House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury attended a Joint Exchequer Committee with the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Constitution in November. They discussed the ongoing work between both Governments to implement these and other powers. There are, of course, regular and ongoing discussions between officials from both Governments.
Edward Argar
Does my hