a jabot of QCs would have emerged; I do not know what the collective noun for QCs is.
Quite seriously, I am afraid that the Minister and the Government have bought not just the Ofcom line, but the hook and the sinker as well. We have an interesting conjugation: “I make my case, you lobby”. That seems to be the construction put on Ofcom’s behaviour. So Ofcom’s decisions are entitled to respect and “a margin of appreciation”. We are talking about the appeals process for an immensely powerful regulator. I do not think that that is an appropriate form of words. Of course, decisions are entitled to respect, but the rights of those who are investing in the telecoms industry are entitled to respect as well. This is an argument about the appropriate form of appeal.
I did not touch on whether this new clause is in line with European law. It may be academic because we might be out of the stable, so to speak, before we have to test the proposition as to whether the use of JR in these circumstances conforms to the framework directive. But that is an important matter. Ofcom has clearly been vigorous in its lobbying and certainly vigorous in its lobbying of noble Lords. I am glad to say that many of them have resisted in the circumstances. The Minister went through the nature of the amendments in a perfectly proper fashion, but he did not really make a particularly good case about why they were not appropriate. He did not really address my argument about other regulators. At the outset, I took the Minister through a number of economic regulators, none of which have JR as the fundamental point of appeal, so that requires an answer.
My purpose in tabling the amendment is to make sure that there is an effective challenge to Ofcom. We have swung way too far with Clause 75. We are serving the interests of the regulator far too much. I do not believe that all the propositions that Ofcom has put forward are valid and we need to keep kicking the tyres further on this particular clause until we find a better solution. We may have to make express reference in Clause 75 to the EU framework directive, which might be one way of dealing with this. But I guarantee that we will return to this at a future date. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
“The BBC Charter: timing
(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) After section 198ZA (inserted by section 76 of this Act) insert—“198ZB The BBC Charter: timing(1) The first BBC Charter to be granted following the day on which this Act is passed must have effect for a term of 11 years beginning with the day on which it is granted, and each subsequent BBC Charter must have effect for a term of 10 years beginning with the day on which it is granted.(2) In this section “the BBC Charter” has the meaning given by section 362(1) of the Communications Act 2003.””
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, this is a paving amendment for this group of amendments. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked just now what the appropriate collective description of Queen’s Counsel is. I was pondering that; at first, I said to myself, “Avarice”, but then I thought that the true answer would be given by The New Yorker book of cartoons, which had a cartoon of a lawyer looking at his client and saying, “How much justice can you afford, Mr Pitkin?”
The Committee will be deprived of several speakers who cannot be here today, who have supported this amendment and the others in the group. They include the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Inglewood, who asked me to apologise on their behalf.
I explained in previous debates why I believe that statutory underpinning is needed to protect the BBC’s independence and viability, free from political interference. During the take-note debate on the draft BBC charter on 12 October 2016, I expressed the hope that the drafts would be amended. I pointed out that the central problem with the Government’s proposals for the charter—raised across the House by, for example, the noble Lords, Lord Fowler, Lord Inglewood and Lord Best, former chairs of the Communications Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, Lord Burke, Lord Pannick, Lord Colville and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friends Baroness Bonham-Carter and Lord Foster of Bath—is that there are no statutory criteria or requirements that must be met in the charter or the agreement with the Secretary of State.
I noted that the draft charter and agreement did not put the Government under any duty to ensure that the BBC remains independent. They contain no obligation to ensure that the BBC is properly funded to perform its public functions. There is no commitment to avoid further top-slicing of the licence fee after the transfer of the cost of free licence fees for the over-75s, which will have a serious adverse effect on the BBC’s funding and programming—a 20% to 25% cut in licence fee funding. In my view, that was unseemly and deeply regrettable, but it is now too late to reverse it.
I criticised the lack of an independent process for appointing the members of the new unitary board on merit, to prevent cronyism. I warned that Ministers remained able to determine what “distinctiveness” means. There was no protection for the BBC against much richer competitors, challenging the current and future BBC programming. Powerful criticisms to similar effect were made across the House, but the Minister did not give ground on any of those points. The new charter and agreement were brought into force completely unchanged. As the Minister may confirm—I hope that he will—the Government retain the right to make further inroads into the BBC’s revenue by transferring responsibility, including liability and costs, for any public expenditure.
I also spoke during the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 13 December 2016—I am becoming something of a BBC charter bore in this House. I explained that what I meant by statutory underpinning is that Parliament should prescribe the basic principles protecting the BBC’s independence and viability as a public service broadcaster. I concluded by describing myself as an optimist and expressed the hope that the Government will sympathise with our moderate and practical approach. I am still optimistic that we may reach agreement with the Government on a protective framework of principles during the remaining stages of the Bill’s passage. That would be in the Government’s, and the public, interest.
A question raised by these amendments is one of principle, to which I would be grateful for the Minister’s reply. The question is this: is statutory underpinning of a royal charter both possible and legitimate? I hope he will confirm that the answer is yes.
There are several precedents for a combination of legislation and charter, notably the Leveson legislation on the print media and the National Citizen Service Bill. Both provide underpinnings for royal charters, although no doubt civil servants will come up with clever arguments as to why they are different. However, I am not raising that question but the question of principle: is there any reason in principle why statutory underpinning is incompatible with the idea of a royal charter?
In his letter to me of 4 January, for which I am grateful, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, claimed that the Government had increased the BBC’s freedom, “to use its money as it sees fit”. I should be grateful for his confirmation that the BBC’s revenue from the licence fee is indeed the BBC’s and not the Government’s money, and for his assurance that there will be no further raid by this Government on the BBC’s revenue. Will he also confirm that without legislation, a future Government would be free to make further raids: in other words, that the most he can do is give an assurance about this Government? The Minister went on to say in his letter that the Government remain of the view that any statutory underpinning to the charter which would expose the BBC to party political pressures would not be in the interests of an independent BBC. There is a whiff of the Brexit debates about that statement. Ministers exercising monarchical prerogative powers claim to be better able to protect the interests of the BBC than Parliament. I agree that the BBC needs to be protected against politicians, whether in or out of office. Ministers are as susceptible to party political pressures as other MPs, and the BBC needs to be protected against both. If the amendments are agreed to, they will give protection and can be abolished or weakened only by a future Act of Parliament. I submit that Parliament’s use of its legislative powers provides better protection than ministerial assurances, which in any case are outlived when the Government change.
I turn now to the specific amendments and hope that the Minister will be able to reply to each of them at the appropriate point. I introduced them in some detail in my speech at Second Reading, so I will not bore the Committee by going through them again. I simply wish to explain to those who are interested what the amendments are designed to. Your Lordships will see that Amendment 217 on the Marshalled List is simply a paving amendment to provide the statutory underpinning that follows. Amendment 218 deals with the independence and funding of the BBC. I am not going to read out the whole amendment—some of it can be found in the royal charter, but in my view all of it ought to be in legislation. If it can be in the royal charter, I am puzzled as to why the Government believe it should not find its way into the Act of Parliament. For example, subsection (2) would insert proposed new section 198ZC, in which new subsection (1) states:
“The BBC is to be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which its output is supplied, and the governance and management of its affairs”.
Does the Minister agree with that? I am sure that the answer is yes. Proposed new subsection (2) goes on:
“The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the BBC, OFCOM, and all other persons and bodies with responsibility for matters relating to the governance and establishment of the BBC must ensure that the BBC is able to operate independently from Ministers and other public authorities in the United Kingdom”.
Again, does the Minister agree with that? I would expect him to say yes.
Proposed new subsection (3) states:
“In carrying out the duty … the Secretary of State and other Ministers of the Crown must not seek to influence the BBC’s decisions; and … must have regard to the need to defend the BBC’s independence; and the need for the BBC to have the financial and nonfinancial support necessary to enable it to exercise its functions”.
Does the Minister agree? Surely, he does. Then, in carrying out the duty, the Minister,
“must have regard to the need for the public interest to be considered in regard to matters relating to the BBC”.
Again, I see no cause for controversy.
Proposed new subsection (4) states:
“The Secretary of State must make available to the BBC sufficient funds, through the licence fee and otherwise”—
because there are other ways of funding apart from the licence fee—
“to enable the BBC to perform its functions and public purposes as a public service broadcaster”.
I cannot see any conceivable controversy about that notion.
Proposed new subsection (6) states:
“The licence fee is to be for the exclusive benefit of and use by the BBC to fund the performance of the BBC’s functions and public purposes”.
Again, I should have thought that was obvious. Then there is indexation, but I do not need to pause for that.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I declare my interests in broadcasting as set out in the register. I support this group of amendments. I think it is about time that we seriously considered statutory underpinning to protect the independence of the BBC so that it can operate free from the influence of Ministers and other public authorities in the UK.
The last two charter negotiations have both ended up being a smash and grab by the Government on the BBC’s funding and independence. In my view, the negotiations for the 2017 charter have been the most egregious attack by Ministers in the history of the corporation. The new charter has been portrayed as a great victory that has not only saved the licence fee but also extracted an annual inflation-linked increase in the fee. However, the director-general and the strategy team at the BBC spent a great deal of the last three years constantly anticipating and fending off attacks by Ministers—surely a serious distraction at a time when public service broadcasting has been under unprecedented attack by satellite and internet rivals.
I particularly welcome the new clause that would be inserted by Amendment 218, which states that the BBC should be independent in all matters concerning,
“the content of its output, the times and manner in which its output is supplied”.
There is a groundswell of opinion among many politicians that the BBC needs to concentrate on content that cannot be provided by the market. Noble Lords have only to look at PBS in America to see that, although its programmes are very worthy and wholesome, they are watched by a tiny minority of the audience and are not really relevant to national discussion.
What was most extraordinary about the most recent negotiations for the charter was the level of interference attempted by the Government in BBC content provision. Your Lordships should know that the rumours in the press that the Government wanted to interfere not only in the content but even in the scheduling of BBC programmes were true. They wanted to force the BBC to move the “Ten O’Clock News” to another time. Surely that really is none of their business—even if many noble Lords who like to go to bed early might have appreciated the move.
I also welcome proposed subsections (3) and (4), safeguarding the BBC so that it can “exercise its functions” by providing,
“sufficient funds, through the licence fee and otherwise”.
“Otherwise” is an important word for me. As part of the charter negotiations the Government quite rightly demanded that the BBC find sources outside the licence fee to raise revenues. BBC Worldwide, the corporation’s sales arm, has been doing just that—and very well indeed. It promises to return over £1 billion to BBC content provision over the next five years.
As a former BBC programme maker myself, I know that the uplift from worldwide funding for a programme budget can transform its content. The extra money allows an increase in the number of days’ filming, the locations to be used and the ability to work with a craft film crew—all of which means that viewers can see the money on screen and have a better viewing experience. Yet in the last negotiations the Government very nearly managed to privatise BBC Worldwide. I believe that these proposed subsections would stop such a threat in future.
Many attempts to reduce the independence of the BBC were eventually successfully fought off this time round. But the existing charter mechanism allows similar interference by the Government in the BBC in the future. The risk of placing the future of the BBC on a statutory footing is that there are plenty of politicians from all parties who would like to do the corporation harm, or even to interfere directly in how and where the BBC spends its money. Amendments could be made by Peers and MPs which would atomise the BBC so that its content served their own interests or constituency, which would damage one of the great unifying institutions in our country.
However, if noble Lords look at Channel 4 and its statutory underpinning, they will see that it has made public ownership of that organisation more secure. Last year’s threat to privatise Channel 4 was only too real, but in the end it would have needed a very controversial Act of Parliament to carry out that threat. And what did we see? No such Bill was presented to Parliament, and Channel 4 remains in public hands. I am convinced that this group of amendments would give the BBC powerful protection from future government attacks on its independence. I urge the Minister to give them serious thought.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot work up the same sort of enthusiasm for the statutory underpinning of the BBC. Although I deplore interference with the running of the BBC and the licence fee, and welcome the promises of better behaviour in future in the recent licence settlement, it seems to me that statutory underpinning creates a platform for statutory interference as well, which could be a lot more dangerous. Things are run quite well and we now have a royal charter that will last for 11 years. That gives us time to reflect on possible changes at some point in the next 11 years—but certainly not at the moment.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I accept that I have a special interest, but I have yet to be bored by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on this matter. Indeed, I applaud his tenacity and hard work. The day this House discussed the royal charter was the lowest day in all my time in the House. It was a particularly distinguished debate, and there was a wide consensus on all sides that the charter was inappropriate. I do not plan to rehearse the arguments that I made on that day again, but there was wide agreement that, although we had all long believed that the charter was the right way of governing the BBC—I certainly believed that when I was the director-general—we had learned the hard way that it was not.
The royal prerogative is simply archaic; it flows from our history, with its origins in medieval times. Its shortcomings have just been unfolding in the Supreme Court; it has been found wanting there. That was a low day for me because, despite consensus across the House, the Government did not give an inch. I do not expect them to do so today. However, the good thing about this debate and about what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his colleagues are doing is that it puts this issue firmly on the agenda. If it is not won today, I predict that it will be won one day. The BBC simply has to be put on a statutory basis.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare that my wife works at Ofcom, so I have an interest of some relation to the BBC. These amendments are crucial to an issue we all care about: the independence of the BBC and ensuring it is not compromised. The Government may protest that they have no intention of compromising the BBC’s independence—I am sure they do not—but I know from the debate and from many conversations over the past few months that I was not alone in being alarmed by the initial proposal floated last year that the Government would appoint a majority of members of the new BBC unitary board, replacing the BBC Trust. I am pleased to say that the Government seem to have moved away from that proposal in response to concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere.
But concerns remain. For one thing, we discovered last week just how close the Government intend still to remain to Rupert Murdoch’s companies, whose hostility to the BBC is well known. Senior executives from Murdoch-owned companies met the Prime Minister or Chancellor 10 times last year—more than any other media organisation. In the past 18 months, News Corp executives had 20 meetings with senior government representatives, 18 of which were with the Prime Minister, Chancellor or Culture Secretary, seven involving Rupert Murdoch himself, whose views on the BBC are very clear. Quite what was discussed in these meetings we do not know, but I would be astonished if complaints about the BBC were not raised repeatedly.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, eloquently set out, threats to the BBC’s independence come in much more subtle forms. The combination of financial constraint plus extra responsibilities has been a long-standing part of the Government’s relationship with the BBC. I worked for Gordon Brown as Prime Minister; we did a bit of that as well. But, as the noble Lord mentioned, in this new charter the Government have raised their sights and shifted more than £500 million-worth of responsibility for licence fees for the over-75s without allocating a single penny to support it. This process of shifting responsibility for government policy on to the BBC while tightening the purse strings even further, and, presumably, reserving the right to complain when the BBC revisits the viability of these commitments, is a serious threat to the autonomy of the BBC. We should be on our guard against it.
When it comes to the new unitary board, I agree with the spirit and content of the amendments. It is important that we have a transparent process to ensure a genuinely independent board. The Government’s current proposal on composition risks lining up a slate of government appointees against a slate of BBC appointees, aiming for some kind of internal balance rather than ensuring real independence for the board as a whole. It is also vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, set out, that we have clarity on the terms of appointment to the new board.
We need only look at other countries in the European Union to see the dangers that can quickly arise when the independence of public broadcasters is compromised. For example, last year the Polish Government assumed the right to appoint the heads of state broadcasting authorities and removed the guarantees for independence of public service TV and radio, in breach of Council of Europe norms and the Polish constitution. We are a long way from being Poland in this respect, thank goodness, but the combination of governance change, political pressure from rival organisations, financial pressure and the temptation to offload policy commitments on to the shoulders of the BBC provide a real threat to autonomy and independence. It is right to err on the side of vigilance and caution in the spirit of this group of amendments.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. We on these Benches will then take a view about how to work with others across the House on the issues raised, including this debate, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, just said, will become more and more live, about whether it is time to put the BBC’s independence on a statutory basis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He mentioned that he remained optimistic. When he spoke to me outside the Chamber, he said that he was “pathetically optimistic”. I would prefer to say that he is “characteristically determined”. He has produced argument after argument, not only in the BBC charter renewal debates, but also at Second Reading. I fear I may disappoint him yet again. I am sad that some of his supporters are not here.
We return to an issue which we have debated at length as part of the recent discussions on the BBC’s royal charter which were completed last year. The new royal charter was sealed on 8 December. Amendments 217, 218, 219, 229A and 234, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, seek to constrain future BBC royal charters through statute. I note and acknowledge that the noble Lord has made a number of changes to his amendments in the areas of parliamentary votes over future charters and governance. I appreciate the thought he has put into this and the dialogue we have had so far. In a skilled way, he has set a number of questions, some of which I will try to answer. He is right to say that whether we should have statutory underpinning for the royal charter is an issue of principle. He asked whether statutory underpinning was possible and legitimate. As he knows full well, because he almost answered my question for me, I agree that it is possible, and sometimes legitimate—but not always.
There remain some very serious, potential dangers associated with the noble Lord’s amendments and we cannot, therefore, support them. These amendments restrain future royal charters and funding settlements. Let me talk about two specific examples where this is problematic. On the subject of appointments, these amendments hardwire a unitary board into legislation. While we may now believe that we have found the best solution to the BBC’s governance, it is not guaranteed that we will still believe this in 10 years. As the last 10 years have shown, while governance arrangements can be drawn up with the best of intentions, these can prove unsatisfactory in practice. The new charter replaces the BBC Trust, which has been widely regarded as a failed model, and it is right that we should be able to address this in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Wood, and other noble Lords, talked about the independence of the board. I cannot see that the structure that we have reached in the royal charter can be criticised in this respect. At the moment, there are 14 members of the board, including five non-execs appointed by the BBC, four executives appointed by the BBC and four members, one for each nation, who need to be approved by the devolved assemblies. The Government have hardly got undue influence there. They are all appointed following a fair and open competition. Candidates for the chair must have a pre-appointment hearing by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. If a change in this composition were required, an Act of Parliament would have to be amended, with the party-political debate, tactical pressure and uncertain legislative timetable that this would entail. This is not the right vehicle to make sure that the BBC can be governed effectively. Charter review remains the right vehicle—one that affords ample opportunity for debate and consultation, but also one that allows for effective decision-making and, crucially, a negotiated agreement with the BBC.
The second serious problem concerns the part of the noble Lord’s amendment which specifies that the licence fee needs to rise in line with inflation, or at a rate greater than inflation if the board recommends this, in perpetuity. This provision is not in the licence fee payer’s best interest: it sets the wrong incentives for the BBC to continue to strive to be efficient and to provide the high-quality programming that audiences expect and deserve. The BBC should continue to make efforts to increase efficiency and value for money for its audiences. This is something that the licence fee payer should be able to expect. A guaranteed income which keeps on rising is not the way to ensure this.
Furthermore, we must remember that the licence fee is a tax. It should therefore be possible for the Government of the day to ask the BBC, as is the case for every other public body, to contribute to lightening the pressures on public spending or the taxpayer’s purse, if the circumstances require it or when public spending priorities change. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Wood, referred to the so-called raid and the cut in the licence fee income. The licence fee has been frozen at £145.50 since 2010. We will end this freeze and increase the licence fee in line with inflation to 2021-22.
Lord Birt
Does the Minister agree that in future, in the event that the Government interfere, as they have done twice in recent years, and require the BBC to spend its licence funding in some other way, it would be appropriate for Parliament to discuss that before the measure goes forward?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I will come to that. Of course, future Governments will have to make their own arrangements in negotiations with the BBC. The BBC licence fee is a tax. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the elected Government have a say in how taxes are raised and spent.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
The Minister has twice said that the licence fee is a tax. What is the basis of that? I would have thought that the licence fee is a service charge for a service provided to those who pay the licence. That does not sound like a tax. It is not imposed by the Treasury. It is a service fee. When I watch television, because I am old I no longer have to pay, for some reason—that is another matter—but I cannot understand how it can be regarded as a tax. By calling it a tax, surely the Minister is making a threat about future inroads into the BBC’s revenue.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I certainly do not intend to make threats and I am hardly in a position to do so. I called it a tax because it is so classified by the Office for National Statistics. It is regarded officially as a tax.
The funding agreement announced last July included a number of measures which will increase the BBC’s income—for example, the closure of the iPlayer loophole and the increase of the licence fee with inflation. In combination with the transfer of funding for the over-75s concession, this means that the BBC will have a flat cash settlement to 2021-22, not a 20% cut. Indeed, the director-general said in July last year:
“The government’s decision here to put the cost of the over-75s on us has been more than matched by the deal coming back for the BBC”.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would endanger the effectiveness with which the BBC can be governed, and weaken the incentives for the corporation to strive for excellence and efficiency, as well as public support for the BBC’s funding.
As noble Lords know, both Houses had many opportunities to shape the future of the BBC throughout the charter review, and the Government appreciate that valuable input. But we remain of the view that the royal charter in its current form has served the BBC extremely well over many decades. The BBC agrees. The BBC’s director-general, Tony Hall—the noble Lord, Lord Hall—has welcomed the new charter, saying that,
“we have the right outcome for the BBC and its role as a creative power for Britain. It lays the foundation for more great programmes and journalism”.
With that, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am not at all surprised and I remain optimistic. What I shall now do is read very carefully all the points he has made, look at the amendments that we have been discussing, strip out anything which can reasonably be objected to in the opinion of the Government and those taking part in the debate, and come back to the matter on Report—
Lord Ashton of Hyde
If it is helpful, I am very happy to meet and discuss this.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
What I am hoping will happen is that Lord Hall of Liverpool—the director-general—will meet Ministers himself. He has been quoted in particular ways now and I will not attribute any views to him, because that would jeopardise the independence of the BBC, but I very much hope that he will meet the Secretary of State and explain privately what he thinks about these issues. From my point of view, as a would-be midwife, all I am trying to do is create a framework of principles which do not have any of the detrimental effects that the Minister has pointed to. I will seek to do that, and I hope that it will not be necessary on Report to divide the House. I am optimistic enough to believe that a thinking, open-minded Government in discussion with the BBC could come up with some statutory underpinning that would give a framework of principles without these detrimental effects. On that basis, I shall withdraw this amendment and will not pursue others in the group.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I apologise to the places, their populations and to the noble Lord, Lord Hall, himself. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Duty of OFCOM to make a recommendation on BBC funding
It shall be the duty of OFCOM to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State regarding appropriate levels of BBC funding in respect of the settlement from 1 April 2022.”
Lord Best (CB)
I shall also speak to Amendments 221 and 222 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, and myself. I declare my interest as chairing your Lordships’ Select Committee on Communications, and this amendment encapsulates one of the principal recommendations from that committee’s report on the renewal of the BBC’s charter, Reith not Revolution.
Most of the recommendations in our report, which did not cover matters of governance and management, have been taken forward by the Government in the BBC’s new charter, which the Select Committee appreciated. In particular, the Government accepted our recommendation for an 11-year period for the new charter: this provides stability and security for the BBC, enabling proper forward planning. We were also very pleased with the line taken by the Government, following our subsequent representations, that the mid-term review of the charter would not reopen the debate on the purposes, scale and scope of the BBC, but would concentrate exclusively on reviewing the new governance arrangements for a unitary board and an extended role for Ofcom.
However, one crucial ingredient has remained unresolved, since it was not a matter that had to be settled within the charter itself. This was the issue of how the BBC’s licence fee should be set—ie, what process should be followed when establishing the charge made to all the users of the BBC’s services, now including those delivered online through the internet. Of course, the licence fee represents the vast bulk of the BBC’s income and therefore determines its scale and scope. How that fee is set is obviously of the utmost importance to the future of the BBC. This is a much narrower point than the question of statutory underpinning for the BBC, but it relates to the independence of the BBC. Although the charter will cover a full 11-year period, the next setting of the licence fee, upon which so much depends, is only five years away.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendment. I agree with the object, but not the means. In fact there are not three but four options open to the Minister. The first, and most pathetically moderate, is of course my original one in Amendment 219, where I borrowed from the way that we deal with judicial salaries and revenue by proposing in new subsections (9) and (10) that “the board”—that is to say, the BBC board—
“must publish a recommendation to the Secretary of State on the amount of funding that the Secretary of State should make available”.
This is on the basis that the BBC should know best what it needs. Then the Secretary of State publishes,
“a response to each recommendation made under subsection (9)”.
If this is rejected, we are in a completely hopeless position so far as this subject is concerned.
My problem with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, is that it is a bit odd to give the regulator the function of recommending an increase in the licence fee. That is why I have produced Amendment 222A to create an independent body—the licence fee commission. The disadvantage of this is that we do not like creating a whole lot of new bodies unless there is some very important reason. Then the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Wood of Anfield, have a more modest way of achieving the same thing: they would have a BBC licence fee commission to do it. Those are, I think, the four options. My own view is that the Government should now accept one of them or come up with a formula of their own that we can agree on Report. I am optimistic that this will happen, so I am now watching this space with great enthusiasm—and suspense.
Lord Birt
My Lords, I support the drift of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best; I think that we need a proper, open, rigorous and transparent means of setting the level of the licence fee.
A little bit of history is that we did have a commission in the late 1990s, when the then Government appointed Gavyn Davies, a very distinguished economist and later chairman of the BBC, to do just that. As you would expect, he produced a searching, rigorous report. A further little bit of history is that he made a recommendation, and the Secretary of State, as you expect in politics, lowered the recommendation; as you do not expect, it went to No. 10, and the then Prime Minister not only upped his Secretary of State but recommended a level for the licence fee which was higher than that which Gavyn Davies recommended. It was the famous RPI plus 1.5% for seven years settlement, which allowed the BBC fully to enter the digital age. It was the process that Gavyn Davies led that enabled the Prime Minister to make a considered judgment.
However it is done, that body needs to look at the total environment. The most important issue in British broadcasting today, barely discussed at all, is the long-term decline of UK production. It is not going up; it is going down. It is going down because of the economic position of ITV and Channel 4. Any discussion of the level of the licence fee should look not only at the BBC but at the totality of the broadcasting production environment in the UK.
Some suggest that the licence fee should be linked to the RPI. There can, from time to time, be good reasons for that. I think that, strategically, it should be linked to GDP. The BBC performs a fundamental role in society, like the Armed Forces. We have a view of GDP and the investment we should make in the rest of the world; we should have a view in relation to GDP of how much we invest in our most important public service broadcaster. When GDP is stretched, as it has been over the past 10 years—though, thankfully, it is going up again—and if the country’s economy is suffering a reverse, then the BBC’s revenues should go down. If the country is prospering, so should the BBC—so should society’s investment in its most important public service broadcaster.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I add my support to these amendments and also pay my respect to the noble Lord, Lord Best, who so ably chaired the Communications Committee, of which I was a member, and produced this report. As everyone in this debate has said, a greater level of transparency must be introduced into the setting of the licence fee. Never again can there be backroom deals.
What these amendments seek to achieve is that in future there will be clarity and public scrutiny. The public, after all, pay the licence fees. These are moderate proposals which will rightly leave an elected Government with the final say in determining the BBC’s revenue, but introduce an important element of accountability into the process, which is surely appropriate for such a vital national institution. There is obviously room for debate as to which body oversees this process, but I hope that the noble Lord agrees that there should be a more open and transparent process.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
My Lords, I was a member of that licence fee commission under Gavyn Davies in 1998. It may interest the House to know that we had a subcommittee under the late Lord Newton looking at the issue of possibly funding a licence fee for over-75s and making it free. The unanimous conclusion of the committee was that that was a very bad idea and wholly inappropriate for the BBC.
Lord Wood of Anfield
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 222B, 222C and 222D, which go together and which draw on the spirit of the excellent arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and share many of the features of what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, set out. The idea is to reinforce the credibility of the licence fee, to ensure the BBC receives the resources it needs to fulfil its responsibilities under the charter. These amendments go together because, logically, the problem is that the process of negotiating the charter and setting a licence fee level do not always sit easily together.
At present, the connection between the charter process and the licence fee process is, at best, an indirect one. Each has its own political dynamics, so in setting the licence fee Governments have a range of considerations and pressures to contend with. One of those is the interests of the BBC to fund what the charter says it has to do, but it also includes the interests of other broadcasters, the politics around the headline licence fee rate—which is a huge thing for Ministers, proving to the public that they have got more for less out of the BBC and the overall settlement—and, as we discussed earlier, financial pressure to offload government responsibility on to the BBC without extra cost. So the temptation always exists for government to inflate the ambition of the charter and to put a lid on the increases in the licence fee simultaneously. That not only threatens the BBC’s autonomy but risks casting the Government with the suspicion of unwarranted interference.
Viscount Colville of Culross
My Lords, I too add my voice to say that it is important that the BBC’s funding should be transparent and inclusive. I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Best on his Amendment 220, which argues for Ofcom as a possible way of looking at this. However, I read Sharon White’s evidence to his committee, in which she said that she was already going to be fairly stretched with taking on the new regulatory powers and looking after the BBC. I also listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his concerns that it is rather odd to have a body that is both regulating the BBC and has the additional power to recommend the setting of licence fee levels. I rather prefer the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, for an independent commission which would make a recommendation to the Secretary of State.
Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept any of these amendments, serious thought needs to be given to the future process for funding the BBC. The constant arrival of new technologies means a shortfall in the number of licence fees being paid, and I doubt that the new digital licence fee is going to provide adequate compensation. The digital age is throwing up an extraordinary array of alternative funding models. An independent body should not only investigate the level of funding for the BBC but the manner in which the public contributes to that funding.
I urge the Minister to think very seriously about facilitating legislation which would enshrine the financial independence of the BBC. Without adequate funding, this great British institution will wither and may even become irrelevant to our national life.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I will make one brief point as a broadcaster who works for the BBC. When we speak about transparency, I completely agree with what I heard about transparency from the point of view of the public. However, I make a plea for transparency from the point of view of the BBC over being able to budget. That means knowing in good time what it will get. More and more, we have heard about digital technology, and buying rights and planning broadcasts depends on knowing what kind of budget you are going to have. That is all I need to say, but I make a strong plea for giving the BBC the chance to know what it will have to spend, even if it is going down.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who tabled these amendments today, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the Communications Committee, which he chaired. I am also grateful for the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on the future of the licence fee itself and how it may be arranged in the future, which is slightly separate from the debate we are having today about the process for doing it. I accept that, as technology changes, the way it is structured may have to be changed in the future. I hope we can have debates on that separately at some stage in the future. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Stevenson, for their amendments.
Today we are debating a new nuance regarding the BBC licence fee. On a number of occasions, Members of the House have been clear that they would like to see an end to what some have called “midnight raids” on the BBC licence fee, and we have listened to that. The BBC’s new charter regularises the BBC’s future financial settlements for the first time, and the next one will be in five years’ time. In the meantime, there will be an inflation-linked increase.
The current charter also requires the BBC to provide data ahead of each licence fee settlement to inform the Government’s decision. It is, therefore, explicitly clear that the BBC will be able to make its case and the Government of the day will be able to consider that. It also follows that anyone with valuable views and thoughts on the subject, including noble Lords—many of whom I know have experience in these matters—can share these views with the Government when the time comes.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, suggests that Ofcom should recommend what the level of funding for the BBC should be, and he proposes further that there should be a public consultation on the appropriate level of funding. It is entirely appropriate that the assessment of the BBC’s funding needs and the subsequent level of the licence fee should remain a matter for the Secretary of State. As I said before, the licence fee is a tax paid by the licence fee payer, and taxation is a matter for the elected Government rather than an unelected regulator. It is right that the Government should have some responsibility for decisions that affect the tax bills of UK citizens, as I have set out before. We would be setting potentially odd incentives for the BBC’s regulator if—as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out—it would now also be called upon to make funding recommendations. The now-abolished trust model showed that mixing regulatory and strategic functions breeds confusion and conflicting incentives. The consensus has been that this has not worked and we do not want to recreate this model.
Ofcom needs to concentrate on regulating the BBC effectively. The noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Stevenson, have both proposed the establishment of an independent licence fee commission to make recommendations to the Secretary of State. We agree with the sentiment of independent advice. The Government stated in their White Paper, published last May, that they would consider taking independent advice at the next settlement should it be appropriate. However, that is a matter for the Government of the day. As with Ofcom, it would not be appropriate for an independent commission to make recommendations on level of taxation.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
As I listen to the noble Lord, the problem arises when he says, “That would be a matter for the Government of the day”. All this is very interesting and relevant, but none of it is binding. Effectively, the Minister is putting forward perfectly reasonable ideas for the future, but none of them has any bite. None of them is binding unless Parliament makes it so. I am afraid it is a question of wriggling to find ways of avoiding any parliamentary underpinning at all. It is that which everyone who has spoken in this House, but one, believes to be wrong. Therefore we will have to come back to it on Report.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I understand the point the noble Lord is making; he illustrated it right at the beginning of his speech in the previous debate. This is a matter of principle: whether we think statutory underpinning is the right mechanism for the royal charter for the BBC. I acknowledged to him that in some cases it might be, but I did not agree that it was appropriate for the BBC. I take his point and his due warning about Report. I agree it is relevant to this, but we have established that we have a disagreement on that point of principle. As for binding future Governments, of course we do not want to do that, and, in fact, we cannot.
The next question is that of public consultation on the settlement or the level of the licence fee. As noble Lords will appreciate, funding a public service is not a straightforward topic for public consultation. For example, the recent charter review found that almost 75% of the public consider the BBC’s programming to be of a high quality, but just 20% said that they would like to see the licence fee rise in line with inflation, thus helping the BBC maintain these high standards. Public consultation, therefore, needs to be approached with due sensitivity.
The BBC’s funding needs are a very complicated and technical issue, as we have seen at every licence fee settlement. The judgment about the overall package is a fine one. It should therefore remain for the elected Government to decide how to approach reaching an appropriate level of BBC funding in a detailed and extensive negotiation with the BBC. As I have said, this resulted in a position that the director-general has said is a strong deal for the BBC that gives it financial stability.
Finally, Amendment 223 seeks to remove the ability of the BBC to set age-related licence fee concessions in the future. I have already explained that the licence fee is a tax and it is right that the Government should retain the ability to determine the outline priorities of what it should be spent on. The BBC explicitly sought responsibility for the age-related licence fee concession. Removing the BBC’s ability to determine this policy—for which it will pay—simply prevents the BBC being the master of its own destiny. I believe it is particularly arbitrary to withdraw the BBC’s ability to set this concession without knowledge of what the overall funding package for the BBC will be at that future point. I do not believe that that is in the BBC’s interest, now or in the future. With those explanations I hope that, for the time being, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, all of whom spoke in support of a change. I get the very strong impression that the Ofcom route, which is the one proposed in my amendment, would not find so much favour with your Lordships as the creation of a separate new licence fee commission. The independence of that body would be assured. I can see that some regulators do take an interest in the fees and charges made by the bodies that they regulate—it would not be entirely unheard of for Ofcom to have a view. However, I take the point that Ofcom is fully stretched with the duties that it already has. On balance, although everyone who spoke accepts that the current arrangements have been entirely unsatisfactory and that change is needed, the idea of a new body—which does not always find favour—might be the preferable route.
In response to the Minister, there is absolute agreement that the Secretary of State must take the final decision—that is not under dispute. It also should be clear that this should not be confused with the statutory underpinning of the royal charter, which we debated earlier. This is a one-off, separate issue relating to the licence fee. I am glad the Minister accepts that independent advice might be required. However, I think it is possible to bind future Governments, in the sense that putting a process in the Bill would ensure that the transparency that everyone seeks comes to pass and that proper public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny whenever the licence fee is reviewed, which will be five years from now, happens. It might be useful to come back to this later. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Impact of Royal Charter and Agreement on radio production
The Secretary of State must report, within a year of the passing of this Act, on the impact of the BBC Royal Charter and Agreement, on—(a) the balance of in-house and independent production of programmes for BBC radio broadcast;(b) the extent to which training and development of production staff may have been affected;(c) the numbers of staff active in radio production compared to 2016, including details of gender and other indicators of diversity; and(d) the impact the changes have had on the salaries and conditions of radio production staff.’’
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I was slightly surprised at the way the Minister rebuffed concerns about the way in which Parliament engaged with the royal charter process last time. It might be because he joined us halfway through, to a little bit of shock but quite a lot of pleasure. Looking back on it, I do not think it can be said that Parliament was as engaged as it wished to be in the process. The ability to speak on two occasions when Statements were graciously made by Ministers, and to speak in one debate focusing, at that stage, on the draft charter, with the agreement as yet not finalised, can hardly be described as participating actively in the process. I think we can agree to differ on that point. I am sure that noble Lords who spoke in the earlier debate had a very different version of how that might have gone, including involvement by Select Committees and involvement in the detail, which would have resulted in proper and effective scrutiny of the Government’s proposals and the eventual outcome.
This amendment, by serendipity, actually deals with some of the fall-out of the rather deficient process we are going through. When charters are drafted, considered and debated, they are never alone: there are lots of other things going on. Many people present will be able to give witness to that effect. One of the things that sometimes gets missed out is the detail in the agreement. The agreement, of course, is really the mechanics of how the arrangement between the Government and the BBC works in practice. One was brought in in such a way and at such a time that it was never discussed in your Lordships’ House or in the other place. It only really became an issue once the charter was about to be sealed. The issue was the changes to the way national radio output was to be operated in future, which were being imposed on—although not necessarily resisted by—BBC management. That is the subject of this amendment.
Amendment 222E is a probing amendment, asking the Government to conduct a review of an important sector of the creative economy. It does not specifically relate to the BBC—although it is cued into something that is happening there—but it would provide useful information and detail that would be of interest to the Committee. If the review were carried out in the way I suggest, with a report covering a range of topics related to radio production, I hope it could be brought to your Lordships’ House and generate a good discussion.
In short, about 60% of BBC national radio output is going to be put out to competitive tender over the next few years, to 2020. Over the past 20 years, BBC radio has actually increased its external commissioning from zero to around 20% of output. That is quite a slow rate of progress, but that is not unconnected with the fact that we are talking about a very fragile sector of the creative industries. Radio production does not involve a very large group of people. The independents are usually quite small and not in the habit of operating on a scale that would enable them to take over the huge increase in the proportion of radio that we are talking about.
The proposal would mean an extra 3,000 hours of national radio output being put out to tender every year. That, of course, does not come free of charge, but with the cost of a commissioning process in-house at the BBC. Therefore, it is not all a one-way process: there will be additional costs. Those costs will not be funded by any additional funding from the licence fee or any other process, so there is bound to be a squeezing of radio budgets, and neither external nor in-house producers will be able to rely on getting any increase. It is going to be a rather difficult situation, affecting the people involved. Current in-house BBC radio producers will find that their jobs are largely going to disappear, because, although a significant number of programmes will be retained in-house, the 60% figure means that the majority will be produced externally.
The question of how the BBC will continue to operate as a major trainer in this area must be raised, because without the numbers, that training might well be at risk. Who else is going to do the training to ensure that radio has a flow of qualified people coming forward? Smaller independent production companies might not be able to scale up either quickly enough or with sufficient range to compete against those that will, perhaps, sweep the pool.
This is a really big change in an important part of our national life—a real adjustment—and it has not been given sufficient scrutiny. Given that it was not discussed in Parliament as far as I am aware and was hardly raised externally, the Government have a duty to think harder about the issues arising. The allegation was made that this proposal did not emerge from any consideration of the needs and purposes of BBC radio production, or indeed the independent radio production sector. In meetings I had with those involved, I was told that the ask for the independent sector was to get from the current 20% of output to 25% by 2020—in other words, a marginal increase on the existing arrangements. To go from 20% to 60% reflects what I think must have been external pressures. That rather makes the point that we need to know more about what is going on, and transparency would help.
The main purpose of the amendment is to focus on the situation that will emerge after 60% of national radio output is put out to competitive tender, and the benefits that will flow from that. I beg to move.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I have much sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, although I have some disagreements with it as well, which I will come to. As the noble Lord said, the new charter obligation commits the BBC to extending competition for radio production. It was my understanding that that proposal came directly from the BBC—that it was not, as the noble Lord suggested, imposed on but not necessarily resisted by BBC management. As he said, it may or may not have been rather more than the independent radio producers were expecting or had requested. The Committee would benefit from hearing from the Minister a little about the background to this part of the charter and agreement.
What is clear is that it has been agreed that from April 2017, over a six-year period, the BBC will open up 60% of relevant hours—that is non-news, news-related current affairs or repeats—to competition both from in-house and indie producers. That represents about 27,000 hours of programming per year being open to competition. Although it will not go as far as what is happening in television, it is a further development of the process that began right back in 1992, when the BBC voluntarily made 10% available to independent production. That has developed over a number of years. The 10% voluntary figure was made compulsory, we then saw further developments and eventually the “compete and compare” framework was introduced, designed to drive up standards, reduce costs and ensure continuous improvement in all areas of operation.
Of course, the 60% available for competition does not guarantee the independent sector extra commissions. Independent companies will obviously have to have sufficiently good ideas and be able to demonstrate a track record of producing sufficiently high-quality content. The independent sector, of about 150 relatively small companies spread right across the country, has a growing track record of producing high-quality content and helping to increase the range and diversity of content available to BBC radio services. They produce some great programmes that win awards, and since the guide price for radio production is the same for both in-house and external producers, there is no increase in the production cost to the BBC.
It is good to hear that the independent sector is increasingly involved in training the next generation of producers through training programmes and mentoring schemes, helping to improve diversity: around 60% of learners are women, 15% are from BAME backgrounds, and 5% are people with a disability. But we have to be alert, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested, to the impact these changes may have on the BBC and its own staff. They will certainly need increased levels of training and skills to negotiate, so that they can compete on a level playing field with the independents.
The review that is called for in the amendment is of course sensible, but we question whether it should take place quite as early in the process as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The 60% target for competition does not come into full effect until the end of 2022, which should provide the independent sector with plenty of time to develop the scale and expertise to pitch to make more programmes. It also allows time for the BBC to retrain and restructure. But the BBC acknowledges that while greater competition should deliver greater efficiency in programme costs, increasing the number of commissions open to competition threefold will require a larger in-house commissioning team, and there is already a potential impact on other in-house staff. I understand that the BBC is already in discussions with staff and trade unions about that.
It would make sense to have a review, but it should perhaps take place at the midway point between Royal Assent and 31 December 2020. If we are to have such a review, we need to look at some other issues that may form part of it, not least the BBC’s commissioning process, to ensure that the developing competition between in-house and independents is truly fair. However, we support the broad principle of the proposed review.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Foster, for their contributions. I start with something that has nothing to do with this. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who said that I did not realise quite what was going on with the BBC because I only joined halfway through, that the BBC was debated 19 times before the BBC charter review in various different forms—so it certainly had an outing if not in quite the way that noble Lords might have wished.
Moving on to the amendments in this group, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, concerns the impact of the BBC’s new royal charter on radio production. There has been a lot of misinformation and confusion about this change, so I hope to set the record straight. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the proposal for change originated from the BBC. It was well received by the Radio Independents Group, which had for a number of years been seeking to have more opportunities to bid for commissions from the BBC. Following negotiations between those two bodies, it was announced by the director of BBC Radio in June 2015. That agreement predated the publication of the BBC Green Paper.
Under the agreement, the BBC agreed to move from the current very limited quota-based arrangements to a new commissioning structure, opening up 60% of eligible hours to competition by 2022. This is a change that we strongly support, since it gives significant new opportunities to the growing independent radio production sector and gives BBC radio audiences access to the best ideas out there. But increasing the competition between independent and in-house productions does not guarantee, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, reminded us, that the independent sector will receive more commissions. Companies will have to bid for work and BBC in-house staff will still be capable of winning. Unlike TV, there will still be, in effect, an in-house guarantee of 40% of all programmes, which reflects the BBC’s continuing importance to radio.
The new BBC charter sets a firm timescale for the implementation of this change. However, the timescale for the transition—by 2022—was set by the agreement between the BBC and the RIG in June 2015. It has to be for the BBC to consider the transitional arrangements in consultation with the independent production sector and to report on them as appropriate. These are operational matters for the BBC and it is not for us to have to report on them. The BBC already reports on a number of its production and commissioning outcomes across TV and radio and I am sure that it will continue to strive for transparency here. I do, however, acknowledge the concerns that the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Foster, raised about the implications for BBC staff.
The changes are being introduced with a long transition and both the BBC and RIG are taking steps to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, talked about training. There is a strong ethos of training and diversity in the independent sector. For example, the next RIG offers a training programme that so far has provided training days to 1,089 individual learners, including a diversity mentoring scheme. Of the learners, 60% are women, 15% are BME and 5% are disabled. The RIG encourages its members to recruit from a diverse pool of candidates and also liaises with the BBC’s diversity team. It encourages its members to match the BBC’s employment conditions.
I am sure that both the BBC and the radio industry will pay close attention to the points raised by noble Lords today and take steps to ensure that the transition is handled as sensitively as possible. Fundamentally, though, this is about giving commissioners greater choice and ensuring that listeners have access to the best possible radio shows.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his not unqualified support. It was useful to have another voice in the debate and he raised good points, which I broadly support. He is right that, on reflection, one would perhaps want to look at the issue of timing in more detail.
I would like to depart from the Minister’s comments on one issue: the focus of the amendment. The amendment is not really about what is happening in the BBC; it is an attempt to focus on what might happen in the broader ecology of radio production. In that sense, I was not straying into encouraging him to interfere in what must be an operational matter for the BBC—I absolutely agree with that. I do think, though, that there will be consequential waves of impact across the whole of radio production, which ought to be of interest to the Minister and to the department.
I still think that there will be strong changes here in matters such as conditions of service for staff. It is nice to hear that the RIG group is encouraged to match BBC conditions, but the likelihood of it doing so is very slim. That in itself may not be the biggest issue, but it is still going to have an impact and we should know about that. For all the reasons previously given, I still think that this would be a good idea.
However, the underlying point that will cause us the greatest concern as we go forward is that this seems to signal a change of approach. I think the Minister said that he strongly supported what was being proposed by the BBC in these measures—I will check in Hansard. Whether or not it was something that originated in the BBC or something it picked up in the negotiations and felt that perhaps it ought to do is a matter we can talk about later. The point is that, as a result of these and other changes, the BBC is moving inexorably from being a producer and broadcaster to a broadcaster that largely commissions work. That in itself has to be of concern. It may or may not be the right thing to do in the circumstances; it may be inevitable, given the way that technology is moving; but it is a change. Unless we mark and measure that in order to assess what is happening, we will all be the losers. That is perhaps for another day; in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wood of Anfield
“Listed events qualifying criteria
(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows. (2) For section 98(2)(b) substitute—“(b) that the service has been watched by at least 90% of citizens in the United Kingdom in the course of the preceding calendar year.”(3) After section 98(2) insert—“(2A) The Secretary of State may by Order amend section (2)(b) by substituting a different percentage for any percentage for the time being specified there.(2B) No order under subsection (2A) shall be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””
Lord Wood of Anfield
My Lords, Amendment 224 is designed to protect the so-called listed events regime, the rules designed to ensure that major sporting events in the UK remain universally and freely available. The listed events rules have enjoyed cross-party support for well over 30 years, and have succeeded in preserving live coverage of certain major sporting events on free-to-air TV—such as the Olympics, the World Cup, the Grand National, the Rugby World Cup Final—while also ensuring that a second category of sporting events is guaranteed to have highlights available on free-to-air TV, such as the Six Nations rugby and the Commonwealth Games. Those rules have successfully managed to combine two competing sets of considerations: the desire of the public to be able to access, without extra payments, the major sporting occasions that define our culture and bring us all together; and the need for sporting bodies to maximise their commercial revenues to invest in both their professional sportsmen and sportswomen and to develop their grass-roots activities.
The audiences for these major sporting events testify to the success of the listed events rules. In 2015, over 40 million people watched the Rugby World Cup on ITV. Some 45 million people watched the Rio Olympics and Euro 2016. England’s disastrous performance against Iceland in the Euros last summer was the most watched sporting event of the year, with 15 million—which I am sure will cheer us all. The men’s final at Wimbledon and the final of Euro 2016 attracted more than 13 million viewers. Some 80% of the public say that listed events are important to our country and 25% say that the BBC’s Olympic coverage during the London Olympics inspired them to take part in sport themselves.
In recent years the listed events regime has come under some moderate threat, largely from competitors to PSB broadcasters, which want to undermine the privileged position of free-to-air channels. So far, all political parties—and all parties—have resisted the lobbying to reform those rules, and I trust that the Government have no intention to revisit the principle behind the listed events regime. However, this amendment is not about protecting the rules against calls for repeal of the regime; it is specifically to protect the regime from falling into obsolescence in the face of technological change and changing viewing habits.
The aim of the rules is to guarantee that major sporting events are available universally, irrespective of the ability to pay. I hope that we all share that ambition. The current rules express that in statute by restricting what counts as a qualifying service to channels which, first, are free and, secondly, are received on TV sets by 95% or more of the UK population. The problem is that despite the ambition of those rules, the criteria they adopt are becoming outdated as the number of households in which programmes are watched on devices other than TV sets rises. As a result, for the first time, the major free and free-to-air broadcasters share the fear and expectation that before this Parliament is over, no TV channel will qualify for the 95% criterion—not one. That leaves the regulator unable to guarantee the continued availability of listed events to audiences across the UK, and in the long term risks collapsing the credibility of the listed events rules altogether.
The rules for listed events need therefore to be updated. The amendment we propose, backed by all five free-to-air PSB providers, would replace the 95% reception criterion with a requirement that any qualifying service must have had programmes that have reached or been viewed by at least 90% of the public in the last calendar year—where the definition of a “viewing” is at least 15 minutes consecutive viewing a year. That measure would serve as a good proxy for “free to air” continuous availability. It maintains the spirit of the existing regime, is simple to implement, not tied to any particular distribution platform and, crucially, it is open to any service that is free and committed to maximising access.
Of course, there is a genuine debate to be had about the nature of the rule that is introduced to replace the existing rules that are at risk of becoming obsolescent. However, it cannot be right for anyone committed to maintaining the listed events regime to deny that there is a big problem brewing or the need for reform to keep major sporting events universally available. I hope that when the Minister replies he can agree at least with the principle that the rules need to be updated, and suggest a process for taking this revision forward. I beg to move.
Amendment 224A (to Amendment 224)
“(b) that the service is a service which, in the opinion of OFCOM, is capable of reaching the vast majority of the population and likely to achieve a significant audience.”
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
My Lords, Amendment 224A has the same objective as Amendment 224 but takes a marginally different approach. I will not go over the statistics because my noble friend Lord Wood has done that admirably, but I would add that PSBs are responsible for only 5% of sports output on television but 60% of the viewing. Their role in sports coverage is absolutely vital and I fully endorse the need to protect the listed events regime against the risk of becoming obsolete.
I must apologise to the Committee because the language I used in drafting Amendment 224A is more than sloppy. In an age that regards a majority of 52% in the EU referendum as overwhelming and a 55% majority in the Scottish referendum as equally overwhelming, the phrase “vast majority” is wholly inadequate to reflect what I really mean, which is as close to universal coverage as is humanly possible. However, the main point of my amendment is to get rid of fixed targets because they can become obsolete. My noble friend may be right when he says that it might happen to all five PSBs within the next Parliament, so why substitute 95% with 90% which may become equally obsolete in the ensuing two or three years? Why not leave it to the judgment of the regulator, Ofcom? It should reach a decision on which broadcasters could qualify.
The other point on which I slightly disagree with my noble friend is going for 90% in the preceding year. First, that could be overly restrictive, and secondly, it could lead to a situation where an organisation deliberately becomes free to air but hides its main sports coverage behind a paywall. It would be much better to leave this to the judgment of Ofcom. It can determine what coverage is going to be required and who can qualify as a free-to-air broadcaster. Apart from those points, I endorse entirely the need to protect the listed events regime and I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. Free-to-air broadcasting is something that is very good because it helps the entire sporting structure by encouraging people to watch sports events, which in turn may make them actually get out there and play some sport, a point that has not been mentioned yet. The fact is that if you have not seen something you cannot get involved in it, and equally, unless it is culturally acceptable you do not get involved. This is an odd and imprecise correlation that everyone knows about. The effort to build a healthier nation is helped by broadcasting. Oddly enough, being able to watch sports while sitting on the sofa encourages people to go out and try them, and thus makes them likely to spend slightly less time on that sofa.
The most important part of Amendment 224 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, is that the affirmative procedure would have to be used to make any changes. That, along with a commitment to ensuring that Parliament takes an interest in this issue and monitors it carefully, is probably most important in terms of reflecting the spirit of the amendment. If we were to leave this to some sort of outside structure, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, it is going to be difficult to pin down in a fast-changing world. Unless we have something that states that PSBs must continue with this provision, it will come under pressure and people will always be sniping at it. The fact is that sport seems to be something which people want to pay to access and view, so there will always be pressure. Representatives of the big five who came in to talk to my colleagues about this issue said that they are happy with the situation as it is at the moment, but there will always be someone who will think, “We can get so much more money and could do so many wonderful things if we restricted viewing”. As I say, there is always that bit of pressure.
We owe it to the public to make sure that any change that is made to something like this, which is a very good thing, is done in the full glare of public scrutiny. I hope that my comments are taken in the spirit in which they are intended, which is that this regime is bigger than the sports events themselves. It is part of our current fabric and we should take an interest in it. Whichever criteria are used, making sure that Parliament, to which the public have democratic access, is involved in the discussion is essential. If any changes are made, we will want to know why, because a price will have to be paid no matter what benefits are gained for certain sports.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I intervened briefly on these points at Second Reading and I support at least the principle of Amendment 224, although I would like to query some aspects of the detail. However, it was moved very well by the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, and I welcome the fact that it brings forward an issue related to the listed events regime that most certainly needs our attention at this point; namely, when the situation is changing so rapidly. If we do not adopt a system that is flexible enough, there is no knowing what difficulties we could get into over the coming years. The amendment offers a straightforward solution to a simple problem, which as I understand it is that by the end of this Parliament there is a real possibility that no PSB will meet the qualifying criteria set out in the listed events regime. The solution lies in this amendment which will update those criteria to ensure that the PSBs are still eligible.
It is no secret, notwithstanding our success in the European soccer cup, that the Welsh are still very big rugby fans. Some 1 million of us enjoyed the Wales-England match in 2015 and indeed 1 million of us watched the Welsh beat the Scots last year. No doubt another million people will be watching on Saturday when Wales plays England. The listed events regime, also known as the sporting “crown jewels”, ensures that some of the most high-profile sporting events can be watched by all for free—from rugby finals and highlights of other rugby matches through to football finals and Wimbledon. I have one slight reservation with regard to using 90% of citizens as a criterion. The public broadcasting channel S4C transmits by agreement a number of listed events, but it certainly does not reach 90% of the population. I wish it did, and no doubt we will get there at some point, but not quite yet.
The point is this: should a PSB suddenly become ineligible to bid for the rights to these great sporting events? It is inevitable that millions of people, particularly those on low incomes such as pensioners, will not be able to afford the pay channels. They will be shut out of the shared experiences that mean so much to everyone in all the four nations of these islands. It is an important issue and an amendment along these lines is needed, if not at this stage, then perhaps one could be drafted for the Report stage. Something ought to be forthcoming so that we can safeguard the position of this regime.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to make two observations, one of which makes me feel very old. I worked with the then Prime Minister, Sir Harold Wilson, on looking at the whole issue of free-to-air sporting events in terms of where they penetrated and where they had to be retained. It is interesting to note that last week it was announced that the Six Nations competition is broadcast free to air not only to all the countries involved, but also has the largest live audience for any sport anywhere in the world. So there is no, as it were, collision between the appeal of a sport, the size of the arenas and the number of people attending the events, and the fact that these events are also available on free-to-air television. I sense that sometimes it feels like it might be a trade-off: you have to get the money in or you will not get a sufficient audience. The Six Nations competition is a classic example of something that succeeds at every level.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, for moving this amendment and I hope that I can provide some reassurance to noble Lords. Indeed, I fear we may all be in danger of violently agreeing with each other. Listed sporting events is an issue we have discussed before. As the Minister for Culture made very clear in the other place, the current listed events regime is not under threat at this time and I confirm that we will not let it be under threat. I hope that that directly answers the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, and I therefore do not believe that these amendments are needed at this time.
I submit that it would be particularly undesirable to act in the way that Amendment 224 suggests, because it would lock in the incumbents’ position, since the requirement to be watched by 90% of the population would narrow considerably the number of channels that could ever qualify. It would narrow it to channels which had already achieved mass appeal to audiences—and that is not a step we should take rashly. The requirement in Amendment 224A that channels qualify if they are capable of reaching the vast majority of the population and likely to achieve a significant audience is, I respectfully suggest—I would certainly never use the word “sloppy” of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon—perhaps too vague to provide a workable system. Ofcom would be forever subject to challenge by channels arguing over its assessment. It would create enormous flux in the regime, meaning that sports federations could not be sure whether the channels they were negotiating with met the qualifying conditions.
However, I assure the Committee that we are keeping this area under review and we will consider how we can best ensure that any risks can be managed successfully in future. To that effect, we will consider carefully before Report the issues raised and the contributions made by noble Lords today. With that commitment, I hope that both noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Lord Wood of Anfield
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that excellent short debate. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, said about the risks of a target—such risks definitely exist—but I also agree with other noble Lords that leaving it to Ofcom is probably not the best solution. There is definitely a need for some parliamentary clarity. Ofcom wants statutory clarity so that it can be a regulator in virtue of clear rules, rather than be thrown into the contentiousness that the judgments that this would require would embroil it in. So I think that the Ofcom route is not the best route forward.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that there are certain tough cases with any rules, in particular with the Welsh and Gaelic language carrying of live sporting events. In response to the Minister, I suppose I am 10% reassured and 90% not reassured at all. To say that noble Lords can be reassured that there is no threat is not really a reassurance, because the threat does not come from the Government’s intentions being in doubt.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I think the noble Lord misunderstood me. I was trying to reassure him by saying that we will not let it be under threat.
Lord Wood of Anfield
I appreciate that and I am grateful for it, but I fear that it is under threat by virtue of technological change and changes in viewership—not because of changes in government policy. There is a threat emerging—one can see it in the graphs and the numbers—and it requires some pre-emptive thinking. There was a hint that maybe some pre-emptive thinking is going on behind closed doors on this, but it is just not true to say that there is no threat when all five PSB channels line up and say that the numbers suggest that not one of them will qualify under the existing rules by the end of the Parliament. They are either right or they are wrong—and if they are right, there is a problem.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am sorry to keep interrupting the noble Lord; what I said was that the regime is not under threat at this time.
Lord Wood of Anfield
Well, I take “this time” to be this Parliament: that is the one I am in, and by the end of it there seems to be a big problem brewing. So I suspect that we will come back to this later. But for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Borwick
“On-demand programme services: accessibility for people with disabilities
(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) After section 368BB insert—“Accessibility368BC Accessibility for people with disabilities(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose requirements on providers of on-demand programme services for the purpose of ensuring that their services are accessible to people with disabilities affecting their sight or hearing or both.(2) The requirements that may be imposed include—(a) requirements for programmes included in the services to be accompanied by subtitling;(b) requirements for such programmes to be accompanied by audio-description for the blind;(c) requirements for such programmes to be presented in, or translated into, sign language.(3) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the appropriate regulatory authority, and(b) (where they are not the appropriate regulatory authority) OFCOM.368BD Enforcement of regulations under section 368BC(1) Where the appropriate regulatory authority determines that a provider of an on-demand programme service is contravening or has contravened regulations under section 368BC, they may do one or both of the following—(a) give the provider an enforcement notification under this section;(b) impose a penalty on the provider in accordance with section 368J.(2) The appropriate regulatory authority must not make a determination as mentioned in subsection (1) unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that a contravention of the regulations is occurring or has occurred and they have allowed the provider an opportunity to make representations about that apparent contravention.(3) An enforcement notification under this section is a notification which specifies the determination made as mentioned in subsection (1) and imposes a requirement on the provider to take all such steps for complying with the regulations and for remedying the consequences of the contravention of the regulations as may be specified in the notification.(4) An enforcement notification must—(a) include reasons for the appropriate regulatory authority’s decision to give the enforcement notification, and(b) fix a reasonable period for taking the steps required by the notification.(5) It is the duty of a provider to whom an enforcement notification is given to comply with it.(6) That duty is enforceable in civil proceedings by the appropriate regulatory authority—(a) for an injunction,(b) for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or(c) for any other appropriate remedy or relief.(7) If a provider to whom an enforcement notification has been given does not comply with it within the period fixed by the appropriate regulatory authority in that enforcement notification the appropriate regulatory authority may impose a financial penalty on the provider in accordance with section 368J.”(3) In section 368C (duties of the appropriate regulatory authority), omit subsection (2).(4) After that section insert—“368CA Code on accessibility for people with disabilities(1) It is the duty of the appropriate regulatory authority to draw up, and from time to time review and revise, a code giving guidance as to—(a) the steps to be taken by providers of on-demand programme services so as to meet the requirements of regulations under section 368BC, and(b) other steps to be taken by providers who are subject to requirements under the regulations to ensure that their services are made progressively more accessible to people with disabilities affecting their sight or hearing or both.(2) The appropriate regulatory authority must publish the code drawn up under this section, and every revision of it, in such manner as, having regard to the need to make the code or revision accessible to—(a) persons who are deaf or hard of hearing,(b) persons who are blind or partially sighted, and (c) persons with a dual sensory impairment,they consider appropriate.”(5) In section 368J(1)(financial penalties), after “368BB” insert “, 368BD”.(6) In section 368K(1)(suspension or restriction of service for contraventions)—(a) in paragraph (a), after “368D” insert “, or of regulations under section 368BC”,(b) in paragraph (b)—(i) after “368D” insert “or the regulations”, and(ii) for “or 368I” substitute “, 368I or 368BC”.(7) In section 368O(2)(a)(power to demand information), after “368D” insert “, or of regulations under section 368CA,”.”
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register, and as a trustee for more than 20 years of the Ewing Foundation for deaf children. It is a great charity which works in schools to help deaf children make the most of their education; partly by helping the teachers to ensure that their hearing aids and cochlear implants are working well and by giving teachers advice on how to get the most out of the equipment and how to help the children.
Many trends are apparent in the field of deafness, not least the rapid rise of cochlear implants, the rise in literacy rates in children and, of course, the rise in late-onset deafness as the population generally ages. The vast majority of deaf people speak and read perfectly, as most are elderly people who learned their language and how to read as children. I thank Action on Hearing Loss and the Bill team in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for their help in drafting this amendment and their support in its passage. They have helped to clarify my thinking on this important issue.
This is an enabling amendment, permitting the Secretary of State to bring forward statutory instruments to require those who transmit television programmes to provide subtitles, then audio description for viewers with poor eyesight and, lastly, British Sign Language interpretation for people who find that easier. I am told that all terrestrial television programmes now carry subtitles and a growing number of pay-to-view programmes are already having subtitles added. Sky has told me that about 60% of its entire output will carry subtitles by September this year; it should be applauded for voluntarily doing the right thing. Thank you. However, the advance of audio description and sign language does not seem so good. The latter two aids to understanding are far more expensive than subtitling and it is possible that technological advances will play a part in solving the problem of deaf people who can communicate only with other sign language users.
Already, in America, I have seen demonstrations of software that will enable simultaneous translation from American Sign Language to text. If that is available, translation from text to British Sign Language on an iPhone will not be far behind. When the statutory instruments come through, we must bear in mind the speed of technological change and not be too prescriptive in the manner in which subtitles are delivered. We should instead seek a statutory instrument that merely says that subtitles should be available on all programmes. A swift statutory instrument will serve as encouragement to the broadcasters to continue and expand their good work. If we are in a position where the broadcasters and the Government are competing with one another to seek the broadest and quickest implementation of subtitles across channels and services, I would say that that is great.
We should remember that TV companies are simply responding to demand. It is not just the hard of hearing: think of TVs in noisy venues, football fans who want to read the half-time match analysis over the din in the pub, or people watching television in a noisy gym. All will appreciate this change. This sort of measure will also help to solve the biggest problem of sensory deprivation: that of isolation. If subtitles enable a deaf person to be on an equal footing with those in the hearing world, then we and the Government will have done one more thing to put disabled people in a position to thrive in society. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I think that many of us responding to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, find ourselves in something of a cleft stick. He has introduced the subject matter superbly, and in principle the amendment is entirely correct. The noble Lord has a very good track record on physical access for the disabled and this is a continuation of that, in a sense, in a different sphere. He also has the courage to wear a House of Lords tie, so he cannot be all bad. The trouble is that this amendment does have flaws. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, if he speaks on this, will pick up on them. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has commented on this.
All of us want the amendment to succeed but it does need a further look. We have all had briefings from the public service broadcasters and the platforms, including Sky, who say that they can live with this in principle but are rather concerned about the fact that there is no parliamentary approval built in. There are a number of flaws; they recommend that the affirmative procedure should be applied to the first regulations; they recommend that the appropriate regulatory authority is specified; and they recommend that the Secretary of State should have a duty, before making the regulations, to consult on-demand service providers and other stakeholders—which, of course, would be the platforms. So I am very much in sympathy in spirit, but I hope that we will have a chance before Report to perfect the amendment so that the campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, will proceed as intended in due course.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am delighted to add my support to the amendment, and to thank the noble Lord very much for the work he has put into this. As one who has campaigned on disability issues over the years in another place, alongside certain other colleagues who are in the Chamber tonight, I know that it is vital, in line with the social definition of disability, to make sure that handicap is not caused by the failure of those who can control our environment, whether that be the social, the physical or the psychological environment.
We are talking about creating a social environment in which it is possible for people who could depend so much on, and enjoy so much, the benefits of broadcasting to get that full benefit—provided that the necessary adjustments are made. I was for some years a member of the S4C authority, and I am acutely aware of the challenges of meeting the necessary standards. It is not a cheap option—but, as the noble Lord rightly said, technological changes are taking place that make it possible for translation, both between languages and with sign languages and other means of conveying information, to be done almost automatically, at low cost. Undoubtedly this will be much more available in the future. I hope that we will look at this amendment with an eye to that future, and that we will harness all the technology that may be available, so as to prevent—as I am sure we all wish to do, where we can—a disability becoming a handicap.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
My Lords, there is a general air of unanimity and approval for this amendment: I think the noble Lord has backed a winner. Any changes that I have in mind I can discuss with him at some point between now and Report, and I am confident that he would probably agree. Reference has already been made to the difference between the linear services—which are already up to speed and are becoming more and more effective, and cost-effective—and some of the online platforms, which are quite complicated. We might need to insert the word “proportionate” into the amendment, but apart from that, I think that everybody in the Committee endorses what the noble Lord is trying to do.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I support Amendment 225, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and thank him for introducing it. We on this side of the House would claim that it has our fingerprints all over it, as it was introduced and spoken to in the other place by our honourable friend Louise Haigh MP. We agree that people with hearing or sight disabilities should be able to watch catch-up or on-demand services in the same way as they can watch standard linear TV, whether on a traditional television or on a computer, tablet or mobile phone.
We agree that broadcasters have not made sufficient progress—with the exception of the BBC, which has 98% accessibility on iPlayer. I understand that 76% of the UK’s 90 on-demand providers still offer no subtitles at all, that 85% of Sky’s on-demand content via its set-top box is inaccessible, and that only 5% of Virgin Tivo on-demand services have subtitles. I understand that on linear TV 16% of content is watched with the subtitle option switched on. The noble Lord, Lord Borwick, may well be correct to say that other broadcasters are moving in the same direction as the BBC.
This service provision is critical for people with sight or hearing disabilities, who can feel isolated and socially excluded from family, friends and society in so many ways, especially with this new way of watching TV. In the other place the equivalent amendment was withdrawn following the Minister’s commitment to take action.
We are content that this amendment would enable the Government to introduce a statutory instrument to give Ofcom the powers to fix the exact level of the quota necessary, balancing the need to make content accessible with the cost to the industry. Following consultation, Ofcom can replicate the mechanisms used for linear TV, which works on a sliding scale that requires large broadcasters to provide access services on a higher percentage of their content than the smaller ones. Furthermore, Ofcom may cap the total cost of meeting those requirements at 1% of a broadcaster’s relevant turnover.
Two issues remain, both of which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned. Both were also raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. First, the “appropriate regulatory authority” should be named on the face of the Bill. My understanding is that the 2003 Act has Ofcom as the default regulator unless an alternative is specified, and that Ofcom has the power to designate an alternative regulator. If the Minister can confirm that this is the position, and that the custom and practice of most modern enabling legislation is similar, we would understand that the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee might fall away.
Secondly, we would support that committee’s recommendation that the statutory instrument should be enacted through affirmative resolution, and not by the negative procedure. There are significant reasons why that should be so, which are not limited to mere detail and technical content.
The appropriate regulatory authority, Ofcom, will have significant powers to impose substantial financial penalties for any contravention. The regulations will impose important new statutory duties on broadcasters, which may be required to increase their provision over time. Of course, all this will attract significant public interest, and the interest of both Houses of Parliament. I am sure the Minister will also confirm that Ofcom will consult widely, most notably with organisations representing people with sight or hearing difficulties.
We understand that the Minister will be minded to accept the amendment, for which we are grateful to him. Has he had discussions with Ofcom, and can he give an indication of when Ofcom might undertake, and conclude, its consultation process? I would be grateful if he could tell us when he might expect that this provision could be enacted.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Borwick for tabling such a worthy amendment, which the Government are pleased to support. I also pass on the Government’s thanks to the Ewing Foundation and Action on Hearing Loss for bringing this important issue to our attention.
In recent years technology has changed the way we do things. Long gone are the days of a fixed phone line being the only way to make or receive a call, or having to sit in front of the square box in the corner to watch your favourite television show. In 2016 Ofcom reported that 93% of UK adults use a mobile phone; similarly, it is quite normal to watch TV at a time and on a device that suits. However, given the limited provision of subtitles, signing and audio description for on-demand services, a significant proportion of society is unfairly excluded from doing so.
The current statutory targets for subtitling, signing and audio description, collectively known as access services, on domestic linear broadcast TV channels cover 83 channels. That is over 90% of the audience share for broadcast TV. However, these targets are not duplicated for on-demand services. Over the years there has been an increase in the provision of access services—most notably, the number of service providers reporting subtitles increased from seven channels in 2013 to 22 channels in 2015—but there is room for improvement. Similarly, provision levels for audio description and sign language have remained disappointingly low, with little increase over the years.
The amendment will address this shortcoming, and the 116 on-demand service providers in the UK will be required to provide access services on their on-demand content. Through consultation with Ofcom, the industry and other stakeholders, the Government will determine the requirements that providers of on-demand programme services will be required to meet. We need to make sure that the requirement maximises the benefits to consumers while not presenting undue burdens to providers of on-demand services. Consultation will enable us to strike the correct balance. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that officials are engaged in discussions with Ofcom. The aim is for statutory instruments to be put in place later this year.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I say that the Government have noted the three recommendations of the DPRRC on my noble friend Lord Borwick’s amendment. If the House agrees the amendment, the Government will consider any further changes that are necessary and will respond to the committee in time for Report. We will get back to the DPRRC on the second one on the appropriate regulatory authority to explain that Part 4A of the Communications Act 2003, into which the proposed new sections will be inserted, is already clear that Ofcom is the regulator unless it has appointed a separate body for that purpose. Accordingly, as it has not appointed any other body, it is the regulator, but the original drafting was simply intended to fit in with the existing structure of the Communications Act, which uses the phrase “appropriate regulatory authority” and defines that separately. This maintains consistency across legislation. We are following the advice of parliamentary counsel on that.
I accept that there are two other points. I expect to be able to respond to the committee in time for Report. We commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Wood of Anfield
“Public sector broadcasting prominence
(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) In the title of section 232, at end insert “and “electronic programme guide””(3) After subsection 232(5) insert—“(5A) In this section “electronic programme guide” means a service which consists of a— (a) linear electronic programme guide; or(b) qualifying connected electronic programme guide.”(4) In subsection 232(6) for “electronic programme guide” substitute “linear electronic programme guide”.(5) In paragraph 232(6)(b) after “for” insert “finding, selecting or”(6) After subsection 232(6) insert—.“(7) In this section “qualifying connected electronic programme guide” means a “connected electronic programming guide” which is used by a significant number of its intended audiences as a means of receiving television programmes or TV-like content.(8) In this section “connected electronic programming guide” means a service which consists of—(a) the listing or promotion, or both the listing and the promotion, of some or all of the programmes included in any one or more programme services the providers of which are or include persons other than the provider of the guide; and(b) the listing or promotion, or both the listing and the promotion, of—(i) some or all of the programmes included in any one or more on-demand programme services, or(ii) some or all of the on-demand programme services, the providers of which are or include persons other than the provider of the guide; and(c) the facility for finding, selecting or obtaining access, in whole or in part, to the programme service or services and the on-demand programme service or services listed or promoted in the guide.(9) The Secretary of State may by order amend the definition of an electronic programme guide in this section.(10) Before making an order under subsection 9 the Secretary of State must consult OFCOM.”(7) In subsection 310(1) for “from time to time” substitute “on 1 December 2017 and at intervals of no more than three years thereafter”.(8) In subsection 310(2) omit “such degree of” and “as OFCOM consider appropriate”.(9) In paragraph 310(4)(a) after “BBC” insert “, including on-demand programme services,”.(10) After paragraph 310(4)(h) insert—“(i) any on-demand programme service provided by a public service broadcaster.(4A) A service is an on-demand programme service provided by a public service broadcaster for the purposes of paragraph 4(i) if it —(a) is provided by any of the following—(i) a person licensed under Part 1 of the 1990 Act to provide a Channel 3 service;(ii) the Channel 4 Corporation;(iii) a person licensed under Part 1 of the 1990 Act to provide Channel 5;(iv) the Welsh Authority; and(b) provides access to programmes broadcast on a licensed public service channel.”(11) In paragraph 310(5)(a) after first “service” insert “, including on-demand programme services,”.(12) After subsection 310(5) insert—“(5A) In making any order under subsection (5) the Secretary of State must have regard for the desirability of investment in original productions.(5B) In this section “original productions” means programmes commissioned by or for the provider of a service for the purposes of subsection (5) with a view to their first showing on television in the United Kingdom on that service.”(13) After paragraph 310(7)(a) insert—“(b) if the service is a public service channel dedicated to children, persons under the age of 16;”(14) Leave out subsection 310(8) and insert—“(8) In this section “electronic programme guide” means a service which consists of the programme service or services listed or promoted in the guide.”(15) In subsection 311(2) for “310” substitute “232(5A)”.”
Lord Wood of Anfield
Once again, I am pretending to be my noble friend Lord Stevenson. Amendment 226A concerns rules ensuring the prominence of public service broadcasting content on on-demand services.
The Communications Act 2003 provides a code of practice to ensure electronic programme guides give priority and prominence to PSB channels. For traditional viewing these rules, in the main, continue to work pretty well. But the Act was passed 14 years ago, before the age of digital switchover, the iPlayer, the iPad, a range of catch-up services and connected TV. Recent data show that 70% of adults in the UK say they have watched programmes via catch-up services. About 15% of total programme viewing is now, to use the horrible jargon, time shifted—more than double the amount from 2010. Yet, at the moment, on-demand menus and connected TV homepages that are portals for TV guides are not within the scope of prominence rules, so there is a pressing need for the rules around PSB prominence to be updated to keep up with new technology. In addition, new services with significant PSB content, such as the new BBC iPlayer Kids, are also out of scope of these rules.
A good example of PSB programming that suffers from the absence of prominence rules for catch-up and on-demand menus is Welsh and Scottish Gaelic language services. With connected TV services it can take a very long time even to find these programmes. More generally, if you have Sky, as I do, and press the programmes button, you will see the programme guide in the top left corner, but in the bottom half of the screen—more than twice the size—you will see a “top picks” box tempting you to delve in. In my experience, you would struggle to find any PSB content in that box. PSBs continue to try to negotiate prominence for their output, but they are increasingly finding themselves outbid and outthought by commercial broadcasters that pay for promotion of their own services.
Guaranteeing the prominence of PSB in this new age is in the interest of licence fee payers, who after all pay for PSB and are therefore entitled to ensure it is accessible across platforms and viewing habits. It is also popular: 70% of the public continue to want BBC channels at the top of their listings. Ten times as many viewers want the TV guide at the top of their screen, rather than platform operators’ recommendations to be prominent.
Both Ofcom and this House’s Communications Committee recommended updating the prominence rules by extending them to on-demand services and online menus. The TV licencing laws were updated to cover BBC on-demand services. The amendment would do the parallel work for PSB prominence rules. In addition, we have a specific reference to strengthen the rules around prominence on programme guides for PSB children’s content. I know that we will discuss quality TV children’s programming later, but, for example, at the moment CBeebies and CBBC—the most trusted children’s channels, whose content is funded by us all—sit behind 12 US network cartoon channels on the Sky platform.
Surely the Government would agree with Ofcom and this House’s Communications Committee that the rules guaranteeing PSB prominence need to be updated. We should not tolerate a situation in which people are paying for PSB content but, as viewing habits change, it is getting harder and harder to find it. I looking forward to hearing from the Minister whether he agrees that there are gaps in the existing rules and what steps he would recommend to fill them. I beg to move.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, I put my name to this very important amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wood, has said most of what I was going to say, so I will be brief, but I add that we live in such a rapidly changing world, in which the existence and preservation of public service broadcasting is ever more crucial.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, mentioned, we were at a breakfast yesterday hosted by Channel 4. The topic for discussion was fake news—a frightening phenomenon that threatens to undermine democracy as we know it and to distort people’s understanding of the world. It is still the case that the main source of news, and the most trusted, is TV. Given the rise of fake news, PSB content—impartial, well regulated and fact based—is more important than ever.
Alongside being universally available, what is crucial is that PSBs are easy to find. As the noble Lord, Lord Wood, said, this is increasingly difficult—the number of clicks you need to get to BBC Alba is, I believe, 15 on Sky Q. Then there is the specific matter of children—children’s content lurks below numerous foreign cartoon programmes.
Change is needed. Ofcom and the Lords’ Communications Committee have argued it and these amendments provide it. Will the Minister not agree that the Bill offers the opportunity—dare I say an historic one—to ensure changes that are essential if public service broadcasting is to survive, in a time in our history when its survival is more important than ever?
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment, so I shall speak briefly in support of it. It simply seeks to modernise the prominence regime for our digital age, expanding the existing legislation to cover on-demand services, such as catch- up television, on-demand TV menus and electronic programme guides.
At Second Reading, I shared my own and others’ experience of how frustrating electronic programme guides and user interfaces can be. Navigating them and finding a particular channel can be a particular challenge for people with a sensory impairment. Finding BBC News on electronic programme guides or finding the iPlayer on smart and connected televisions can take a considerable time. Likewise, finding BBC Parliament to allow people to take in your Lordships’ proceedings can be quite difficult—I am assured that people do still attempt to do this.
The Commercial Broadcasters Association has argued that giving public service broadcasting children’s channels extra prominence would create problems for investment in UK children’s content by their members. Moving public service broadcasting channels to higher electronic programme guide positions would mean displacing commercial broadcasting channels, with a detrimental impact on audience share and revenues. This, they say, would ultimately damage investment in children’s content. However, I am advised that greater prominence for public service broadcasters’ channels has a cross-promotional value which ultimately redounds also to the benefit of commercial channels. As I see it, there is no real threat to commercial broadcasters from this amendment.
This is a straightforward amendment which simply seeks to update the letter of the legislation for an increasingly digital age and bring it in line with the spirit in which it was originally conceived. I trust that the Government will see their way to accepting it.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Low, and to support Amendment 226A, relating to public sector broadcasting prominence, about which I spoke during the Second Reading debate. This Bill presents an excellent opportunity to update prominence rules so that they work as they should in our digital world. Given the amenable response from the Minister on earlier amendments, I hope there will be an equally forthcoming response on this one.
The current legislation, from 2003, places a requirement for PSBs to have appropriate prominence to ensure that the flagship PSB channels, such as BBC1 and BBC2, are prominent on electronic programming guides. However, as I raised at Second Reading, the BBC’s children’s channels, referred to earlier, do not enjoy this prominence and sit below 12 commercial children’s channels on some electronic programming guides. As a former member of the S4C Authority, I know from experience that this is a particular issue for both S4C and BBC Alba. S4C is a vital service for hundreds of thousands of people in Wales who speak Welsh and who want to be able to watch programmes in their own language. This content must be easily available on electronic programming guides and—as I will touch on in a moment—on demand. I believe, quite simply, that PSB content must be prominent, whether it is “Y Gwyll”—an excellent Welsh detective drama series known outside Wales as “Hinterland”, which has been sold to almost 200 countries and shows what it is possible to achieve—or great children’s dramas such as “Wizards vs Aliens”, filmed at Roath Lock in Cardiff.
Perhaps a more recent issue, but nevertheless one which must also be tackled, is the need to modernise prominence rules to ensure that they cover on-demand services, such as catch-up TV and connected TV on-demand menus. As I raised at Second Reading, young people in particular are increasingly watching public service content this way and spending less time watching linear TV. At the same time, finding the iPlayer on connected and smart TVs is getting to be a longer and more arduous process, making it harder to watch programmes—including S4C. I am told that there are more than 100,000 requests for S4C programmes on iPlayer every week, showing just how popular this content is.
Both S4C and MG Alba have stated their support for extending prominence to cover on-demand and catch-up TV. They have issued a statement which I should like to quote:
“The extension of the PSB prominence principle to include the PSBs’ on-demand players is of great and growing importance. Its significance is not only for the future of public service media content and how it is consumed by the public, but it is also particularly vital for the availability of Welsh language content as S4C is the only Welsh language PSB available—serving Welsh speakers throughout the UK”.
It also has a considerable following in parts of the UK outside Wales.
Although this is certainly an incredibly technical area of legislation, I see it as another simple problem with a straightforward solution. Had smart TVs and the iPlayer been common when the original legislation was devised, I have no doubt that they would have been included at that stage. We now have an opportunity to do something about this and I hope that the Government will take it.
Viscount Colville of Culross
My Lords, I support Amendment 226A. This is an important attempt to future-proof the prominence of PSB channels on electronic programming guides, which is essential if we are going to bring younger audiences to PSB output. As Sharon White, the chief executive of Ofcom, said:
“Public service broadcasting continues to deliver TV that is enjoyed and valued by millions of viewers across the UK.
More people are watching online or on demand, and this presents challenges as well as opportunities for public service broadcasters. They must continue to find new ways of connecting with audiences, and the PSB system needs to evolve to ensure it remains effective in the digital age”.
The prominence of PSB online services has to be safeguarded in the face of what I see as a determined effort by commercial rivals and some manufacturers to downgrade them. These services need to be easily accessible to viewers and, as many other noble Lords have said, they are not covered by the Communications Act.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to two services provided by the BBC online which show how important it is that they should have prominence on any EPG in the future. BBC iPlayer has been an astonishing success, especially for younger viewers and listeners. In June 2016, there were 290 million requests for radio and television programmes to be downloaded—a 9% increase from the previous year. I know, from when I worked on “Horizon”, the BBC science strand, that the overnight ratings would almost double in the following months from people downloading the programme on iPlayer. At the moment, in some cases, it is hard to find this service on the EPGs.
We also have no idea what other on-demand channels will be launched in future by the PSBs. An example of what these might include is the service that is being mooted by the BBC, which it hopes to be able to launch in 18 months’ time, called BBC Ideas. It will bring together the BBC’s output across all platforms—radio, television and online—in arts, culture, science and history. It will place them alongside interesting new ideas from partners in leading arts, science and cultural institutions. The hope is that the audience will have their minds stretched and even thrilled by the interchange of ideas in a place where art meets medical science or where history meets theatrical performance. As things stand, there are many smart TVs and set-top boxes which will not give prominence to services such as these. In some cases, this is because the platform providers are also the content providers. I am sure that in the fast-growing area of smart televisions there will be relationships between television manufacturers and content providers which will favour the latter.
If public money is being spent on PSB online content provision, we have a duty to ensure that, in future, viewers should be able to access this content easily. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I too am concerned that it is becoming more and more difficult to find BBC programmes on new, connected televisions, particularly, as we have heard, programmes for children. On one new platform, it takes 22 clicks on the remote to get to the home screen of CBBC. Parents know that BBC content for children is both high quality and educational but, worryingly, it is not easy to find on many platforms and televisions, especially for new parents. I agree with other noble Lords that the legislation is out of date. On one platform, CBBC and CBeebies, broadcasting UK-produced content, are buried beneath 14 commercial children’s channels in the guide. Many of these show American content. I hope that the Minister will commit to updating the legislation to ensure that children’s BBC content is prominent on all platforms.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I appeal for some leeway from the Committee in that I am popping in to support this amendment and then leaving your Lordships to it. I support the spirit of the prominence regime and the amendment in particular, which I hope the Government will accept.
As we have heard, the prominence regime was originally intended to ensure that the high-quality programming of our public service broadcasters was easily accessible to everyone, especially in the case of the BBC, which of course is funded by the licence fee paid by the vast majority of households. Unfortunately, the legislation as it stands is more suited to an analogue age than the digital world in which we now live. Understandably, when the original television legislation was enacted in 2003 we did not imagine how our viewing habits would change over the following decade or how quickly the legislation would fall behind technological progress. Smart and connected televisions, with their instant access to on-demand content, were only a dream in 2003, while the iPlayer would not be launched for another four years.
I am concerned by how increasingly difficult it is, as has been said, to find some content on smart and connected television menus. The iPlayer in particular is watched by millions of people who pay their licence fee and it should be much more easily accessible. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Wigley, S4C produces some outstanding Welsh dramas, watched by people right across Wales, where I still live in the constituency that I once represented. Many viewers watch those Welsh programmes on the iPlayer. I am worried that, as smart and connected television menus increasingly promote their own and other commercial content, people are struggling to access the iPlayer and, therefore, these excellent Welsh programmes, which I find it very difficult to believe will be replicated by any other broadcaster or company. “Hinterland”, which my noble friend mentioned, among others, should be on network BBC. It really is an excellent and gripping drama, equivalent to “Silent Witness” or any of the other excellent network programmes. So I make that appeal to the BBC, if I may.
Even electronic programme guides are becoming harder to find and much harder to navigate. I believe that on one new connected television, getting to S4C takes 10 clicks on the remote control, while finding the BBC’s children’s channels, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, takes more than 20 clicks, forcing parents—and in my case, grandparents—to scroll through roughly a dozen commercial channels; most of them are rubbish, by the way. It is a problem for me to find CBeebies or CBBC when my six grandchildren are over. This surely does not fit within the spirit of the original legislation. Amendment 226A is simply technical in nature. It updates existing legislation for the digital world in which we now live, and I hope the Government will support it.
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, I support the amendment but come at it from a slightly different angle. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will remember that she and I discussed ad nauseam the issues of the EPG and we were very much on the same side. There is blame on both sides here. We failed at the time to persuade the then Government that common sense should make an organised EPG easy to use and that the public service broadcasters should be high on it. Today, if you go across the top bar, find sport and click on it, you will not find any sport on the BBC. You have to go back to the “all channels” menu. It is an absurdity.
We are here to discuss what will become the Digital Economy Act 2017. The notion that in 2017 we are not able to have a personalised programme guide in the same way as we would have on our iPhones, is daft. I am afraid that the blames lies with the then Government, who were persuaded by Sky that it had invested significantly in the EPG and had the right to amortise its investment. Honeyed words were given from the Front Bench that of course this would be reviewed quite quickly. It never has been reviewed and the absurdity of this so-called amortised investment has gone on now for 14 years. I suggest, and hope the Minister will sympathise, that this is the time to get real with this. It is 2017. An EPG should be able to be personalised very easily by the individual consumer and that is the way it should work.
Lord Foster of Bath
My Lords, clearly there is a lot of agreement about your Lordships’ Communications Committee’s recommendation that we have a new, up-to-date, fit-for-purpose EPG regime, which may also take on board the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. We desperately need it.
Many examples have already been given: the difficulty of finding CBeebies and CBBC under a large number of cartoons; the difficulty of finding the iPlayer or the ITV Player on the first page of an on-demand screen on a smart TV; the difficulty of finding indigenous language channels such as S4C or BBC Alba; and even not being able to find the EPG itself on a smart TV.
There is very clear evidence that EPG positioning really matters. I will give just one example to illustrate it. If you look at the percentage of viewership of CBeebies on Virgin, where it is high up on the EPG, the share is much higher than the viewership of exactly the same programmes on Sky, where it is much lower on the EPG.
However, the real reason for my intervention is simply, as the Minister is about to respond to the debate, to draw his attention to what one of his right honourable friends—the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—said just in 2011:
“Position on the EPG will probably be the Government’s single most important lever in protecting our tradition of public service broadcasting”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/11; col. 543.]
When the Minister responds, I hope he will bear in mind what his right honourable friend said.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. I have to warn the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that despite his very kind remarks I may not be so amenable. My speech may contain some upsetting content—we broadcasters have to issue warnings.
Amendment 226A would extend the prominence provisions that currently exist for linear channels to on-demand electronic programme services, which are the lists of on-demand services available for selection on television interfaces. This issue was debated at length in the other place, although I note that this amendment goes further in integrating new provisions into the existing statutory framework for both EPGs and the PSB prominence regime. But I believe that the key issue remains as it was.
The Minister reassured Members in the other place then—and I reassure the Committee today—that the Government gave this issue considerable thought during last year’s balance of payments consultation, the response to which was published in August last year. Our conclusion was—and we remain of the view—that we have not seen compelling evidence of harm to PSBs to date. Creating a new regulatory regime that defines the user interfaces or submenus that should be caught, particularly in a fast-moving technological landscape, is likely to be complex. At the time of consultation, Ministers were not convinced of the benefit of regulation that might extend to, for instance, smart TV manufacturers’ user interfaces, which are developed with a global market in mind. We therefore decided not to extend the EPG prominence regime for PSBs to on-demand.
When PSBs make excellent content, generally audiences will find that content. This is true of both catch-up and live content. For example, the BBC’s award-winning children’s services are much viewed by children throughout the UK. We do not believe that further protections are necessary to ensure that children find these services. A recurring theme in the debates on the Bill has been how much more competent children are than many adults in the digital world.
Furthermore, acting in this area is extremely complicated and the fact that the amendment spans more than a page demonstrates some of the difficulties inherent in legislating in this area. The technological landscape is shifting quickly and, with it, the business models of those who seek to cater to changing audience tastes. Detailed regulations about how exactly audiences need to be guided through menus cannot be the answer here. Regulations would be outdated as soon as they came into force.
Moreover, this amendment would give prominence to the PSBs’ on-demand programme services, which include not only the PSB content of the commercial PSBs, but also content originating from their non- PSB channels. If the intention was to put on-demand EPG prominence on the same footing as linear EPG prominence, this amendment goes far beyond what we have in place for linear TV. It is therefore, in our view, not justifiable.
With that explanation—and I appreciate that the noble Lord may not be happy—I hope that tonight he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Puttnam
I am looking at the general duties of Ofcom and I am failing to understand in whose interests the Government are taking this position. It is very clear to me that the general duties of Ofcom are to further the interests of citizens and to further the interests of consumers. They do not include furthering the interests of manufacturers. Is the Minister saying that in fact the interests of manufacturers and suppliers are trumping the interests of the consumer and the citizen?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
No, what I am saying is that we do not see that there is compelling evidence of harm to PSBs.
Lord Wood of Anfield
My Lords, we have had various contributions across the House of excellent quality. We have the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, talking about children’s content; the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lord Hain talking about Welsh language provision; various comments about innovation and the future from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and my noble friend Lord Puttnam.
For the sake of brevity, I will respond to the Minister directly. I am slightly confused by the logic of the Minister’s response. Either electronic programming guides work in pointing people towards PSB—and the general view is that they are absolutely crucial for audience share in traditional TV—or they do not. I find it difficult to know why the logic that has traditionally held for intervention to ensure that PSB content paid for by the public has pointers towards it should no longer apply in an age when viewing habits are changing. I totally accept that it is more complicated, but I do not understand why we should throw our hands up and say, “People will find good content”, when up to now, with linear TV, we have taken great strides to ensure that people are pointed towards the content that is funded by licence fee payers. I find that discrepancy between the two worlds quite baffling.
Secondly, it is not a new set of regulations that noble Lords are asking for; it is updating the existing set of regulations—which has pretty much worked okay, with the exception of children’s TV and a few other areas—into a new age. That will require some imagination and collaboration and thinking, but it is not ripping up everything and starting again that it is being asked for. So I am disappointed that the Minister has closed the door on thinking this through further. I will definitely think more about what to do and where to take this, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Internet filtersInternet filters
(1) A provider of an internet access service to an end-user may prevent or restrict access on the service to information, content, applications or services, for child protection or other purposes, if the action is in accordance with the terms on which the end-user uses the service.(2) This section does not affect whether a provider of an internet access service may prevent or restrict access to anything on the service in other circumstances.(3) In this section—“end-user” means an end-user of a public electronic communications service, within the meaning given by section 151(1) of the Communications Act 2003;“internet access service” has the meaning given by Article 2(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25th November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Digital and Culture announced on Report in the other place that we would bring forward this amendment on internet filters. As noble Lords are aware, EU regulation 2015/2120 on open internet access, or net neutrality, has created some uncertainty as to whether family-friendly filters currently offered by internet service providers and mobile network operators are compliant. The Government are clear that such filters are indeed compliant with EU regulation. However, for the avoidance of doubt, this amendment provides reassurance for UK ISPs and mobile network operators on this matter.
The amendment clarifies that internet service providers may restrict access to information, content, applications or services where that is in accordance with the terms of service agreed by the end user. The approach that the main providers of internet access services have taken towards filtering has been a huge success. The effect of this amendment is to support the current agreements and practice between users and their providers in respect of filtered services, whether at home, on mobile or on public wi-fi.
This amendment will underpin our commitment to keeping children safe online, by providing reassurance to providers that their filters are compliant with the EU regulation. Our objective is to support the current excellent voluntary system for family filters, and to ensure that it can continue in the most effective way to protect minors online. This amendment achieves that aim and I beg to move.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, this amendment is of crucial importance because, unlike the age verification provisions that we have considered in Part 3, which provide protection for children only from 18-rated pornographic material, the filtering provisions engaged by this amendment help to protect adult content in the round, including gambling, violence, self-harm and so on.
We should be in no doubt about the importance of adult content filters. However, I have a question for the Minister. This amendment effectively says to an ISP that if it wants to provide adult content filters it can do so legally in the UK. This is helpful for the 88% of the market that is covered by the agreement between the big four ISPs to provide unavoidable choice or default-on adult content options. So what is the Government's policy in relation to the remaining 12%? If it is really important that the big four provide unavoidable choice or default-on adult content options during the set-up, why is it not equally important that the smaller ISPs do the same?
I am not interested in whether or not it is strictly necessary under EU law. I am simply concerned that we should have the best protections in place for all children—those whose parents use one of the four largest ISPs and those whose parents do not.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I support these two amendments. As the noble Lord knows, they have been the subject of considerable discussion and debate in the past. We all share the objective of allowing family-friendly filters to remain on internet services and mobile networks in the UK. As the noble Lord set out, the arrangements we currently have in the UK were brought into question by the EU net neutrality rules introduced last year, which appeared to ban individual countries from restricting access in this way. Since then, there have been a number of different interpretations of how the EU rules would affect the UK—perhaps complicated by the fact the Ministers themselves were not able to clarify the situation with their usual adeptness. Indeed, it still appears that the EU open access regulations and our commitment to family friendly filters are in some ways in contradiction.
The Minister will know that many of the internet companies have taken the view that the less said about this issue the better. Their argument is that if attention is not drawn to the contradiction, they can carry on with the previous practice—under the wire, so to speak. Of course, for a lot of reasons this is not a very attractive proposition, and we accept that it would make the status of family-friendly filters more vulnerable as time went on.
So, instead we have the amendments tabled by the Minister today. When I asked at a previous meeting with the Minister whether the amendments had been checked out legally, I was assured that this was the case. We have not seen that legal advice and therefore have to take it on trust that what is before us today is legally watertight and does not contravene EU rules.
To some extent we are taking all of this on trust. While it would be easy to demand more evidence, I accept that it would not help the case of those committed to family-friendly filters—I suspect that the more we probe, the more the robustness of the proposals before us could unravel. We support the intent behind these amendments and it is certainly not our intention to bring them into question in any way. I hope that they achieve the outcome to which we are all committed. I hope therefore that noble Lords will support the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, both my noble friend Lady Benjamin and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are far more authoritative on this subject than I could possibly be. I just want to add our support from the Front Bench for these two amendments. The noble Baroness made an important point, which is that we very much hope that the amendments are effective in clarifying the situation. There is no absolute guarantee of that but they have a fair wind because of the nature of the voluntary system of family-friendly filters that they underpin. I very much hope we do not do too much “probing”—I think that is the word that the noble Baroness used—as we are just happy that we can continue with the same system as we had before. I also think my noble friend Lady Benjamin asked an important question regarding where the gaps are in terms of the smaller players.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful for the support from all noble Lords on this. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I feel well and truly probed after this Committee stage.
We have a voluntary system that is going well, but I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has a point in asking about the remaining amounts that are not covered. We might query the numbers that she is talking about. My information is that the latest figures from Ofcom and the industry indicate that around 95% of the UK fixed broadband market offers free network-level or device-level parental filters to their customers. The numbers are important but the principle is there—what are we doing about the providers that are not covered?
The remaining 5% are generally small internet service providers offering business-to-business or niche specialist services to more tech-savvy customers. Some small ISPs have a business model based very transparently on not filtering, for open-rights reasons. However, many of them already provide guidance to customers where appropriate on free device-based or network-level filter tools. Still, we recognise the concern to do everything we can to protect children online, and I am happy to say that after discussions with my officials last week or the week before, the Internet Services Providers’ Association has agreed to take further action to encourage its smaller members to consider online safety and filters. It is updating its code of practice and new member sign-up process to ensure that members consider offering filters to their customers, and issuing a guidance note to members on filters, signposting them to further help and support. So we have addressed that point. It is still on a voluntary basis so far, and we will continue to monitor how that is going.
Baroness Buscombe
“Communication devices used for drug dealingPrevention or restriction of use of communication devices for drug dealing
After section 80 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 insert—
“80A Prevention or restriction of use of communication devices for drug dealing(1) Regulations may make provision conferring power on a court to make a drug dealing telecommunications restriction order.(2) “Drug dealing telecommunications restriction order” means an order requiring a communications provider to take whatever action the order specifies for the purpose of preventing or restricting the use of communication devices in connection with drug dealing offences.(3) Without limiting the action that may be specified, it includes—(a) action that relates to a specified device;(b) action that relates to a specified phone number or something else that may be used with a device.(4) In this section “drug dealing offence” means an offence under section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or section 5 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016; and a communication device is used in connection with a drug dealing offence if it is used by a person (“the user”) in the course of—(a) the user committing a drug dealing offence,(b) the user facilitating the commission by the user or another person of a drug dealing offence, or(c) conduct of the user that is likely to facilitate the commission by the user or another person of a drug dealing offence (whether or not an offence is committed).(5) Regulations under this section must provide for drug dealing telecommunications restriction orders to be made only on the application of—(a) the Director General or Deputy Director General of the National Crime Agency, or(b) a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above.(6) Regulations under this section must—(a) specify the matters about which the court must be satisfied if it is to make an order;(b) make provision about the duration of orders (which may include provision for orders of indefinite duration);(c) make provision about the giving (by a communications provider or any other person) of notice of the making of an order; (d) make provision about variation (including extension) and discharge of orders;(e) make provision about appeals.(7) Regulations under this section must provide—(a) for applications for drug dealing telecommunications restriction orders to be made and heard without notice of the application or hearing having been given to persons affected (or their legal representatives), subject to subsection (9)(a);(b) for applications to be heard and determined in the absence of persons affected (and their legal representatives), subject to subsection (9)(b);(c) for applications to be heard and determined in private.(8) Regulations under this section must provide for a court hearing an application or an appeal to have power to restrict disclosure of information submitted in connection with the application or appeal if satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest.(9) Regulations under this section may—(a) make provision for a communications provider affected by an application to be given notice of the application or hearing;(b) make provision for a communications provider affected by an application to be present or represented at the hearing and determination of the application;(c) in connection with any provision under paragraph (b), make provision for a communications provider to have a right to make representations;(d) make provision for a drug dealing telecommunications restriction order to specify that a requirement of the order is not to apply in particular circumstances;(e) make provision authorising a court to include in an order a requirement for the person applying for the order to pay any or all of the costs of complying with it;(f) make provision about time limits for complying with orders;(g) make provision about enforcement of orders (which may include provision creating offences);(h) make provision about costs (or, in Scotland, expenses) in respect of legal proceedings;(i) make provision about compensation;(j) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(k) make incidental, consequential, supplementary or transitional provision, including provision applying any enactment (with or without modifications).(10) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State.(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(12) In this section—“communication device” means an item specified in section 1(3) of the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012 (mobile telephones etc);“communications provider” means a person providing a telecommunications service;“court” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales, the county court;(b) in relation to Scotland, the sheriff;(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, a county court;“enactment” includes— (a) an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament;(c) Northern Ireland legislation;“telecommunications service” has the meaning given by section 261 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.””
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, Amendment 228 introduces a new clause with a regulation-making power that will enable the police and the National Crime Agency to apply to the courts for an order compelling communication providers to take whatever action the order specifies to prevent communication devices being used in connection with drug-dealing offences. Such action may include blocking mobile phone handsets and SIM cards and preventing particular phone numbers from porting between networks, as well as preventing access to wi-fi networks. This is an enabling provision that provides for the Secretary of State to set out in regulations details of how applications are to be made and dealt with in the courts. The amendment broadly mirrors Section 80 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which provides for a similar power to prevent the use of mobile phones in prison.
The amendment responds to an operational requirement of the police, who require support in tackling the issue of county lines—the police term used to describe gangs in large urban areas who supply drugs, especially class A drugs, to suburban areas and market and coastal towns. To support their market expansion, gangs recruit and exploit children and vulnerable adults through deception, intimidation, violence, debt bondage and/or grooming. They are used to carry drugs and money.
County lines gangs’ criminality relies on the unrelenting recruitment, coercion and systematic exploitation of the most vulnerable including looked-after children, young people reported as missing and children from broken homes. Vulnerable adults are also exploited and can lose control of their home to gangs who use it as a base to distribute drugs, in a practice known as cuckooing.
The phone line is central to this model and to the gangs’ ability to deal drugs out of area in this way. When establishing a new county lines market, gangs will promote a number locally as the number to call to buy drugs. That “deal line” is therefore at the very core of this criminal model. Dealing drugs is a serious criminal offence and the police are committed to securing prosecutions wherever possible. However, as the deal line is held well away from local street-level drug-dealing activity and it will be an anonymous pay-as-you-go line, both those factors make it hard for the police to achieve prosecutions against an individual for the activity on that line.
Each deal line has the potential to interact with hundreds of customers and facilitate thousands of deals 24 hours a day. Disrupting these lines will have a significant impact in disrupting the gang-related drug supply and associated exploitation. There is currently no legal power in place to compel communication providers to disconnect phones used in county lines drug-dealing activity. We must ensure that the police have the powers they need to tackle this issue.
This legislation is part of a wider ongoing multiagency response, including safeguarding partners, to tackle county lines gangs, but this new order is a critical tool that will render this operating model ineffective and unattractive through the disruption of it. Amendments 236 and 241 are consequential. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, we are broadly supportive of the amendment. We want to put on record that we have our doubts about the efficacy of the provisions, but obviously if they work then we will be thoroughly delighted. We are slightly doubtful about whether these measures will ultimately be effective, though, and I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Paddick is not here to add his experience to the debate.
Competition and Markets Authority
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the extent to which the Competition and Markets Authority, in meeting its objective of promoting competition, is doing so “for the benefit of consumers”, as required under Section 25(3) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving up his dinner to be here to answer what is clearly not the top question on everyone’s lips. That is a shame because consumers matter and are being short-changed, both in the Brexit talks—their interests do not even get a mention in the 12 principles in the White Paper—and, as I will argue, in the work of the CMA. Yet, as the Question before us sets out, the CMA’s role in promoting competition is not as a good in itself but for the benefit of consumers, so we should judge the CMA’s work on whether it has indeed benefited consumers.
I first queried the obsession with competition in itself, regardless of consumer detriment, with the CMA’s predecessor, the OFT, when working on estate agents. It quite solemnly told me that what was needed was “more providers”—that is, more estate agents—and perhaps some relaxation of the rules on the accurate advertising of homes. I have to say that that is not how house buyers or indeed house sellers saw it.
Sadly, my dealings with the CMA have left me wondering whether it has yet put itself in the shoes of consumers to act as their champion in the marketplace. Certainly, a number of us across the House had our run-in with the CMA over secondary ticketing—ticket touts—as my noble friend Lord Stevenson will set out in due course. If we look more broadly, we see the CMA reluctant to take action, relying time and again on consumers to make markets work better, even in markets where the tiny individual consumer is up against the “big six”, whether in energy or banking. Indeed, so obsessed is the CMA with expecting consumers to regulate markets by “switching” that, in an unfortunate speech, the CMA chair said that the “major problem” in banking and energy,
“is a large number of inert consumers”,
who have,
“to make just one effort to get off the sofa”.
That is no way to speak of consumers, and it is not what will make large, unaccountable industries treat their customers fairly. The whole point of the CMA is to take action in global markets where the individual user can have little effect.
If banking, for example, were consumer-centred, everyone would have access to a comprehensive package of appropriate and affordable services and products. That is not the industry we see today. Rather, banking is highly concentrated—and highly uncompetitive. It is complex, opaque, hard to negotiate and expensive. Indeed, today’s Metro suggests that some bank overdrafts are more expensive than loan sharks. The CMA’s reliance on switching will not drive change when all the banks are essentially the same and offer the same poor service. It is the tiddler versus the giant. Reliance—even onus—on individuals to drive competition is inappropriate in these markets. Asymmetry of information, long-term outcomes, lack of transparency about fees and charges, lack of plain English terms and conditions—we all know the problems that prevent meaningful shopping around, which is of course the precursor to switching.
The CMA was accused of complacency regarding banking reform by MPs on the Treasury Select Committee, which questioned why it,
“had not done more to break the stranglehold of the current account market”.
Even the FCA thought that the CMA had not done enough on overdraft fees and decided to look at the issue itself, while Which? said that the CMA’s Retail Banking Investigation Order,
“simply allows banks to continue to set their own level of exorbitant fees”,
and called on the FCA to take action as the CMA proposals seemed,
“unlikely to transform the market”.
Regrettably, the CMA rejected the calls by Which? for customer challenge groups, leading Which? to question the CMA’s heavy reliance on switching, which puts the onus on the consumer.
Turning to energy, the CMA’s failure to intervene effectively even appears to be recognised by the Prime Minister who, over the weekend, threatened to intervene over npower’s “shocking” price rise, which will push up the energy bills of 1.4 million households by over £100 a year. I welcome the Prime Minister’s intervention, but where was the CMA when it was needed?
There is also the example of Volkswagen. American customers have been compensated some £7,000 each for buying supposedly “low-emission” cars when, in fact, Volkswagen was cheating. No compensation has been secured by the CMA for the 200,000 car owners affected. Instead, the CMA wastes time warning local authorities not to charge higher prices for high-strength alcohol, which they of course do to reduce harm. Where was the interest in public health, parents or the public in that extraordinary guidance?
Returning to where I started, what is the CMA doing about the newest story about estate agents? We read on Saturday that some estate agents are issuing home buyers with demands for hefty payments. Not only does this give rise to a glaring conflict of interest if an estate agent is working for both the buyer and the seller; it takes advantage of desperate house buyers at a vulnerable point in the purchase process.
Going forward, consumers risk being squeezed out and their interests forgotten, as the country prepares for Brexit. The CMA is meant to be their champion. Indeed, since the Government—very sadly—abolished the National Consumer Council, there is no one else to speak for consumers across all markets. I wrote to ask the CMA what it was doing in preparing for our exit, but I was referred only to a voluntary initiative, the John Vickers group, rather than getting the advice I would expect the CMA to be preparing. Since then, indeed on Friday, the CMA’s acting chief executive finally spoke on the subject—albeit in Miami rather than in answer to my letter, despite her description of its role as assisting and advising Ministers and other public bodies, which I assume includes Parliament. In her speech, she failed to indicate whether the CMA wanted to remain, even as an associate, in the European Competition Network, which is a vital source of co-operation as it comprises the European Commission and national competition authorities; or to remain in the European consumer enforcement network, known as Consumer Protection Cooperation.
When the CMA was created, I and my noble friends Lord Stevenson and Lord Whitty pushed for a consumer panel such as that of the Financial Conduct Authority and Legal Services Board, and we were right to do so. Had there been such a panel, the issues that I have raised tonight would have been raised time and again at the CMA board. It would have heard these views at a time when it could have taken them into account in its work programme.
Will the Government review whether such a consumer panel is needed—or, at the very least, dialogue, which does not require legislation—noting the view of Which? that the CMA’s inquiries appear to come from a predominantly economic background and approach, which rather excludes the consumer point of view? Indeed, in the pack helpfully prepared by the Library for today’s debate, there was virtually no commentary on the CMA’s record—testimony to the absence of proper scrutiny and accountability, particularly regarding consumers. Will the Government ensure that consumers are at the table for Brexit discussions, since there is some doubt that the CMA can represent them adequately, if at all? Will the Government publish their or the CMA’s thinking on Brexit, including on continued participation in those vital European networks, the ECN and CPC? Lastly, will the Government publish any impact assessment that they have undertaken of how to replicate current EU-wide competition activity, for the benefit of consumers?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for her very fine introduction to this debate. It is of wide interest and it is a pity that we do not have either a longer list of speakers or a larger audience to whom we could appeal—but those who are here are, I am sure, actively writing down everything that has been said, to study it for later consumption.
I do not wish to go over the ground that my noble friend covered so well, but it is interesting that she made several points that I also want to make. I will therefore cover some of the ground, but not quite from the same direction. The first question is how the existing structure perceives its responsibilities in relation to consumers, given we are told that the primary purpose of the CMA is to make sure that consumers are dealt with fairly and appropriately in the market. The truth, as my noble friend said, is that, without satisfactory representation and active dialogue with consumers, it is very difficult to see how they would be able to be in that position.
I think, however, that it goes deeper than that. She touched on something that I want to stress. The change in the way Government themselves have dealt with the consumer interest in the past 15 years is extraordinary. In 2010 there was a fully active department within BIS, as it then was, dealing with consumers’ interests and making sure that consumers were represented in all decisions taken by that business-facing department. Now there is virtually no involvement in the interests of consumers. It is entirely a producer-led department with only producer interests at heart.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the public interest, on which my noble friend spoke, is not being treated well. As she said, consumers are not constantly searching for ways in which they can maximise their situation in the market; they are living their life and getting on with it. They do not expect to have to make all these complicated trade-offs and decisions. Certainly, if they did try, they would not have the information. Some change has happened in recent years in terms of MyData, although that seems to have run out of steam, and in terms of trying to encourage switching.
Switching itself, however, is not the issue. The issue is knowledge, the ability to understand how action could work in a policy frame in order to change attitudes and approaches and action, not just sitting around waiting to switch in the hope that that will work. Her description that this was tiddlers playing with giants rang true. The asymmetry of information and the way in which big business ever since the time when Adam Smith identified it will always conspire against the consumer means that we do not have a very satisfactory or fair situation.
The second point is whether the regulatory system that has been created in recent years has consumers’ interests at heart. It does, as my noble friend said, look more like an economic regulator than it does a regulator in support of those who are being affected by decisions of business. One issue that I have raised before in your Lordships’ House is this question of what would be seen as a result in some of the cases that are being discussed. They always seem to revolve around the question of whether the market is working well in terms of price and whether the firms involved are getting a reasonable return on capital invested. It is not about whether consumers are being ripped off and whether harm is being done.
I recall an earlier regime, but I am afraid some of the thinking has moved forward to this one, in which I was involved in the film industry. At the British Film Institute we were concerned about the apparently monopolistic behaviour of the American film distributors. There was virtually no UK-based distribution and therefore no market in which they could operate. On three occasions submissions were made to the then Competition Authority about this issue. Each time it found that there was a complex monopoly operating, so there was no question that harm was being done. On each occasion, however, it said that it lacked the ability to interrogate that on behalf of consumers because the foundation Acts did not deal sufficiently with the issue concerned in the way that was wanted.
So I think that this is a long-term solution. I do not think that the Government should be picking up the blame for everything, but I think the basic, underlying point—I think this was the point of my noble friend’s original argument—was that we need to rethink what is required of the sort of market arrangements that are being set up in terms of both initial concern for consumer rights and how that can be expressed in a change of policy as we go forward.
I will take three short examples and end with a proposal. The first, as mentioned by my noble friend, is the question of secondary ticketing arrangements. She and I and others were involved in trying to change the Consumer Rights Bill that was going through Parliament in 2015. The incident that caused us the most concern was that, as is normal with many of these Bills, we were receiving lobbying from a number of people, including many of the companies involved in the secondary ticket market.
What was extraordinary about the meetings that we held with these bodies was that they were incredibly unconcerned by the prospect of the amendments that we were considering and the campaign and the coalition that we were building up across the House. We were pretty confident that we could get changes to the Consumer Rights Bill, as it then was, because we felt that we had made the arguments in Committee and we were approaching Report with a real chance of getting some change. We knew that this would also have support in the other place. They were not concerned at all. They were completely insouciant about the prospect of action being taken in Parliament, and indeed were extraordinarily challenging about some of the basic assumptions we made about how the market might be transformed. Of course, it turned out that they had reason for that. In parallel to the discussions that they were having with us, they were talking to the CMA about a series of undertakings which, when they were produced, were less burdensome on them than anything that we were proposing to do in our amendments. They knew, and we did not know, what was going on and what was going to happen as the result of the discussion.
I find that unacceptable, and I hope that when the Minister responds he might reflect on whether there is an issue here that needs a bit more ventilation about the operations of the competition authorities as we currently have them when an issue of public interest is being discussed and legislation is being considered. Although it is right and proper that the CMA, in its present constitution, is independent of government, I do not think that it is right that we should be in the position of possibly making bad law as a result of lack of knowledge and understanding of what is going on.
My second point is topical. We are considering in Committee, and are about to go to Report on, the Higher Education and Research Bill. Within that, the Government are proposing to set up a new body called the Office for Students, which they consistently, in all the debates and discussions, refer to as a regulator of higher education. When they are asked, however, to respond to amendments on that, it is very difficult to see whether it is a regulator. It is not, apparently, to be part of the Regulators’ Code. It will not have economic requirements, as do all other regulators, as required by previous Acts discussed in your Lordships’ House, to take account of growth and economic well-being. It would not have those responsibilities. It is apparently a regulator without a regulatory superstructure. It can operate in a regulatory mode but it will not have the responsibilities or, indeed, the fall-back or the ability to be queried and appealed against as a regulator.
This is complicated by the fact that, in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the CMA is given responsibility for assessing competition issues in relation to consumers accepting places at universities. This is turning out to be quite interesting in the sense that the CMA seems to have no problem saying that some of the practices it is seeing are not acceptable. It is now apparently obtaining undertakings from a range of institutions that it has been involved with—it has done a study of about half a dozen—which will involve changes to the ways prospectuses are published and what they say. It will change the nature of conditions placed on some students when they graduate. There is quite a significant range of issues which would, I think, probably, in most people’s minds, be more appropriately applied by OfS if it was a regulator. My question to the Minister, therefore, is: is there a possibility that we might look at the boundary issues relating to when you have a generic regulator and when you have a specific sector regulator? I am not expecting a full answer today—I am not going to get one, clearly—but I think this is a matter for further debate, possibly after the Bill is finished. I register it as being an important issue.
Finally, I think my noble friend is right. I think now it is appropriate to think in terms of reviewing where we are in terms of where the public interest is in how consumers are protected. The existing bodies, as I said, seem to be broadly inhabiting an economic and not a policy world, but there does not seem to be any mechanism because there is nothing left in government that could take that forward. Even having a consumer panel, as my noble friend said, would be a step forward, but we do not have one in the CMA.
The other question is whether additional duties might be responsible. My noble friend did not mention this, but I know she bears the scars of attempts over the years to try to get mainly the financial regulators but also those in a broader range to have inserted into their main mission statement a fiduciary duty. I think that is something to be looked at. Again, we also should think about how all this is carried out in terms of bodies such as the Chartered Trading Standards Institute because, at the end of the day, you cannot have effective consumer action unless there are people checking what happens to consumers. With the cuts made in local government affecting the number and the activity of Trading Standards, there is a perfect storm there—again, something that we might return to at a later point.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for enabling me to respond to this interesting debate. Some important points were made both by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that markets work in the best interests of consumers. That issue is at the heart of what the Government believe. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said:
“Where companies are exploiting the failures of the market in which they operate, where consumer choice is inhibited by deliberately complex pricing structures, we must set the market right”.
The UK’s independent watchdog for competition, the Competition and Markets Authority, along with the economic regulators, is a key player in making sure that we achieve this goal.
My department is in the front line of making markets work for consumers. Empowering consumers is critical to delivering the department’s aims and objectives. The departmental vision includes a commitment to secure better outcomes for consumers by creating a more competitive business environment. I recognise that it is important that we live up to that vision. That is why, in the Autumn Statement, my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced that the Government will produce a Green Paper that will closely examine markets which are not working fairly for consumers.
The Government are working up proposals to step in to strengthen competition where markets fail and consumers may not be getting a good deal. This provides support to the CMA’s statutory objective to make markets work in the best interests of consumers. As Her Majesty’s Government we are keen to give the CMA the right resources and the right incentives to help it deliver on its statutory goal. This is why we have set the CMA the target of achieving £10 of consumer benefit for every £1 it spends.
The Government continue to challenge the CMA to deliver more for consumers. Through the Government’s strategic steer to the CMA we have made clear where we think it should focus its efforts to ensure that competition thrives for the benefit of consumers. It is important, though, that the CMA remains free to use its resources as it considers most appropriate, to get the best deal for consumers. To help achieve this goal, the CMA uses a set of prioritisation principles to decide which work it should undertake to have the biggest impact. The principles include impact and strategic significance.
Every year, the CMA consults on and publishes its annual plan, which sets out its strategic goals for the year. In the annual plan on which it has recently consulted, the CMA commits to,
“continue to prioritise work that has the greatest impact on ensuring a good deal for consumers—including the most vulnerable”.
This approach has led the CMA to tackle some key markets in recent years. It has recently concluded two of the largest and most complex market investigations that the United Kingdom has seen—into the energy and retail banking markets, as mentioned by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. It has also undertaken important market studies into higher education and the provision of legal services, and it recently announced a new study looking at the operation of the care homes market. The CMA continues to assess mergers to make sure that they do not create market conditions which could lead to poor consumer outcomes or a lack of choice or competition. It has also upped its game on cartel and anti-trust enforcement, concluding high-profile cases—for example, in the pharmaceutical sector—and issuing substantial fines.
It is clear that this work is not a purely academic exercise and it is important that the CMA and the Government assess and measure the impact of the CMA’s work. To this end, the CMA assesses its total impact on consumers as part of its annual report. Between 2013 and 2016, the CMA demonstrated that it delivered on average £687 million-worth of benefit to consumers per year on an annual budget of £65 million, exceeding its 10:1 target. The NAO has also recently looked at the operation of the UK competition regime. It found that overall the regime is working well. However, it identified that the CMA could do more. The CMA is keen to build on its success and has committed to review the way that it conducts market investigations to ensure that they are as efficient and effective as they can be and improve the CMA’s brand. That review will conclude in the next financial year, and the CMA hopes to use it to develop this important tool to help make the greatest difference to the largest number of consumers and businesses.
The Government also take very seriously their obligation to review the operation of legislation to ensure that it is achieving its objectives in the best possible way. We consulted on a number of measures last year to improve the regime. A response will be issued in due course. That is why we are committed to review the operation of the parts of the Competition Act 1998, the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 which give the CMA its powers. These reviews must be concluded by April 2019. Over this Parliament the Government will continue to keep under review whether the CMA has the right powers and whether it is using them to achieve its statutory goal.
The noble Baroness mentioned the connection between the CMA and Brexit. On 4 February the CMA’s chief executive outlined its role as the UK exits the European Union. This speech is published online and, if it would help, I can give information about where the noble Baroness can find it.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I referred to it; it was the one given in Miami, which I read with great care.
The Earl of Courtown
To continue with the Brexit theme, we fully take the point that the effects of Brexit on consumers must be an important part of the Government’s planning. Ministers had a consumer round table before Christmas, and there is a lot of engagement at official level.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the CMA’s energy market investigation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The Government are continuing to consider their response to the CMA’s report and will respond soon. Following npower’s announcement that the cost of annual dual fuel bills was to increase by 9.8% on average from 16 March, the Government repeated their commitment to getting the best deal for households. Suppliers are protected from the recent fluctuations in the wholesale energy prices in which they are buying up to two years in advance. The Government therefore expect energy companies to treat all their customers fairly, not just those who switch. We want to see suppliers come forward with clear actions to treat their customers fairly.
The noble Baroness raised the point about ensuring that the CMA undertakes its work for the benefit of consumers. The CMA is the independent, expert competition body. It is the body best placed to assess the likely impacts on competition and business behaviour. Consumer advocacy groups have a valuable and vital role to play in helping to identify markets that may not operate in the best interests of consumers. To ensure that its voice is heard, the CMA works closely with consumer advocacy groups, including Which? and Citizens Advice. The CMA is also an active member of the Consumer Protection Partnership, which brings together publicly funded consumer enforcement, advocacy and advice organisations to share, compare and interpret intelligence to identify trends in the causes of consumer detriment.
The noble Baroness also mentioned bank overdrafts being more expensive than loans. The Government will continue to engage closely with the FCA to understand the issues in this market and to ensure that it has the appropriate tools to take action where problems are identified. The FCA’s current review will examine the rest of the high-cost credit market, including overdrafts, and will enable the FCA to assess whether there is evidence of consumer detriment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, also mentioned the 2010 OFT study into house buying and selling. As well as the open letters to the sector, the CMA has produced materials tailored for SMEs to emphasise competition as an essential part of doing business and that companies can themselves be victims if their rivals or suppliers flout the law. Obviously, we must not forget the consumers in this equation.
It was suggested that the CMA’s retail banking market investigation did not address the real problems. The Government welcome the CMA’s final report on that investigation as an important step towards the goal of a highly competitive banking system. Taking forward this kind of high-impact work is exactly why we have created this authority. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked what the CMA was doing on ticketing. The CMA announced on 19 December last year that it is launching an enforcement investigation following a review of compliance with the Consumer Rights Act provisions and the undertakings it had received from the major secondary ticketing platforms.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to the Higher Education and Research Bill. I will, of course, pass all his comments on to my noble friend Lord Younger. He mentioned in particular the Office for Students. The Bill requires the Office for Students to have regard to the principles of the best regulatory practice. This will include taking account of requirements such as the Regulators’ Code, and the Bill requirements are consistent with the code. Once the OfS is established, the Government can decide to make it formally subject to the Regulators’ Code by making an order under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act but, whether it is applied formally or not, the OfS must operate under the same principles.
The noble Baroness asked a number of other questions. If she will excuse me, I shall arrange to write some answers. I shall also arrange for them to copied to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and for copies to be put in the Library.
I reassure the House that the CMA has consistently acted in line with the statutory duty to improve competition for the benefit of consumers. The CMA’s published prioritisation principles put consumer impact at the centre of its decision-making about the way that it uses its resources. While it is right that the CMA is independent of government, it is also right that it is held accountable for the way that it uses public money. The CMA routinely assesses its competition and consumer work to establish its impact on consumers. It publishes an annual impact assessment, judging its performance against its statutory duty and against the target set by the Government to realise £10 of consumer benefit for every £1 spent.
The NAO has also recently published a report into the operation of the UK competition regime, which found that, in the most part, the regime operates well. The CMA is now assessing its market investigation processes to see whether it can build on its current, effective approach to competition issues.
Finally, the CMA’s powers to investigate mergers and markets will be reviewed before the end of March 2019 to assess whether they are appropriate and are achieving their aims and objectives.
Digital Economy Bill
Wednesday 8th February 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberDigital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 80-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 161KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
Baroness Benjamin
“Original programmes for children and young people
After section 289 of the Communications Act 2003 (regional matters in the public teletext service) insert— “289A Original programmes for children and young people(1) The regulatory regime for every licensed public service channel must include the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing—(a) that the programmes included in the channel include high quality original programmes for children and young people;(b) that the programmes for children and young people included in the service are of a suitable range;(c) that the programmes for children and young people so included are broadcast for viewing at appropriate times.(2) The regulatory regime must also include conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing that, in each year—(a) the time allocated to the broadcasting of programmes for children included in the service, and(b) the time allocated to the broadcasting of programmes for young people so included,constitute no less than what appears to OFCOM to be an appropriate proportion of the time allocated to the broadcasting of all the programmes included in the channel.(3) Before determining for the purposes of this section the proportionate time to be allocated to the broadcasting of programmes for children and young people, OFCOM must consult the provider of the channel, or, as the case may be, the person who is proposing to provide it.(4) The requirement to consult is satisfied, in the case of the imposition of a condition by way of a variation of a license, by compliance with section 3(4)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (licences under Part I).””
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 229, which aims to move children’s content on public service broadcasting from tier 3 back to tier 2. The amendment is also in the names of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I declare an interest as per the register.
My amendment seeks to underline the fact that we are at a pivotal point in the future of the children’s production industry and quality UK-produced content for our children. This is without doubt the best opportunity in a generation to make a legislative change that could revive and strengthen a successful industry that not only nurtures our nation’s youngsters but projects Britain around the world.
Yes, we have over 30 dedicated children’s channels, but the majority do not show UK-produced programmes. They usually show acquired animated cartoons, made abroad. This means that our UK children’s production industry is in decline. Thank goodness for the BBC, with its successful CBeebies and CBBC channels. However, we cannot expect the BBC to bear the burden of producing the majority of British-made children’s programming. Some might point out that there has been a slight increase in the investment from commercial broadcasters for children’s productions, but it is just a drop in the ocean considering the large profits they have made over the past year.
To be clear, this amendment is not relevant to all commercial broadcasters, such as Disney, Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network. It is relevant only to public service broadcasters, especially commercial broadcasters, which each have been allocated PSB status and the benefits that go with that. Therefore, public service broadcasters should be producing content for everyone, and that includes children.
The amendment I have introduced has cross-party support and is timely. It aims to do two things: first, to give Ofcom the ability to require public service broadcasters to commission more original British-made Nickelodeon children’s content in the future; and, secondly, to give flexibility to the commercial PSBs, in consultation with Ofcom, around the level of their future investment in children’s content. This is a common- sense approach that could easily be embraced.
As I have said many times in this House, PSB investment, in particular from commercial PSBs, has reduced drastically over the past 10 years—by an overwhelming 93% since 2003. This decline started when the Communications Act 2003 reversed the Ofcom requirement for PSBs to commission a certain level of children’s content, by moving it from tier 2 to tier 3. Recent tax reliefs for animation and children’s live action content have provided a welcome boost for the sector, but they have not brought the commercial PSBs back to the table, which was expected. The Government’s pilot contestable fund over the next three years will work only if PSBs are required to commission more content.
The Save Kids’ Content UK campaign, supported by the whole industry and PACT, is very clear that requiring PSBs to commission a certain level of content is the only way to secure the future of this sector and Great British content in the future. All other options proposed are merely a short-term fix. Ofcom has repeatedly reported that it does not have the legislative tools to change the current situation. It pointed out during its last PSB review that there is a substantive risk that PSB requirements in this area will not be met in the future for our children. This is so distressing that it breaks my heart.
I understand that we have to be realistic and not demand that the commercial PSBs commission or compete with what the BBC is already doing. We know that children are viewing content in all sorts of ways, but the important word here is “content”. No matter how children view content, it must be relevant and reflect their culture and surroundings. Having said that, a recent Ofcom review showed that television viewing was still by far the most popular way of watching content.
It is also important to remember that, although investment in original British programming for children is in serious decline, television still remains a huge influence on young people today. According to research by the London School of Economics, 96% of children aged five to 15 use a TV set to watch television and 87% of viewing among 14 to 15 year-olds is on broadcast television. So it is absolutely vital that children have access to UK-made content that is not only entertaining and informative but also that our children can identify with.
As I said before, my amendment is a common-sense approach to the problem. The key element is that broadcasters will be consulted on the level of investment appropriate to each channel. It is definitely not a quota system, nor does it only apply to commercial PSBs; it also applies to the BBC, which already has good levels of investment, but the amendment would ensure that this investment is maintained into the future.
ITV has made recent investments, but what happens if it gets taken over? There is no legislation in place to ensure that new owners should provide any adequate children’s productions at all. Channel 4 has specific obligations for older children. Because of successful lobbying, it has recently committed to invest in children’s. Their production of “We’re Going on a Bear Hunt” was one of the most watched programmes over Christmas, which shows that there is an appetite for that type of content which, I am sure, will be sold worldwide. Channel 5 has “milkshake!”, an established, successful strand for pre-school, but it spends very little on new, original UK content. Most of its programmes are acquired.
All of the commercial PSBs do a bit, but there are areas where children’s provision is lacking, and they all need to do more to serve our children’s cultural appetites. The latest figures from Ofcom show that UK children’s programming decreased yet again in both spend and output in 2015. Spend on first-run UK-originated children’s programming stood at £77 million in 2015, a year-on-year decrease of 13% in real terms. This cannot go on indefinitely.
We understand that PSBs may well have concerns about the imposition of requirements or how the amendment is able to accommodate the changing viewing habits in this digital world. This is why the flexibility that has been built into this amendment is crucial. The amendment strikes a balance between giving Ofcom the muscle to require children’s content from PSBs, which it does not have at the moment, and allowing the level of investment to be determined through consultation between Ofcom and each broadcaster, and coming to a reasonable agreement. The amendment will require a variation of each broadcaster’s licence.
There is also flexibility around the genres that Ofcom could choose to include in any requirements. The amendment refers to a “suitable range” of content. This can be tailored appropriately to each channel and would take into account content broadcast on a main channel, on a subsidiary channel or online. Surely this should allay any fears or doubts. This amendment has deliberately built in the flexibility to allow broadcasters to use digital and interactive content across all platforms. It is not intended to dictate how, where or what children should watch. It is about ensuring that there is a range of quality British content available on all platforms.
Some may say, “How do we know Ofcom will decide what is reasonable?”. I was on the advisory board of Ofcom for three years, and I know from experience that Ofcom has always erred on the side of caution when it comes to avoiding anything that would damage the industry. Over the last 14 years of its history, its reputation has been exemplary.
As I mentioned earlier, the Government have announced the introduction of a contestable fund, and children’s programming will be in line to receive some of the funding. At the moment the fund is time-limited to three years. I strongly believe that my amendment could ensure that that money is used in the most productive and constructive way. The fund could be used to develop programme ideas for children which the PSBs could then commission, having had all the development work funded.
The UK children’s production sector has always had a strong international presence, which adds to the UK’s economy, and it is proud of that. At the moment, however, our UK children’s production sector is facing many challenges because the market for producing children’s UK original content is shrinking rapidly, while the demand for quality children’s programmes remain vigorous. There are many opportunities for global partnerships through co-productions, so we desperately need commissions for those partnerships to work. It would be short-sighted to cut the cord of a continuing British success story, but more importantly we need UK creative original content to be produced to influence our children’s imagination and thinking as well as their emotional, mental and inspirational well-being. We owe it to them and must not let them down, so we must use this opportunity to provide the means to fulfil their needs.
This is why my amendment is asking the Government to take another look at the issues and change legislation to secure the long-term future and sustainability of the UK children’s content production sector. I firmly believe that only a change to primary legislation will give Ofcom the necessary tools to require commercial PSBs to provide British-made children’s programming and give PSBs the opportunity to show their commitment to the nation’s children by saving UK kids production content. We must not let this great opportunity fall by the wayside. The future of Great British content for our children that will last long into the future is now in the hands of the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Benjamin. It is clearly of paramount importance that our children have access to British-made television content. As I mentioned before when talking about the electronic programme guide—and I am afraid the Minister will have to appreciate that the issue is not going away—easy access is important. As my noble friend said, children need to see programmes that reflect their lives and our diverse, vibrant nation. It is my experience that children do actually watch television, certainly the ones I know. That is one reason why they love their step-grandmother, because she encourages it. Importantly, as my noble friend mentioned, flexibility is built into this amendment. It includes consultation with Ofcom about how it should be implemented in practice and around genres. It is important that this sector is not just left for the BBC to carry.
The Minister recently responded to a Liberal Democrat debate on the importance of the creative industries. That is another reason why the children’s independent television sector should be encouraged. We have only to look at the Harry Potter films to see what the children’s market can contribute to our economy and to Britain’s soft power. Let us support this sector and unlock its great potential and, in particular, not break my noble friend’s heart.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 229 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who I congratulate on formulating the amendment and for moving it so comprehensively with her usual chutzpah. I declare an interest on two levels, first as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on children and families, although I am clearly not speaking in that role today; and secondly, I have a more direct interest as the parent of a five year-old.
It is a source of both regret and concern that there is a dearth of UK original content in children’s television. Less than 1% of television hours available for UK children are original, first-run British programming. I very much doubt that the average parent would appreciate that, and I suspect that they would be both surprised and disappointed when told. I know that I certainly was. While Ofcom requires public service broadcasters to offer a minimum number of hours of original productions—70% for CBBC, 80% for CBeebies—they can include, and invariably for the most part consist of, repeats and spin-offs. Evidence presented last week on Welsh broadcasting to the Welsh Affairs Committee in another place suggested that the effects were particularly felt by regional public service broadcasters, where the number of repeats broadcast has increased exponentially since the Communications Act 2003. The example was given of the Welsh language channel S4C, where the share of broadcasts comprising repeats has risen to 57%. That decrease in original content threatens seriously to impoverish UK children’s cultural exposure, in particular to local and regional identities and experiences to which they can relate.
Reduced funding has been both a cause and an effect of that. The latest figures from Ofcom show that UK children’s programming decreased again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, in both spend and output in 2015, the last year for which figures are available. Spend on first-run UK-originated children’s programmes showed a year-on-year decrease of 13% in real terms. That is a real worry. Recent tax reliefs for animation and children’s live-action content have provided a welcome boost for the sector. However, they do not ultimately increase the size of the funding pot available or incentivise the commercial public service broadcasters to return. The Government’s pilot £60 million contestable fund over the next three years will work only if public service broadcasters are compelled to commission more content, but of course the fund is not just restricted to children’s broadcasting; religious and other cultural programming is covered by it as well.
An increasing reliance on licensing revenue means that quality is not being maintained, because it has reduced in importance. Licensing plays a significant part in the commissioning of new children’s shows because so little money comes from broadcasters. The global TV brand licensing industry is reckoned to be worth around $190 billion and the ability of a programme to generate merchandise in the form of DVDs, books, branded clothes and toys now tends to determine its future. That is a concern because it creates a financial incentive to tick all the right boxes to produce a brand that can be easily licensed. As we all know from experience, box-ticking is rarely a positive driver, in any situation. Children are now spending more time online than in front of the television. My son increasingly wants access to the iPad to watch varying content of variable quality on YouTube. Fortunately, his mother is well qualified to ensure that he does so safely, but for his generation, watching a small screen is already second nature.
Although television remains a huge influence on young people, children’s programmes are competing not only with other genres for space on public service broadcasting but with online content for children’s attention. An Ofcom report in 2015 came to that conclusion, and unsurprisingly, online streaming providers such as Netflix are exploiting this market. While support of independent children’s production by online service providers is to be encouraged, public service broadcasters have a responsibility to carry at least equal weight in the provision of enriching children’s programming.
Such original children’s programming has the potential to be a thriving industry and an exporter of high-quality British product. That product in particular is digital, interactive and produces some of the most innovative content, generating huge revenues overseas with many iconic programmes. “Teletubbies”, which first aired on the BBC in 1997, has been shown in 120 countries and in 45 different languages. It generated a reported £200 million in revenue and some £50 million in merchandising. Those are impressive figures by any standard. I have moved through the age-appropriate levels with my son and have enjoyed almost as much as he has CBeebies productions such as “In the Night Garden”, “Show Me Show Me”, “64 Zoo Lane”, “Charlie and Lola”, “Grandpa in My Pocket”, with the inimitable James Bolam, “Octonauts”, “Katie Morag” and “Nina and the Neurons”. Those and many more children’s productions combine entertainment, play and learning; surely one of the fundamental purposes of public service broadcasting. They do so in a manner unimaginable when I watched “Andy Pandy” and “The Flower Pot Men” with my mother a very long time ago.
In the uncertainty of the post-EU world, maintaining and even increasing this strong international presence will be vital to supporting the UK’s economy and cultural currency. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, between 2003 and 2013 commercial public service broadcasting participation plummeted by 93%. Without a vibrant market the industry is in danger of dying out, and without that industry the nation’s children will not grow up with the programmes that the adult population took for granted. That is why, last September, I was one of the signatories to a letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on behalf of Save Kids’ Content UK, setting out the current position on the decline of the independent children’s TV production industry in the UK and asking what the Government would do to support it. I regret to say that it took five weeks for a reply to arrive, and from a junior Minister at that, which told the sector nothing it did not already know, and concluded with the patronising words:
“Thank you for taking the time to share your views on this issue”.
However, that letter was a cry for help, not a sharing of views. To be dismissed in such a manner was unacceptable. The Government need first of all to understand the nature of the problem—which, as that letter demonstrates, is a position at which they have not yet arrived—and then they need to work with the sector to seek solutions. Amendment 229 would be a first step and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity offered by this short debate to begin the process, with a sympathetic response and a commitment to return to the issue on Report with a suitable amendment.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, I am in the awkward position of being unable to give this my full support, which I very much regret. I am now a grandparent, with four grandchildren who watch children’s programming avidly. Inevitably, I watch it with them; I greatly value the British content and want it increased. The question is, how do we do that? We cannot in fairness ask ITV to do children’s programming while at the same time this Parliament has legislated that no advertising in children’s programming will be allowed. A service that depends on advertising for its funding has been denied funding to do the sort of programming somebody wants to do—so we have got to find another way round it.
That is why the Government have come up with the idea of the contestable fund. I would agree that this is a higher priority than local television, for example. If I were in the Government, I would allocate all the contestable fund to children’s programming. It would then be possible, through contestable funding, to get some programmes made. The difficulty then would be to find a platform that will air them, given that—as has been rightly recognised—nowadays nobody puts children’s programming on their main channel. The BBC does not do it; it is not on BBC1 or BBC2, but CBeebies. If ITV were to do it, it would have to be on CITV. The question is how one gets people willingly to commission children’s programming that is not going to make them any money, unless it is an absolute winner. If there were “Teletubbies” round every corner, everybody would be making children’s programmes every day. The fact is, though, that it is extremely difficult to get right: “Teletubbies” is 20 years old. “In the Night Garden” is wonderful, but children grow out of that quite quickly. Children are quite demanding. It becomes almost a rite of passage; they are almost proud of growing out of things. “That’s for little people; I’m a big boy now”.
We have got to find some way of helping the sector to get the exposure on British television and then launch it internationally. I think one idea might be to invite ITV and Channel 4 to have a say in the selection of the recipients of the contestable fund. If they had helped to commission the programme they would then be in a less strong position to refuse to accept it once it was completed. That might be a way forward. I find it very difficult to find another way, because ITV faces more competition now than it did in 2003, when Ofcom took the decision that it was reasonable to downgrade children’s programming from tier 2 to tier 3. The position has not improved since then. Netflix, Amazon and so on are all producing programmes in a way that was not even thought of in 2003, so the position is even more difficult. We have got to find a way of getting enlightened self-interest to lead broadcasters to do children’s programming and screen it. I think that the contestable fund is a way forward.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of Amendment 229, to which I have added my name, which aims to secure the future and sustainability of original TV children’s programmes. I pay tribute to the campaign Save Kids’ Content for its diligence in championing this issue over a long period. I am sure it will continue to do so. I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who has been a great figurehead for this campaign. As the noble Baroness and others have said, it is incredibly frustrating that the quantity and quality of children’s programmes have suffered such a rapid decline over the last 15 years. It feels as though it is the result of policy neglect rather than a deliberate plan to let the provision deteriorate, but whatever the reason, the outcome is still the same. As we have heard, there has been a reduction in spending of more than 50% on children’s programmes, and a drop of 93% by commercial public service broadcasters. As the noble Baroness said, the heroic exception is the BBC, whose investment in CBBC and CBeebies has provided a crucial creative flow for children’s entertainment. But it cannot be right that the responsibility in the longer term remains on the BBC’s shoulders. Ofcom itself recognised in its 2015 review of public service broadcasting that there is an issue:
“In children’s content, there is very limited provision of non-animation programming beyond the BBC”,
and went on to say that this represented a substantial risk to Parliament’s objective of strengthening public service broadcasting to this group. I would argue that we have a responsibility as Parliament to address this shortcoming.
We should all care about what programmes are available for children to watch. They have just as much right as adults to expect high-quality entertainment and the knowledge that will enrich and inspire their lives. In a sense, what people watch as children develops the habits and interests they will have as they move on to programmes and entertainment for teenagers and adults. Our great expectation that public service broadcasters will provide very good quality programming for adults is wasted if we do not provide for the next generation as well, so that it can recognise it and create that demand for it. Children also have as much right to see UK-made content.
We all squirm when we see reality TV programmes in which children have been somehow dumped in front of an endless diet of American cartoons, but we are complicit in making that a reality. It does not need to be like this and our amendment is a practical and balanced approach to reversing the decline. It would introduce powers for Ofcom to set quotas for broadcasting original children’s programmes as a condition of a PSB licence, and it would require PSBs to report to Ofcom annually on how they are meeting those targets.
As has been said, inherent in the proposals is flexibility for Ofcom and the PSBs to agree how the targets can best be met. This would allow each PSB to take a separate approach to delivering the expanded children’s programme output, including access to the contestable fund. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gordon that the money from local TV could be put to much better use by making quality children’s programmes, so perhaps that is one of the factors that could be put in the mix.
Only an initiative on this scale will reverse the decline. We have in the UK the programme makers with the skills and the creativity to produce programmes and build an expanded children’s TV offer. Moreover, the demand is there because each new generation brings with it its own demands, so I do not agree with my noble friend that people pass through and that is the end of the story. New generations come forward and we want them to be able to recognise what quality programming really is, and we will do that only if we reach out to them when they are children.
It was never the intention of Parliament to let children’s TV fall into such disrepair, and this is our chance to do something about it. I hope the Minister will listen to the strong case that has been put forward and that he will see the proportionality of our proposals. I hope also that he will feel able to support the amendment and to work with us to make the changes we are proposing a reality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 229 addresses the important issue of children’s television, something that I know the House and this Committee rightly feel strongly about. I thank noble Lords for their speeches, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for pointing out some of the problems, particularly that of advertising revenue for commercial PSBs. Children’s programming has been and remains a very important aspect of the UK’s public service broadcasting system. The provision of a range of high-quality children’s programming must be a priority for public service broadcasting. Ofcom has an oversight role for the system as a whole, and indeed has found that more than eight in 10 people think that the PSB system,
“provides a wide range of high quality and UK made programmes for children”.
The BBC, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords, remains a particularly strong provider of UK-originated children’s content. That is why the new BBC charter and framework agreement make it clear that Ofcom must have particular regard to setting requirements for key public service genres like children’s programming. But as many parents will know, children now consume content via an increasing range of platforms and providers. Ofcom has found that children are watching 25% less broadcast TV than they did five years ago. The Government therefore want to support the provision and plurality of children’s content.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has reminded us, we are going to pilot a contestable fund for underserved public service content, with children’s content a potential key area. We expect to see the commercial public service broadcasters work closely with the contestable fund and commission more children’s content. If this does not happen, the Government will be prepared to consider whether further action is needed. It is a pilot and we will have to see where it goes. Beyond that, the Government have also extended tax relief for animation and high-end TV programmes to UK children’s programmes because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, pointed out, we recognise the tremendous benefit to the economy of the creative industries. There are also other positive developments led by the market. An example which has been mentioned is that this year, Netflix will make its first British children’s programmes. I therefore believe that additional regulation in such a fast-developing area at this time is not in the interests of a diverse and vibrant children’s TV landscape in the UK.
With that explanation, I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank all noble Lords who have supported this amendment, or partly supported it. I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for putting their names to the amendment and supporting it so strongly. However, I am rather disappointed with the line the Minister has taken, as this is an opportunity to put in place a robust piece of legislation that would guarantee the future of original content made in Britain, not just on the BBC but on commercial PSBs. They are doing their bit, yes; but I want to see that being sustainable and this amendment would ensure that that happens.
We do not need more cartoons and imported programmes, which is what the majority of commercial broadcasters are offering. What we need, what the children need, are quality, UK-produced programmes. Children’s productions have always made a huge contribution to the UK economy from their international sales. We need that to continue. We are not looking for huge amounts of investment from the commercial PSBs, just what the broadcasters feel, after discussion, that they can afford. They are doing so; I want them to continue to feel that they can afford to invest in children. I want a guarantee from them, but there is no guarantee—there is no framework for them to guarantee such a thing. As I said, Ofcom often finds itself in an impossible position on this issue and can sometimes look ineffective and inadequate, because even though it proves through research that more provision for children is needed from commercial PSBs, they cannot do anything about it, as the legislation prevents them doing so.
Throughout the passage of the Bill we have talked about safeguarding and protection. Well, this amendment is about safeguarding and protecting our children’s production sector and ensuring that it continues. The sentiments behind the amendment, which I believe are sensible and reasonable, are transparency and trust—it was in that spirit that I kept the Minister regularly informed. I also engaged with Ofcom and the commercial PSBs to discuss my amendment and I have been waiting anxiously to see how the Government would respond. I am rather disappointed with what the Minister has just said.
We do not know who might own public service companies in the near future or whether they will feel obliged to provide British content for our children. Therefore, I feel that we cannot and must not leave anything to chance. Also we cannot afford to waste precious time waiting to see how the market beds in and develops, as the Minister said, because it is highly unlikely that there will be another opportunity like this to return PSB children’s programming to tier 2 where it belongs and secure homemade programming for our children in the foreseeable future, rather than leave it languishing in tier 3 where we have seen it continue to decline over the past 10 years.
Throughout my 40 years working in children’s television I have personally witnessed the lasting legacy that British-made programmes have had on the nation’s children, who discovered themselves and their world. They knew they were loved, they felt special, because the programmes reflected their lives. We owe it to the generations to come to feel and experience that same thing. I am passionate and determined not to abandon our nation’s children and I hope that the Minister and the Government will walk that path with me by rethinking and reconsidering my amendment in more depth, as I cannot give an undertaking that we will not return to this issue on Report. However, at this stage, with a heavy heart, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Puttnam
“Mergers: specified considerations for mergers involving broadcasting media enterprises
(1) Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (specified considerations) is amended as follows.(2) After section (2C) insert—“(2D) The need for those who, as a result of a merger, have increased control of media enterprises (excluding newspaper enterprises) which require a broadcasting licence, under section 3(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or the Broadcasting Act 1996, to be fit and proper to hold such a licence having regard in particular to—(a) the extent of any criminal wrongdoing that has taken place by companies and other organisations under their control; and(b) the extent of any failures of corporate governance and management in such companies and organisations.(2E) The need for there to be, in the governance arrangements of any relevant media enterprise (excluding newspaper enterprises), which provides news services, sufficient safeguards for unrestricted editorial freedom in the provision of full and accurate news services by such media enterprises.(2F) The need to prevent a media enterprise (excluding a newspaper enterprise) from—(a) exercising undue influence over distribution of, and access to, rights, talent and other forms of cultural expression;(b) promoting its own business interests through its editorial outlets, to the detriment of competitors where this is against the wider public interest;(c) exercising undue pressure in the regulatory and political environment, to the detriment of competitors where this is against the wider public interest.”
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to the two amendments that stand in my name, I should first declare my interest both as a content owner and as president of the Film Distributors’ Association. A number of factors encourage me to take up what is in effect the unfinished business of 15 years ago, when I was closely involved in the 2003 Communications Bill. The most recent was something that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said on the “Today” programme 10 days ago. In response to a question regarding the ramifications of the immigration controversy raging across the Atlantic, she said:
“It all comes down to the type of country we want to live in”.
Of course, the noble Baroness was right. Pretty well every decision we make in this House sooner or later comes down to the type of country we want to live in. What we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, is about precisely that. What kind of country do we want to live in, and how far are we prepared to push ourselves to get there?
As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will confirm, this was repeatedly discussed during the passage of what became the Communications Act 2003. At that time we were by turns both amused and concerned by the antics of the then Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his attempts to muzzle, or better still own, the Italian media. This House was at one in agreeing that the provision of a free, fair and plural media ecology, in all its many and varied forms, was fundamental to the health of any democracy worthy of the name.
As a result, and after a great deal of debate, the general duties of Ofcom in carrying out its functions were finally legislated in this way:
“It shall be the principal duty of OFCOM, in carrying out their functions—
(a) to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and
(b) to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition.
The wording of those two general duties, and the order in which they fall, along with the public interest test that accompanied them, were hard fought for, and they were won by an overwhelming vote on the Floor of this House—two-thirds to one-third—against the wishes of both Front Benches.
Fifteen years later, we find ourselves looking anxiously across the Atlantic at a new and democratically elected kind of Berlusconi on stilts—and we are jolted into reminding ourselves how very much ownership of both the media and the message matters. The true architect of the public interest test was the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the engineer who created the double lock that gave it teeth was the now noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
As the House may know, a public interest intervention notice is issued by the Secretary of State, and specifies a media interest. The grounds for referral are listed in Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002: the media interest grounds for referral are listed in Section 58 (2A) to (2C). The Secretary of State may specify further grounds for referral by laying an order before Parliament. Ofcom then carries out a report based on the grounds specified by the Secretary of State.
That is what is supposed to happen—but, as we discovered during the misadventures of the then Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt, there is far too much wriggle room, and a lack of clarity as to the precise grounds on which a referral is based. In this respect, I supplied the Minister with a copy of the five-page letter I sent to Jeremy Hunt on 11 March 2011, setting out the reasons why I believe that the UILs he proposed to set in place prior to waving through the then News Corp—now 21st Century Fox—bid for what was then called BskyB were hopelessly inadequate. Milly Dowler’s death made any response to that letter wholly unnecessary.
Following a meeting that the present Secretary of State kindly agreed to, I recently sent her a copy of that letter, for the consideration of her officials. In my note to her I included a few additional reasons why I felt reference to Ofcom was the only sensible way in which any new bid for Sky could be transparently dealt with. Given that the Government have the world’s most highly regarded media regulator at their service, it is extremely hard to see why they would not be eager to distance themselves from the well-documented suspicions of favours given and favours returned that now, sadly, dog their predecessors.
The purpose of my amendments is to buttress the referral process by adding further and easily understood grounds directly to the Bill. Specifically, they would add a fit and proper persons test, which, somewhat bizarrely, exists only as an ongoing test for licence holders, not bidders, and is thus to be conducted only after the fact of any merger. I say “bizarrely” because I ask: how sensible does it seem to judge the ongoing fitness and propriety of a licence to a higher standard than the one sought at entry? Possibly when she comes to answer the Minister might help me understand what I see as an extraordinary anomaly.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, my name is also attached to these amendments, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. They add the necessary extra scrutiny needed for media mergers and ensure that Ofcom’s fit and proper test is effectively applied.
These amendments specify further grounds for the Secretary of State to refer media mergers to Ofcom. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mentioned, the existing plurality safeguards are no longer adequate. They do not deal with market dominance and they are not sufficient for protecting editorial independence of media outlets. It is vital for the media environment that no company possesses disproportionate power to influence public opinion or the political and policy-making process. Plurality safeguards are an essential part of protecting the public and decision-makers from media organisations which are allowed to expand without proper scrutiny.
Then there is the matter of Ofcom’s fit and proper test. As many noble Lords will know, Ofcom must supply a test of fitness and propriety to owners of broadcast licences. At the moment, this test is not spelled out. What we propose would add definition to the test, using the recommendations of Leveson 2. Taking the current Sky-Fox bid as an example, I believe that this would ensure that the present chief executive of 21st Century Fox, James Murdoch, would undergo proper scrutiny if he were to retain a senior position at Sky.
I echo the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in one of the letters to which he referred. How we deal with the concentration of power decides the kind of country we are. I, too, understood that that is what Theresa May said when she became Prime Minister. Now it is for her Government to follow the logic, evidence and facts, and accept these amendments. They do not bind the Government; they simply strengthen the merger and plurality regime already in place. They put appropriate and proportionate power in the hands of an independent regulator, Ofcom, in order to protect the interests of citizens and consumers.
To quote my friend, Sir Vince Cable:
“The public interest centres on plurality and fitness”.
These are beneficial proposals which have been carefully agreed through cross-party consideration. I hope that the Minister will recognise this and respond positively.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I remember well—and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam has reminded us of it—that, in 2003, we had quite dramatic discussions in your Lordships’ House about the dual duties of Ofcom to the citizen and to the consumer. There was a bit of a wobble after Ofcom was set up, but since then it has properly seen itself as defending these two separate interests and not, as was initially suggested, merging them into the interests of a fictitious character called the citizen-consumer. That was an unfortunate, but brief, episode.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, hit the nail on the head when he said that this pair of amendments is highly congruent with the Government’s policy. Not merely has the Prime Minister spoken about acting in the interests of “you rather than the few”, she has also started to refer to “issues of corporate governance”. This is basically what this is about—the standards that we think are relevant in corporate governance.
This has been a very unhappy decade in which there have been failures of corporate governance in many sectors. I am a member of the Banking Standards Board, looking at the culture of the banks. I read every day about this culture and realise how vital is the requirement that only those who have passed fit and proper person tests come into positions of leadership and influence in the banking sector. I realise how important this also is for the media sector—indeed, it is perhaps more important.
As we have seen clearly in the last few weeks, with the presidential campaign in the United States, the media have changed hugely in this decade. We can get spiralling misinformation that is extremely difficult to stem once it gets a hold in social media; once it spreads with the rapidity which the greediest of proprietors could never have imagined. In this world, more than ever, serious corporate governance has to take account of the ethics, as well as the law, of the fitness and propriety of leadership, as well as the adequacy of regulation. I support the proposal that Ofcom get a clear grip on the fitness and propriety of those who lead the broadcasting industries.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very important debate on a very big issue. Its sharpness has been reinforced by the fact that we are currently in a process involving all the issues that have been referred to. Obviously, this will be reflected in the fact that the response will not be made by a Minister in the department which might have to deal with some of the results of the current proposals for a merger, and we respect that and understand the reasons for that.
The wonderful speech by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, which took us back to the origins of the Ofcom regime that we now have and reflected on points along the way, including the dark shadows cast by the events of 2011, gave a texture to this that makes it much more important. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, spoke about the need to think about how all this interfaces into descriptions of the sort of country we want to live in and the sort of society that we can enjoy. The necessary handles on both policy and the implementation of that policy are very important.
At heart, the amendments are simple. They draw out in more detail and focus on issues which have been live ever since they were first introduced. Indeed, I recall discussions in your Lordships’ House on two Bills which dealt with issues that bore on this and for which we had debates of this type. That does not mean to say that this is ground that no longer needs to be tilled. It does, because in thinking about this we have to recognise some of the issues that have already surfaced in Committee today and throughout the Bill—that when we are talking about the media, particularly but not restricted to the digital media, we have to think very carefully about the pace of change and the adjustments that have to be made to the policy framework in order to achieve what will be proportionate and appropriate regulatory functions later on down the line.
The good thing about the amendments is that they make us think about the words that were used, which seemed appropriate at the time, in relation to the twin requirements: that we look at plurality in relation to media but also at control. If this were a simple case of looking at how a monopoly might influence outcomes and how consumers are treated, it would not be necessary, perhaps, to delve so deeply. The issues that are currently addressed by the CMA, for instance, are largely economic. They deal with prices. They deal with the way in which consumers are treated, but they are basically around whether or not the price has been artificially moved in order to favour the producer against the citizen. In that sense, we do not need to think too hard about some of the issues, although we can regret them, as we did in the debate in the dinner hour, which I was able to participate in, which focused almost exclusively on why consumers have disappeared from government, consumer interests are rarely referred to and there are not even consumer panels on the CMA. But that debate can be read in Hansard, and I am sure it will be of much interest to those who are interested in this point.
The amendments would go back over the grounds on which a PIIN is issued and make it clearer than it is currently that simple questions of plurality, which are readily gamed in terms of corporate structures these days—this issue was perhaps not so resonant at the time that the legislation was drafted—need to have a little bit more bite if they are to look at some of the detail that we want in this area. We have to look not just at the question of ownership and control in relation to a market-facing issue but at the way in which such an agglomeration can distort and change that market, which is not in the public interest. It is very important that we do that. There may well be a way of dealing with this under the existing legislation, but it would be so much easier if the amendment was accepted because it would take us down a line that was more focused on the particularity of the media arrangements.
Then there is the question of the fit and proper person test for those who have broadcast licences. The basic structure is there. Again, on reflection, it could be argued—and I think it has been demonstrated today—that without more concern about the issues which arise out of the merger, without more concern about how the operation will work in terms of who activates it, what exactly the issues are that will be looked at, what the proprieties are that we are concerned about, and where the ethical concerns are and all that, then it will not be as effective. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. It is good to have this debate.
This group of amendments seeks to make extensive changes to the broadcast media public interest considerations that may be relied upon to intervene in certain media merger situations and the fit and proper test that Ofcom has a duty to apply to all those who hold a broadcasting licence in the UK.
Before I get into the detail, the debate has included views from across the House about the parties to the Fox/Sky merger. There is a proposed merger currently in train, which it is very likely the Secretary of State will need to consider under her existing powers. As the Secretary of State noted in her written statement of 10 January, any decision will be a quasi-judicial one. It is important that she is able to act independently and that the process is scrupulously fair and impartial. As a result, neither I nor any Minister can comment on the merits of this specific case. I will have to restrict my comments to the substance of the amendments themselves.
I have noted carefully the views of noble Lords, and of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in particular. I have a transcript here of some of the debate of the then Communications Bill, in 2003. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, remembered the key issue about citizen and consumer. Indeed, Lord Puttnam and I met outside this Chamber to try to come to terms with our approach to this issue—I was part of Her Majesty’s Opposition in those days. A lot was achieved. Of course, it was a government amendment on Third Reading which created the plurality and public interest test. It was my noble friend Lord Lansley, who is unfortunately unable to be in his place tonight, who sat on the draft legislative committee on that Bill, and who retains that interest.
Drawing all the contributions together brings us to a single question: do the Government believe they have the necessary powers to allow them to deal with complex media mergers and a concentration of ownership that would be damaging to media plurality?
In our view, the tests introduced in 2003 are wide-ranging and provide the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is responsible for media mergers, with a wide discretion to intervene. For example, in cases where there are concerns about media plurality, or where a bidder does not have a genuine commitment to the UK’s well-established rules on content standards and cross-promotion, which are overseen by Ofcom, the Secretary of State can consider those concerns as part of her deliberations as to whether to intervene in the proposed merger.
Turning to the amendments themselves, given the discretion to intervene based on the existing media public interest considerations, we do not believe it is necessary to add the additional requirements set out in Amendment 229ZA and would argue that these are matters that can already be considered under the existing tests. In addition, the matters set out are considered by Ofcom on an ongoing basis in its regulatory role.
There are three existing broadcast media public interest considerations that the Secretary of State can take into account in deciding whether or not to intervene in a merger. The first is the need for a sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises—I stress, plurality of persons. The second is the need for a wide range of broadcasting which is both high quality and appeals to a wide variety of interests. In other words, the focus must be on content and plurality of content. The third is the need for persons carrying on media enterprises to have a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. Together, these powers give the Secretary of State discretion to consider a wide range of matters in deciding whether the specified public interests may be relevant, and whether or not to intervene in a particular merger.
Amendment 229ZA, which inserts new Section 58(2D) into the Enterprise Act, would allow the Secretary of State to intervene in a media merger based on the need for those holding broadcasting licences to be a fit and proper person, as noble Lords have said today. The issue of who is a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence is a regulatory matter for Ofcom. Ofcom is under an ongoing duty to remain satisfied that those holding broadcasting licences are fit and proper to do so, under Section 3 of the Broadcast Act 1990 and Section 3 of the Broadcast Act 1996. Ofcom’s assessment of these matters will consider the conduct of those who have material influence or control over broadcast licensees and will consider a wide range of factors in assessing who is fit and proper, including the matters set out in the amendment.
The amendment also proposes a new Section 58(2E), which is aimed at allowing intervention on the basis that the governance of broadcast media enterprises providing news needs to include sufficient safeguards for editorial freedom in the provision of full and accurate news services. I entirely accept—and the Government entirely agree with noble Lords on this—that the issue of governance is crucial, although we discussed in earlier debates today that the issue of accurate news is becoming a very difficult one and will exercise all our minds in the coming months. It is a long-established condition of broadcast licences in the UK that news is reported with due accuracy and impartiality, as set out in Ofcom’s broadcasting code. Ofcom, as the regulator, governs compliance with this requirement of the code.
The matters set out in the amendment at proposed new subsection 58(2F) would be dealt with by licence conditions and Ofcom’s broadcasting code, including provisions on fair and effective competition and the cross-promotion code, as well as matters that would be considered as part of the fit and proper person test.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for going through this in so much detail. The issue raised in the first part of the amendment on the fit and proper person test was not whether the powers exist but how they would be triggered. The worry is that they would be triggered post hoc rather than anticipatorily with regard to a merger. Do the Government accept that there is a difficulty here?
Baroness Buscombe
The Government do not accept that there is a difficulty in this. The important issue is that the powers remain broad in their application. To the best of my understanding, though, there is no difficulty regarding when they are triggered.
Lord Puttnam
What I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is saying, and it is very important, is that there is an accidental anomaly in the Bill. As someone who, like the Minister, pored over every word of it, I take some responsibility for this, but it is extraordinary— I even referred to it as bizarre—that the bar that is set for an ongoing licensee is higher than the bar for a bidder. Surely common sense requires that someone bidding has to reach the same standards of honesty and probity that are required of an ongoing licensee. There is an anomaly, and I am trying to help the Government to get rid of it because it should not be there. Obviously there should be a bar, but it should apply to anyone applying for a licence just as it does to anyone who has an ongoing licence that is being looked at.
Baroness Buscombe
I am going to wait for a reply on that. I would like to be able to respond tonight, rather than saying that I will write to noble Lords; if the Committee will bear with me, let us just wait and see. I understand what the noble Lord is saying about bidders meeting the same standards as those who already have a licence.
It is a long-established condition of broadcast licences in the UK that news be reported with due accuracy and impartiality, as set out in Ofcom’s broadcasting code. Ofcom, as the regulator, governs compliance with this requirement of the code. The matters set out in the amendment at proposed new subsection 58(2F) would be dealt with by licence conditions and Ofcom’s broadcasting code, including provisions on fair and effective competition and the cross-promotion code, as well as matters that would be considered as part of the fit and proper person test. I have been informed that the fit and proper test can be looked at by Ofcom only once they hold a licence, but we believe that the provisions on genuine commitment to broadcasting standards give the Secretary of State the powers she needs in this regard.
Lord Puttnam
I think that we all deserve to be very clear about this: can we be sure that the Secretary of State will apply exactly the same standards to a bidder as she would require of an ongoing licensee?
Baroness Buscombe
There is nothing coming from the Box—I think that I will have to come back to this point.
Ofcom’s role as a regulator is to have ongoing oversight of these matters. The important point, however, is that the Secretary of State’s power to intervene in media mergers provides an additional layer of protection for media plurality in the UK. In the case of Amendment 229ZA, the very fact that these matters are part of the regulatory broadcasting framework with which licence holders must comply means that they can be taken into account by the Secretary of State in deciding whether or not to intervene, particularly in terms of the impact that such matters have on the need for persons holding broadcast licences to have a commitment to broadcasting standards. In addition, any merger must also be judged on competition grounds by the relevant competition authority, and the existing competition law. The Government believe that the existing provisions in the Enterprise Act 2002 already give the Secretary of State wide and proportionate powers in relation to proposed media mergers. While we understand the intent behind this amendment, we do not judge that it is necessary.
Amendment 229ZB would similarly seek to add unlawful acts or corporate governance failures as specific matters that Ofcom could take account of when determining, on an ongoing basis, whether an individual or a corporate body satisfies the fit and proper person test, which will include an assessment of those with material influence or control over such bodies. Ofcom can and does take into account such matters and this amendment is therefore unnecessary. There is also a risk that this amendment may potentially narrow Ofcom’s discretion here, although I acknowledge that that is not the noble Lord’s intention.
From a legal standpoint, there is always a danger in seeking narrowly to define the parameters of the law. Indeed, I sought to do just that during our debates on this issue back in 2003. I was seeking to limit the scope—the boundaries—of the Government’s intended plurality test; I wanted the law to be narrowly defined and to target specific circumstances in which the plurality and public interest test could apply. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, disagreed with me, saying that breadth is very important. Of course, it was he who won the day. So I do think it important to take care when trying to narrowly define what does and does not apply, thus narrowing the scope, as that can constrain the whole approach. It is important to take this into account when considering these amendments overall.
The Government therefore believe that the powers introduced in 2003 are sufficiently wide to deal with complex media merger cases which raise public interest concerns and, for this reason, we ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Puttnam
I thank the noble Baroness for an extremely full response. Perhaps I may say several things. First—I probably should have made it clearer—the noble Baroness was extraordinarily helpful and generous to me during the very painful passage of that Bill. On every occasion when I sought some form of compromise, she always came up with a constructive solution. She knows I feel this, because we have discussed it, but I am very happy to pay public tribute to her.
I think that some mistakes were made in 2003. We could not look into the future, and there were things that we were not even allowed to do under our terms of reference. However, it is worth recalling that, yes, it was a government amendment that was passed at Third Reading, but it was passed, as the noble Baroness will remember, because of a crushing defeat on Report.
I have no desire whatever to go through that process again, I promise you. On the other hand, I think I have a sufficient understanding of this House to know that when it comes to the issue of media ownership and any suspicion of undue pressure, this House will again vote overwhelmingly in favour should I press these amendments. I do not think that my amendments as they stand are good enough. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has already hinted at that. I would infinitely prefer the Government to come back and offer the sense of security that I seek. I very much liked the Secretary of State on the one occasion I met her. She is clearly an honourable, decent woman. It would be very helpful for her to be able to say that the standards that she would require of a licensee are exactly the same, and as exacting, as those of a bidder. I think it would be good for the Government.
I was not being silly when I discussed Theresa May’s speech. I found it a very remarkable speech from an incoming Prime Minister. I think she did lay out her stall. I think we have every reason to have expectations that are higher than we had of recent predecessor Governments. I am quite ashamed of some of the things that my own Government did in respect of cosying up to and colluding with media owners. That has got to stop.
There is a wonderful line of Mark Twain’s: “A lie can run around the world while the truth is still trying to put its boots on”. We are living in that world. We are living in a post-truth society. We can no longer afford an over-cosy relationship between the Government of the day and media owners whose job is simply to tell the truth as they see it. That is all I am seeking.
I am very grateful to the Committee. I will happily withdraw this amendment, but I am certain that we will be returning to this subject in the hope that the amendments put forward by the Government will be acceptable to the entire House. I beg leave to withdraw.
“OFCOM: regulation of digital publications
Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must report to each House of Parliament on the arrangements that would need to be made by OFCOM if it were to assume the responsibilities of an independent regulator for digital publications.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this amendment deals with the preparations that will need to be made should we be in the unfortunate situation that was animadverted by Sir Brian Leveson when he finished his part 1 report, if the press self-regulation proposals made in it are not fulfilled.
The current situation is complex, and it may be slightly premature to assume that everything is going to fail, but I think that, of the two types of problem that he identified, the first—that no recognised regulator was appointed within a year of the recognition panel’s being established—has not come through. We have a recognised regulator, and it was approved very recently, within a year of the recognition panel’s being established. That is a good thing, and we should bank on that.
The second problem, however, remains. His feeling was that there would be no value in the self-regulatory proposals he was advocating if significant news publishers remained outside the recognised regulator. That has happened in spades. There is a body established by the industry and largely for the industry, IPSO, which is not seeking recognition under the existing procedures. Therefore, that would, I think, represent a failure in terms of Leveson’s original proposal. We also have a situation in which the recognised regulator is not attracting significant support from the press which might be regulated by it, although it does have some support, and that is good, and we support that. It is not, however, operating at the scale or encompassing sufficient of the broad press, which was the focus of the original report, to be considered a success.
We are facing a problem. The problem was anticipated, and the solution proposed by Lord Justice Leveson at that stage was a backstop regulator. Therefore this amendment—which is limited in terms of the exact wording to the digital media, although it could, I think, be read as more appropriate for the wider situation—is almost certainly going to be required because of the situation I have outlined. Obviously, we regret that. We wish, as we always have, that a properly self-regulatory system could be established. However, it is extraordinary that the press, as Lord Justice Leveson says, benefits from considerable support in statute for the activities that it wants, including a provision in an amendment to this Bill to protect journalists who wish to break stories that were in the public interest and who might otherwise be caught by concerns about data leakage. That is an example of the sorts of ways we have often legislated for and supported the press because everybody believes in a free press and believes that the press should be able to operate within the law and without any constraint. However, we also believe—this is particularly true of those who have been victims of press intrusion into their private lives—that the public will not settle for a situation in which the press escapes standards regulation altogether.
We will therefore face a situation within a few months where it is likely that it will not be possible that the Leveson proposals have been brought in and there is a need for a standards regulator. The standards regulator proposed by Leveson in his report is Ofcom, and there is much in the report which shows and explains why that would be a good thing. My amendment, which I hope the Government will accept, says that it is time to start to think about how this will impact on Ofcom’s work and to bring forward proposals under which that should operate. I beg to move.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, it is four years after the Leveson inquiry, and I certainly believe that Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 should be implemented, and should be implemented now. I voted for it in your Lordships’ House last October and I certainly support the amendments today, which have much the same effect. I also support the fail-safe amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, although I hope that it is not necessary and that Section 40 will be brought in.
Some incredibly misleading statements have been made about the impact of Section 40. Most of the newspapers, as we know, do not support its implementation and have featured some quite amazing one-sided editorials. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has permitted a right of reply. I am the former Member of Parliament for the wonderful city of Bath, which is included in my title, so I am sure that noble Lords will not be surprised that I take a particular interest and am an avid online reader of the Bath Chronicle. Three weeks ago it published one of these anti-Section 40 diatribes. I wrote a rebuttal and asked the Bath Chronicle to publish it. I have not even had an acknowledgement so far—so much for a free press.
Perhaps to explain why I support these amendments, and to ensure it is published—albeit in Hansard rather than in the Bath Chronicle—I will read what I wrote, because it sums up exactly where I stand:
“I am a strong supporter of local newspapers and the Bath Chronicle in particular. But I was surprised by your recent editorial suggesting that measures being considered by parliament will mean that ‘Any investigation in the public interest could be silenced by anyone with a vested interest’. This is a complete misreading of the proposals made by Lord Justice Leveson after the Public Inquiry which followed the appalling phone hacking scandal.
Few could deny that in the past the press had a shocking track record of setting up its own toothless regulators which failed to protect the public. Leveson has proposed that the press should now establish a truly independent regulator whose independence is checked and then ‘recognised’ by a body which is itself impartial and independent from government or the press.
This is what the public want as shown by a YouGov poll just last week. When asked ‘Do you think it is important that any newspaper self-regulator undergoes an audit to ensure it is effective and that it is genuinely independent of both politicians and the press?’ nearly three-quarters (72%) said yes and just 6% said no.
The ‘regulator’ under which the Bath Chronicle operates—called IPSO—doesn’t meet this test. It is not only funded but controlled by the newspapers it regulates.
Were the Chronicle to join a ‘recognised’ regulator, or were IPSO to demonstrate through getting recognised that it met proper standards of independence and effectiveness, the funding issues you describe would not happen. Moreover, the public would be protected and you”—
that is, the Chronicle—
“would receive protection from wealthy and powerful local figures if they tried to bully you into withholding stories about them by threatening you with unaffordable court costs”.
My article ended:
“I hope Parliament will agree to support the public and back Leveson’s proposals”.
I certainly hope the Government will accept the amendments before us today.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for expressing this amendment and also to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. I would say, with respect to his most recent comments, that the test of a free press is not whether or not they publish a letter. Indeed, the fact that they do not publish your letter is itself an expression of freedom.
Amendment 229ZC would require the Government to report to Parliament about the arrangements that would need to be made should Ofcom assume the responsibilities of an independent regulator of digital publications. I acknowledge the care with which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has drafted this amendment. He was quite candid in saying that his real concern is the regulation of the press, but he was equally candid in indicating that, in order to come within scope for the purposes of this Bill, he was not really concerned with all publications by the press but only digital publications.
I see in his amendment an expression of concern—and, indeed, of frustration—over the lack of progress being made towards a viable avenue for press regulation. I am sure that in a sense that, in part, has prompted this amendment. However, he said himself that it might be slightly premature. With respect, I would concur with that observation. It is perhaps too soon—and people will say in response, “Four years after Leveson, is anything too soon?”—but we have to remember that the press landscape has altered quite dramatically over the last four or five years. That is reflected in the fact that certain matters have gone out for consultation—particularly with regard to Section 40, which is going to be raised in a later amendment—albeit that the consultation process has been somewhat stymied by an application for judicial review.
I move on to the core of the present amendment, which is the idea that we should move towards—and this was a backstop of Lord Leveson’s report—Ofcom as a regulator. The idea that Ofcom should regulate digital publications—albeit with “digital publications” not being a defined term, and I make nothing of that—has behind it the real push that Ofcom should become the regulator for the press. As I understand it, that is essentially what lies behind the amendment.
Let us remember that Ofcom already has huge responsibilities as a regulator, many of which we have debated over the last week. Among other things, it has to ensure that we have fast broadband connections, competition decisions, such as the current consideration of the future of Openreach, which has been referred to, and spectrum management, including forthcoming auctions. We have also discussed today its new role in respect of the BBC and its function in managing listed events, and we have heard from my noble friend Lord Borwick in respect of Ofcom’s regulatory functions and in respect of subtitles and the accessibility of on-demand services. There is plenty more, over and above that, that Ofcom does, and that is without even going into the question of postal regulatory functions.
We have the greatest respect for Ofcom as a regulator, but the question arises about how much more we can put on its plate. This amendment seeks to pile on more. For the first time, it would be setting a regulatory requirement on Ofcom, in statute, in relation to internet content, which is not TV-like, if I may use that rather crude term. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe has already made clear, moving to a situation in which Ofcom is a regulator of a broad range of online content would be an enormous undertaking for Ofcom, or indeed for any other regulatory body.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his full response. I am sorry that he guessed the plot rather early on in the game: I am guilty as charged. It was very hard to get anything on this into the scope of the Bill. There seems to have been a change of management upstairs in the Public Bill Office and they are much tougher than they used to be, and we will have to have a think about that.
Anyway, the reason for including the amendment was to have the debate that we have just had to find out a little more about the Government’s thinking, and to flag up that it is worth thinking about how we can recapture some of the cross-party spirit that informed the process leading up to the original Leveson proposal and, out of that, the statutory position we are now in. However, as the noble and learned Lord says, we may be a bit premature on that. You can never plan too far ahead, but it is cautious optimism to think that the department has begun thinking about these things. That is as far as we want to get on this. Following this good exchange, which can be read in Hansard, and the sense that we are at least on the same page, if not the same sentence, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Offence of using digital ticket purchasing software to purchase excessive number of tickets
(1) A person commits an offence if he or she utilises digital ticket purchasing software to purchase tickets over and above the number permitted in the condition of sale.(2) A person commits an offence if he or she knowingly resells or offers to resell, or allows to be resold or offered for resale on a secondary ticketing facility, a ticket that the person knows, or could reasonably suspect, was obtained using digital ticket purchasing software and was acting in the course of a business.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) a person shall be treated as acting in the course of a business if he or she does anything as a result of which he or she makes a profit or aims to make a profit.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—(a) imprisonment for a period not exceeding 51 weeks,(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or(c) both.(5) In this section—“digital ticket purchasing software” means any machine, device, computer programme or computer software that, on its own or with human assistance, bypasses security measures or access control systems on a retail ticket purchasing platform that assist in implementing a limit on the number of tickets that can be purchased, to purchase tickets;“retail ticket purchasing platform” shall mean a retail ticket purchasing website, application, phone system, or other technology platform used to sell tickets.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, before I introduce the amendment, I wonder whether we could reflect on the fact that we are missing rather an important person from the debate. The noble Baroness Heyhoe Flint was a keen and active Member of your Lordships’ House. She had several special interests apart from cricket and a wonderful raconteur’s skill of telling stories of her exploits at the crease. She was rather good at it. Whatever it was, it was always a delight to hear. She had a special interest in secondary ticketing, and in many of the debates held in your Lordships’ House on this issue, she was present and often contributed. She was responsible, along with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whom I see in his place, for getting changes made to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which brought in the first of what we hope will be a series of measures to improve and clear up this issue.
The amendment to the Consumer Rights Bill that we inserted in 2015 raised from a secondary legislation provision to a primary legislation provision a series of measures to improve and clear up the secondary ticketing market. It was done primarily to ensure that those who buy tickets for sports, arts and music events can do so in the sure and certain knowledge that their tickets are valid, that they will be able to gain access to what they want to see and that they are not being ripped off in the process.
It is fair to say that we got this only after a considerable struggle—and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, might wish to share with us some of the difficulties that he experienced—but one of the things that was necessary in order to achieve that victory was to agree to a report on secondary ticketing to be carried out by a distinguished person. That person was Professor Waterson. He has now done that and the report has come out. Those involved are entitled to take a moment to reflect on the fact that what we were saying in Committee on the Bill and what we did in moving amendments and getting them inserted into what became the Act was brought out by the professor’s report, which was a comprehensive piece of work that showed that the scale of the issue was as we described it and that there was a need for further action.
The Bill before us is an opportunity to do more work, and the group of amendments that I am introducing—and for which I am hoping to get support from the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Foster of Bath, and others as we go through it—is a mixed bag because there are still things that need to be sorted out. An issue that arose in the other place and which was very nearly accepted by the Government was the question of an offence caused by using digital ticket-purchasing software—so-called bots. They are a scourge of many people who organise and run events—particularly in the music industry, but they apply right across the piece. Automated software operated by a number of individuals creates a situation where virtually no tickets are available on the first release of an event, but they then appear very quickly at very much higher prices through secondary ticket outlets. This amendment would, we hope, stamp this out. It has been tried in a number of territories, including New York very recently, and it does seem to work, so we recommend that.
The other amendments deal with changes that we would like to see to improve the broader approach taken in the Consumer Rights Act which, in practice, needs to be taken to another stage. They are basically to do with greater transparency and accountability in how the secondary ticket market works. It is really important, however, that we get clear at the start that nothing in these amendments would stop the resale of tickets once purchased by an individual who wished to sell them because they could not attend the event or that they wanted to sell them on to other people in a closed circle. This is not about private purchases or operations. It is about those who go into the ticket market on a commercial basis, very often making huge amounts of money by exploiting people who do not understand and cannot get to the heart of the issue and therefore pay ridiculous prices. It also would help stamp out what is clearly a fraudulent activity that has been partially stopped by the changes made in 2015 but has not stopped completely. People buy what look on the surface to be valid tickets, but when they turn up at the venue they discover that they are not valid and are refused entry. This is fraud on an industrial scale, and probably the source of much money laundering and illegal activity, which was referred to by the police in their Podium report prior to the 2012 Olympics.
These amendments should be taken as a batch; they build on work in which this House has already been involved and they are the right changes to make this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support the seven amendments in this group spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I echo that it is particularly appropriate in many ways, albeit very sad, that we debate the often malicious and pernicious use of bots on the sad day of the funeral of my very close friend Lady Rachael Heyhoe Flint. One afternoon, she was purposefully striding down the Corridor outside the Peers’ Guest Room, and said, “I need you”. I jumped to attention and we headed off to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I was totally unaware of why I was accompanying her on that occasion, or indeed the matter proposed for discussion. Rachael launched into a thinly veiled, front-foot attack on those in and around the secondary market, who fleece consumers to no benefit to cricketers, musicians, sportsmen and sportswomen, who are the ones who entertain them. Through her hard work and persuasive skills, I was galvanised into action. I thank the Government for the progress that we made in the Consumer Rights Bill at the time, as well as the Opposition and noble Lords from all sides of the House.
That was just a first yet important step. Today is the second opportunity to make further progress. I was very sad not to be at Rachael’s funeral today to pay my close personal, political and sporting respects, but she would have been the first to admonish me. She would have said, “Why on earth are you not down in Westminster putting on your pads, your gloves and picking up your bat, and going into the centre of the parliamentary wicket to hit those bots for six?”. I will do my best, captain. I will do my best. In paying tribute to her, because she was absolutely instrumental in the work that we undertook during the passage of that Bill, I must also pay tribute to Nigel Adams, Member of Parliament in another place, who has taken this to his heart and has done so much good work.
The whole issue of bots goes right to the heart of the disappointment of thousands of music and sporting fans who have on occasion faced the reality of having their credit card ready in their hand with minutes to go before the sale of tickets for a particular gig or match but no sooner do they go on sale than they sell out. Minutes later, tickets can be spotted on reselling websites. The new, hidden threat that is snatching tickets from under the noses of genuine fans is ticketing bots.
Music and sports fans have always battled against touts buying up tickets to make a quick buck by selling them on again at inflated prices. But now touts have a new cyberweapon that allows them to step up their game. These ticketing bots are software; they buy up huge numbers of tickets for events as soon as they go on sale. Buyers then use the secondary websites to sell them on. Reg Walker, who has done an enormous amount of good work on this at the O2, stated:
“They then harvest tickets at high speed and that effectively blocks out genuine fans from being able to purchase tickets at face value. These tickets are then immediately resold on secondary ticketing platforms”.
What then happens is that those who are sitting in their garages using bots programmed with all this information press the button immediately and get their 200 tickets, and sell them on to one of the four secondary platforms where nearly 80% to 90% of resale now takes place. In so doing, they do not necessarily always get all the tickets they want. Their preferred status and good relationship with the platform is critical to their next sale. So, if necessary, they will have the income on a very high-price ticket with a high margin to go out and counterfeit tickets to make up the gap between those they have committed to supply and the actual number that they have. That is why the wholesale harvesting of tickets by touts not only incentivises these individuals to create relationships with the main providers of the secondary market tickets, the providers even develop power-seller programmes to encourage the delivery of mass tickets.
This is all at the same time that you are trying to type in your name in order to get a couple of tickets, as the true fan of a music show at the O2 or a sporting event. The reality is that you have no chance. We have all tried it; I have tried it on many occasions and cannot believe that they have sold out before I have got down my name, address, credit card number and so on. It is no surprise, though, when bots are available purely for the benefit of the profit of the individual. No artists, no sportsmen and no fans benefit. That mark- up goes straight into the pocket of the individual who has got the ticket and the secondary sales platforms that provide those tickets at inflated prices to consumers.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Moynihan. I shall speak to Amendment 231 and express my support for Amendments 230 and 233B to 233E. Despite the lateness of the hour, I hope that the Minister will not mind my adding my tribute to the late Baroness Heyhoe Flint. She will be greatly missed, and it was moving to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, had to say. In a sense it is a complete loss not to have her here today to speak to these amendments because we know that she would have made a passionate case for all of them, so we are here to help move forward this campaign. I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse. Together with other noble Lords, I debated these matters on the Consumer Rights Bill and I feel strongly that we must move on from where we are today. I want to make a few comments in connection with the amendments for that reason.
The market in ticket resale is some £1 billion per annum across music, sports, theatre and comedy, and it is a very lucrative business. There is increasing evidence that it is a market manipulated by touts. We have listened to the egregious examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Fans who want to buy tickets for the events that are most highly in demand are systematically directed towards platforms like viagogo, StubHub, Get Me In and Seatwave, where scalpers and bot users are able to operate anonymously and bulk-sell inventory at hyped-up prices. Another example to add to those already given is the latest in a long line of victims: Ed Sheeran fans attempting to buy tickets last week for his upcoming UK arena shows. I looked at the ticket listings for his concert at the O2 on 2 May and counted almost 1,500 tickets for sale across Get Me In, Seatwave, StubHub and viagogo, all for prices way over face value, with service fees in excess of 20%.
Ed Sheeran has publicly condemned ticket touts and before these shows went on sale he carefully communicated to his audience to buy only from authorised ticket agents. He also appointed a resale agent to enable fans to transfer tickets at face value, yet touts still infiltrated the sale. No wonder people are so angry: they feel the system is rigged. An industry campaign, the FanFair Alliance, is fast gathering support, and I am very grateful to it for helping brief us all for this debate. Fans themselves are petitioning the Government. More than 33,000 have signed a parliamentary petition in the last week, begging politicians to tackle this issue. Of course, we have debated this in Parliament. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee held a short inquiry which came to the conclusion late last year that action was needed. The committee chair has described ticket touting as “a national scandal” and a massive racket which is making people in the industry millions, while exploiting genuine fans who just want to pay a fair price to attend live events.
The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Stevenson, mentioned the report undertaken for the Government by Professor Michael Waterson, which raised major concerns. He made nine recommendations to the Government, yet here we are eight months later and despite some encouraging words in the other place, particularly about bots, the Government have yet to respond. Legislation, even the inadequate legislation we managed to get the Government to agree to on the Consumer Rights Bill, is still not being enforced. All the secondary ticketing sites that I mentioned still operate without a shred of transparency. How many more members of the public will be ripped off before the Government decide to take action? There is clearly an urgent need for government intervention in this market, to push forward the handful of decisive actions which are all reflected in the range of amendments being tabled today.
We know that the amendment on bots is similar to the one put forward in the House of Commons, and I want to add the name of Sharon Hodgson to that of Nigel Adams, because she has played a major role in the campaign in the other place.
Lord Moynihan
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way because it gives me the opportunity of declaring my interest as co-chair with Sharon Hodgson of the all-party group. I echo the view that without her extraordinary energy, a lot of the cross-party support in another place would not have been secured. We should recognise that as an important contribution today.
Lord Clement-Jones
I thank the noble Lord for that. I will not go into the detail—it has been very well described by the two noble Lords—but measures to criminalise the use of bots were implemented last year in New York, and have since been extended to many other states. Why should the US have better legislation that we do? At a minimum, we would like to see similar legislation implemented and enforced in the UK.
I should speak very briefly to Amendment 231, because it is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. This amendment would give artists and event organisers greater control over who is authorised to resell their tickets. It would add to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 a provision requiring online secondary ticketing platforms to resell tickets only for events where they were the authorised resale agent. I realise, of course, that it needs further work—it probably does not quite deliver the purpose for which it was intended—but it does have very considerable support in principle, particularly, interestingly, from the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre, both of which have written to express their support. It would place further control on the UK secondary ticketing market, putting the power back into the hands of the promoters of events to control their own ticketing by allowing resale only via authorised secondary ticketing websites, in a similar way to how an event organiser currently appoints a primary ticketing agent or agents. This amendment would allow them, if they chose to, to also appoint a secondary ticketing agent or agents to enable ticket resale. This is an important measure that, if we get the drafting right, could have a major impact.
All the measures contained in these amendments are what most sensible people would view as pragmatic steps that should help protect consumers without any real risk of unintended consequences. The only losers will be the touts. Why should audiences in the UK get anything less than the best protection? I hope that the Government will continue to move forward in this area and listen to the arguments being made. Quite apart from responding to the amendments, I very much hope that the Minister can give us some idea of when the Government will respond on Waterson—it is high time that we had a proper answer on those recommendations. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Earl of Glasgow (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 230 and 231, to which my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Foster of Bath have put their names. I am very aware of the time, so I am going to be very brief. Most of what I wanted to say has already been said. The intention of the two amendments, as I understand them, is to help prevent fans who are keen to attend a concert, sporting event or popular West End show from being misled or ripped off when they buy their tickets from a secondary market on the internet.
The first choice, of course, is to buy tickets directly from the theatre, sporting venue or event organiser. This is known as the primary market, where people pay the advertised price and there should be no problem. But if someone has trouble getting tickets from a primary source they may find themselves resorting to one of the secondary market websites—StubHub and viagogo are two of the best known. The buyer is now in a sort of digital marketplace where buying and selling is the name of the game. If they are lucky they may find what they are looking for but still have to pay considerably more than the face value of the tickets. If they are very lucky, close to the date of the event, they may even have to pay less than the original price. None the less, they have entered a world where fraudsters and touts thrive.
Tickets for popular events may already have been bought up by groups that are only out to make a profit by reselling them. Sometimes many of the tickets have already been hoovered up by bots and offered at an extortionate price. Of course people can always refuse to buy them, but there are those who are want a ticket at any price. Mark McLaren of FanFair has stated that online event ticketing started as a great idea, has grown into a very big business and has now become no less than a racket.
These important amendments attempt to contain and control that racket. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 addresses the issue and tries to regulate those practices, but as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, we seem to be having trouble in enforcing the law. One of the problems is that many of the secondary ticket websites are registered abroad. The recently commissioned Waterson report has made recommendations that should improve the situation, but even that report had to admit that this is a very complex issue, with a lot of potential loopholes. If my noble friend’s amendments can be agreed, that would be an important step in the right direction.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I too would, of course, like to pay tribute, on behalf of the Government, to Baroness Heyhoe Flint today. I agree that it is particularly appropriate that we should be discussing this subject today.
In 2015 this House acknowledged the complexity of online ticketing by including the requirement for a review of consumer protection measures relating to online secondary ticketing in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Professor Michael Waterson conducted that review, and his independent report makes a number of points relevant to these amendments. I will come to the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in a minute.
First, Professor Waterson does not recommend a ban on the secondary ticketing market, recognising instead its benefit to consumers. Amendment 231, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the unauthorised resale of tickets, could in effect ban the secondary ticketing market. There would be no obligation for organisers to approve a resale platform, or to accept returns. As a result there would be no outlet to recoup money for those who found they could not attend an event. Consumers could be left unable to sell any tickets they cannot use, other than through the black market. That would expose buyers and sellers to much greater risk of fraud than using the online secondary ticketing market, which has safeguards and guarantees built in.
Significant market intervention should be carefully considered and consistently applied. Professor Waterson calls for the existing provisions of the Consumer Rights Act to be enforced and tested. We should therefore welcome and await the outcome of the recently announced enforcement investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am glad the Minister has mentioned the work of the CMA, but is he aware, as I hope he is, that the CMA enforcement activity was on the previous Act, not the current one? In other words, the undertakings it obtained related to previous legislation; it specifically did not and could not look at the situation post the Consumer Rights Act 2015 since it was not in force at the time they got those undertakings.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I agree with the noble Lord on that. The fact is that the enforcement activity is under way. We think it would be the wrong time, but I hope later to be not entirely discouraging.
Lord Clement-Jones
I am sorry to press the Minister further even at this late hour, but I do not quite understand. Presumably there is a conclusion to the review of the enforcement activity by the CMA, saying whether the enforcement activity is adequate, effective or whatever. Is there a timescale associated with this CMA review?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am afraid I do not know what the timescale is. Obviously there will be a conclusion, but I do not know at the moment. I will find out and let the noble Lord know if it is possible to know that.
To add to the Act now while the investigation is under way would serve only to undermine it. We must allow the CMA to carry out its investigation without interfering with the law it seeks to enforce. To do so will simply provide further grounds for those being challenged to resist.
I also have some specific grounds on each of the individual amendments, but in view of the hour, if the noble Lord agrees, and in view of what I hope I will say to help him, if I omit those details on the individual ones we can move on. I understand the aim of these amendments—to ensure compliance with the Consumer Rights Act—but this is already under way and we must await the outcome.
On Amendment 230, concerning the use of ticketing bots, the offences set out in the Computer Misuse Act have broad application. Unauthorised use of a computerised ticketing system may give rise to breaches of that Act. We are of the view that it may also constitute an offence under the Fraud Act. Professor Waterson believed that such breaches need to be reported and investigated. He puts the onus on ticket vendors to guard against the harvesting of tickets by persons with no intention of attending the event. He called on the ticketing industry to do more to protect itself and, with government support, the new National Cyber Security Centre is in touch with ticketing organisations on cybersecurity.
Professor Waterson also stressed the importance of having an effective strategy that deters bot usage. For example, paperless options such as mobile phone ticketing, or a bank card doubling up as a ticket, can make it harder to carry out mass ticket purchasing. Notably, this strategy was employed for the sale of tickets to the musical “Hamilton” in London.
The Government understand the spirit in which these amendments are made and the Secretary of State recently held two round tables specifically on the issue of bots. While noting there are a number of industry-led solutions available, we recognise it is hugely frustrating for fans who miss out on tickets sold on the primary market only to see them disappear on the secondary ticketing market at sometimes hugely increased prices. That is why we will continue to reflect on what has been said by all noble Lords regarding the Government’s response to Professor Waterson’s report, which will be published very soon. Furthermore, we will continue to consider the specific issue of bots and whether there is scope for further government intervention in this area. I hope to be able to update your Lordships on this shortly. With that commitment, I hope noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Glass half full or glass half empty? I am not quite sure what to make of that. Sometimes the Minister’s choice of words is helpful and informative, light is suddenly shone across the Table and we understand where he is going. I was a bit lost on that, but I think he was saying, “Hold on for a bit, and more will be revealed”. That is the first point. Waterson is clearly the key to it and the response will presumably set out some of the agenda we might want to pursue, either with the Government or separately, if we have to come back on Report.
It would be in everyone’s best interest if those key players who have been involved up to now could meet with the Minister, perhaps soon after the Recess, to try to hammer out what is and is not possible. Bills such as this do not come past very often. There is an opportunity to do something that will fit within the strictures of the Public Bill Office and therefore will be allowable. It would be an awful shame not to get the incremental changes that we think are necessary to fulfil the ambition behind the original Consumer Rights Act, the amendments and changes and the report of Professor Waterson. It would be to the benefit of fans who have called for it.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Of course, as I said right at the beginning on day one, I am always open to meeting the noble Lord and other noble Lords. I am happy to do so. I think Report will be some weeks after the Recess, so we have some time.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am heartened by that and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Active consent of online buyers required for retention and use of contact information
(1) A seller of goods or services via the internet must not retain, share or use any contact information provided by buyers for any purpose except directly facilitating the sale of the good or service, unless the buyer has actively consented to the retention, sharing or use of the information. (2) For the condition in subsection (1) to be satisfied, the seller must have specified any purposes to which the buyer is consenting.(3) The condition in subsection (1) may be satisfied by the buyer ticking a box on the seller’s web page, but it may not be satisfied by the buyer failing to untick such a box which has been pre-filled. (4) A seller who contravenes the requirement in subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 10% of the seller’s annual gross operating profit.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I will try to be brief because the hour is late. I should also say that this amendment probably has one part missing. In my role as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum, I have become aware of the large number of people who are subject to fraud through scams and through “suckers lists” which are compiled and which circulate for a great deal of money among criminal gangs. Unfortunately, these have often originated because people have purchased something online, have provided their details and have not opted out of those details being shared with others who may have like-minded sales intentions, partners or whatever.
One of the problems is that, when they are purchasing online, a lot of people really do not understand which boxes they should have clicked on—such as terms and conditions—and which they should have unclicked. So the point of this amendment is to try to require anyone selling any item online to have a box that has to be opted into for a mailing list, rather than the current opting-out system.
Where the amendment is deficient is that it does not stipulate that such permission should be time limited. I hope the Minister will point out to me that it should be time limited for a year, so that the criteria should be even tighter than in my amendment.
I think that enforcement would have to come through the Information Commissioner’s Office, rather than trading standards, but I am grateful to the trading standards workforce for having discussed this issue with me at length, as have social work leaders.
I know that the general data protection regulation will come into force across the European Union on 25 May 2018. This will replace the European data protection directive. It is associated with severe financial penalties for non-compliance. Despite our Brexit arguments, I would expect that, because of this timing, we should also be adopting this data protection regulation. I would be interested to know from the Minister whether that is correct. Coming in with it is law enforcement data protection—directive 2016/680—on protecting personal data processed for law enforcement purposes. This will replace the data protection framework decision 2008. It appears that this directive must be transposed into national law by member states by 6 May 2018. Again, there is a question over whether this will be coming into force. If both of these come into force fully, they may cover this area, although that is unclear and I cannot help feeling that it would be much better for us to get it in our own legislation first.
So that we are aware of the size of the problem, the national scams team has a current database of more than 240,000 people on suckers lists, which is growing all the time because data are intercepted by enforcement bodies and reveal that more and more people have had their data sold on in this way, often by criminal gangs, who then go on to target people and groom them. Many of the people targeted are lonely, isolated citizens who are confused by the opt-in/opt-out. They do not see the small print and they do not understand the significance. The amendment, I hope, would solve the problem. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I begin by apologising to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that she is, for the second time running, almost a tail-end Charlie. It was the same on Monday evening and she was extremely gracious in waiting for so long for us to get to her amendment. I welcome her amendment, which highlights an issue that most of us here are acutely aware of when buying goods and services online; namely, the consequence of not ticking a box or, in some cases, unticking a box.
The proposed new clause imposes a fine not exceeding 10% of a seller’s annual gross operating profit if a seller of goods and services on the internet were to retain, share or use the contact information of a buyer without the buyer’s consent to do so. It also makes it a requirement that websites provide a tick-box which is not pre-filled, as a means by which an individual can demonstrate their acceptance of having their contact information processed by the seller.
Although I accept the spirit of the amendment, I do not believe it is necessary, for the following reasons. Clause 77 already places a statutory duty on the Information Commissioner to publish a direct marketing code of practice. Putting the ICO’s direct marketing code of practice on a statutory footing will make it easier for the Information Commissioner to take enforcement action against those organisations in breach of the direct marketing rules under the Data Protection Act and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations. The current direct marketing rules are also clear, stating as follows:
“Organisations will need to be able to demonstrate that consent was knowingly and freely given, clear and specific, and should keep clear records of consent. The ICO recommends that opt-in boxes are used”.
The general data protection regulation—GDPR—which will come into force in May 2018 will introduce tough new measures on consent and will place obligations on data controllers to demonstrate clearly how they obtained consent when processing personal data, such as contact information. Silence or pre-ticked boxes as a form of consent will not be permitted under the GDPR. The GDPR will also allow tougher penalties to be imposed on organisations in breach of the rules: up to 4% of the organisation’s total global annual turnover, or €20 million.
The noble Baroness also suggested that the time limit for retaining personal information should be limited, for example, to a year. The reality is that time is not specified: one should hold on to the information only as long as is necessary to process payment or whatever the application is made for. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I thank the Minister for that reply and for welcoming the spirit of the amendment. Just for the record, the reason for specifying a year if someone has opted into the mailing list is that over time their circumstances might change. They might want to withdraw their consent but not be clear about how to do it. I hope the Information Commissioner will consider that. People might also lose cognitive function over time and therefore become much more vulnerable to scams than they were when they opted in. So I hope that a time limit is also introduced. However, on the basis of the Government’s response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollins
“Awards of costs in respect of legal claims made in relation to digitally published news-related material
(1) This section applies where—(a) a relevant claim is made against a person (“the defendant”),(b) the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time, and(c) the claim is related to the publication of news-related material which is published on a website.(2) If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (or was unable to be a member at that time for reasons beyond the defendant’s control or it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must not award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—(a) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or(b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant.(3) If the defendant was not a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (but would have been able to be a member at that time and it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—(a) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or(b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.(4) This section is not to be read as limiting any power to make rules of court.(5) For the purposes of this section—“relevant publisher” has the same meaning as in section 41 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013;“relevant claim”, “news-related material”, “material time” and “approved regulator” have the same meanings as in section 42 of that Act;“publication” has the same meaning as in section 42(9)(a) of that Act.”
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and my family decided that I should give evidence on their behalf—believing undertakings by the former Prime Minister that Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations would be implemented. One of those recommendations, as we were all aware, was Section 40 of the Crown and Courts Act 2013, which Parliament enacted with cross-party support, but which the Government have so far failed to commence. This leaves victims of press abuse without affordable access to justice and leaves the royal charter hamstrung with no incentives for its use.
In response to the Government’s failure to follow through on their undertakings, I tabled amendments to the then Investigatory Powers Bill to replace Section 40 of the Crown and Courts Act with a similar provision. Government Ministers and others, in resisting those amendments, suggested that the Digital Economy Bill would be a better vehicle to resolve the matter—particularly because of the urgent nature of the Investigatory Powers Bill. Although my amendments were in scope and the Bill had been amended with a large majority by your Lordships’ House, I agreed to withdraw them when they were returned by the other place.
I will very briefly explain the effect of the amendment I am proposing today. It would make a similar provision to that in Section 40 in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 in so far as is possible within the scope of this Bill. Lord Justice Leveson recommended that all newspapers should join an independently approved regulator that is independent and effective, and that such a regulator would offer guaranteed, low-cost arbitration as a cheap route to justice for the press and free for the public. If a newspaper refused to join a system that Lord Justice Leveson set out and to offer low-cost arbitration, the judge said that, in order to prevent the power and work of newspapers being used to bully and intrude on ordinary members of the public, the newspaper would have to shoulder the court costs of any claim brought successfully against it. To avoid having to meet the costs of claims brought against it, and indeed to benefit from costs protection if sued in court, a publisher need only join a recognised regulator and resolve any claim far more cheaply through that regulator’s arbitration system.
It is this provision that the former Secretary of State decided not to commence. The amendment I am moving today would bring a Section 40 lookalike into effect for online publications. That would include, of course, the major print publishers, which all have significant news websites. Given that it relates only to the online publication of libels or other illegal abuses as they relate to online publication, it is slightly narrower in effect than the provision agreed by Parliament in 2013. It is a weaker substitute for Section 40. But in the absence of any of the access to justice which Section 40 would provide for families and individuals attacked unfairly by the press, it is far better than nothing at all.
The Government may argue that a consultation on these matters is ongoing. Lord Justice Leveson consulted publicly throughout 2011 and 2012. Section 40 was one of his many recommendations. My family and I went through the traumatic process of giving evidence at Leveson because we expected that his recommendations would be taken seriously. The consultation now being considered in private, with a government Minister presiding over it, does not, to be honest, inspire the same confidence.
My second amendment, Amendment 234A, simply provides for immediate commencement for reasons that I do not need to explain. I hope that the Committee will support these probing amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments because they provide the Government with yet another opportunity to deliver on their commitments to the victims of press abuse and bring this critical access-to-justice measure into force.
Amendment 233F would not bring Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act into force in full, as we have heard. That is regrettable but it is as much as can be done within the scope of the Bill. However, it will demonstrate to the Government that this matter is not going to go away, and that people like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will keep bringing back amendments such as this and seeking to insert them into any Bill into which they can plausibly be inserted until the Government keep their promises to the victims of press abuse.
It is now almost four years since the cross-party agreement was reached and Section 40 was enacted by Parliament. This House, as the noble Baroness reminded us, voted for it again as an amendment to the Investigatory Powers Bill before Christmas. The press lobby believes that by intimidating the Government with the threat of negative headlines and causing maximum delay, it can prevent it coming into effect. I support the amendment because I do not believe that people such as Mr Murdoch are sovereign and because I do not believe that the Government should override the will of Parliament to placate the interests of newspaper owners.
The consultation that the Government have launched, which has recently ended, is offensive to the victims of press abuse, whose evidence was accepted by Lord Justice Leveson, and should be offensive to Parliament, which enacted this measure in 2013. The former Prime Minister David Cameron, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has again reminded us, undertook to implement Leveson’s recommendations unless they were “manifestly bonkers”. Retrospective consultations to undermine the recommendations of a public inquiry whose recommendations were not manifestly bonkers, as well as the will of Parliament, are an affront to any understanding of what is meant by “good governance”. It is no wonder that the consultation exercise is facing a legal challenge.
I hope that the Government will keep their promises and implement Section 40 without delay, and I hope that they are under no illusion about the strength of feeling on all sides of the House on this matter. There may not be too many people here at this hour to demonstrate that, but the Government should make no mistake: it is the case. I attended a meeting the other evening where constructive proposals were discussed that seemed to some of us to have the makings of a settlement between those pressing for the implementation of Section 40 and the newspaper editors. Surely the Government should be trying to broker such an agreement instead of just sitting on their hands. Until they do, as I say, amendments such as this will keep coming back.
Lord Prescott (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. We have been in similar situations on previous legislation regarding the matter of Section 40. The noble Baroness said that she had an interest to declare. I declare that I gave evidence to Leveson about the phone tapping that the police and press did on my phone—so if that is an interest, I record it.
The important point today, though, is that we are not talking about creating a new piece of legislation; we are talking about implementing what both Houses of Parliament agreed is the law of the land. The only thing preventing the implementation of that section of the Crime and Courts Act is the fact that the Government are not prepared to implement the regulation necessary to see it implemented. In earlier debates—I quite understand why—I heard Ministers say, “This isn’t the appropriate piece of legislation”. They were probably right, but the relevant legislation has already been passed. It was agreed unanimously by both Houses of Parliament but for one reason or another the Government are refusing to implement it.
I received a letter today from Christopher Jefferies—now a well-known person to us all—asking if I would be attending this debate. In it he said:
“As you may know, I was a victim of gross press intrusion and libel after my tenant Joanna Yeates’ tragic death in 2010. Some newspapers effectively accused me of her murder, and made other appallingly false allegations and insinuations. I subsequently gave evidence at the Leveson Inquiry”.
He is one of many who cannot understand why—if Parliament has passed this legislation and it was agreed unanimously, by all party leaders and the Prime Minister—we do not implement it, why there is a refusal to do so. I know that I am likely to be told, “We have started a process of consultation; the department is looking at the Leveson proposals”, but I cannot give an answer to Mr Jefferies or any of the others, although I have a suspicion that the influence on the Government is coming from the Murdoch press, which is quite central to all this and which has—as noble Lords will have seen in the papers—many meetings with senior Ministers. A meeting between Murdoch and Thatcher led to his buying the Times, and a recent meeting between Murdoch and May in New York led to the reconsideration of the Leveson proposals that are embodied in the royal charter.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, it is late, and I do not want to repeat myself. I am sure that the noble Baroness, the noble Lord and the whole of that long Front Bench—almost as numerous as the rest of the House at this hour—know this issue not going to go away. This retrospective consultation does not do the Government honour. I hope that they will take some action.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, again, given the lateness of the hour, I simply say that our views are well known, that we have supported the implementation of Section 40 in a number of previous debates in this Chamber, and on that basis we support the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I will address Amendments 233F and 234A together. The amendments, of course, mirror Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 but would apply to digitally published news-related material only, as we know. The House has debated the issue of Section 40 on various recent occasions, including during passage of the Investigatory Powers Act and the Policing and Crime Act. There was also a stand-alone debate just before the Christmas Recess.
There is obviously a great strength of feeling about this matter. I realise that some Members of this House are frustrated by what they see as a lack of progress by government on Section 40. However, the Committee should also recall the strength of feeling on the other side of the debate. Many noble Lords have argued passionately in this House against Section 40 and are concerned about its commencement and its impact upon freedom of the press. That is why the Government ran a consultation to consider the matter further.
The press self-regulatory landscape has changed significantly in the past four years since the Leveson inquiry reported. It is right that the Government take stock, look at the changes which have already taken place and seek the views of all interested parties on the most effective way to ensure that the inexcusable practices which led to the Leveson inquiry being established can never happen again.
A consultation was the most appropriate way to ensure that the Government were listening to all views when considering options for the next step in respect of Section 40. Indeed, the consultation closed on 10 January, and it is estimated that we have received more than 140,000 responses. I know that many Members of this House responded to the consultation, and of course we are grateful that they took the time to do that, but many others have responded as well. It will be necessary to consider the many and diverse views that have been expressed with regard to this matter.
As many Members of the Committee will know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, mentioned, the consultation is now subject to a legal challenge. While I cannot comment on the ongoing legal proceedings, the Government have committed not to take any final decisions on the matters to which the consultation relates until the judicial review application has been determined. As such, it is not possible for me to set out a timetable for when the Government will respond to the consultation. But of course we hope that that judicial review application will be determined much sooner than later.
That brings me on to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. The issues that she has raised are of critical importance. I appreciate that she and her family were themselves the subject of press abuse, as were other Members of this House. I also recognise the strength of feeling that parties have on the commencement of Section 40. However, with respect, now is not the right time for this House to consider the present amendment.
News consumption is becoming increasingly global and more and more people are reading their news online from a multitude of sources from around the world. Bringing in a law that effectively mirrors Section 40 but for relevant digital publications only would create an incoherent regime applying different rules depending on the mechanism by which an article has been published.
Noble Lords who have supported these amendments have raised the profile of this issue and given a clear signal of their intent—and of their continuing intent. This has not gone unnoticed in government. But we must ensure that we consider this matter properly. As I said before, a free press is an essential component of a fully functioning democracy and we must ensure that we protect that. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, said about the position in Ireland. I am not in a position to express a view as to the manner in which that operates but I am perfectly content to indicate that we will look at that going forward as well. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord. At this stage, however, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. My hope is for a free and responsible press. However, what is most disappointing for the public is that over the last four years of inertia and of the press’s failure to establish a proper regulator, countless more individuals have been affected by press abuse and have no access to redress. They include victims from the Paris Bataclan attack, the Shoreham air disaster, and many more. This issue is still live and is still troubling. All these individuals have been let down by the Government’s decision to renege on their promises and to prevent access to justice for ordinary victims of press abuse. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response and I intend to return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Buscombe
“( ) section (Prevention or restriction of use of communication devices for drug dealing);”
Baroness Buscombe
“( ) Chapter 5 of Part 5, so far as relating to the disclosure of information by the Welsh Revenue Authority, comes into force on whatever day the Welsh Ministers appoint by regulations made by statutory instrument.”
“( ) Chapter 1 of Part 5, so far as relating to the disclosure of information to or by a water or sewerage undertaker for an area which is wholly or mainly in Wales, comes into force on whatever day the Welsh Minsters appoint by regulations made by statutory instrument.”
Baroness Buscombe
“( ) Sections (Disclosure of information to water and sewerage undertakers) and (Disclosure of information by water and sewerage undertakers) extend to England and Wales only.”
Baroness Buscombe
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 8th February 2017
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 View all European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 8 February 2017 - (8 Feb 2017)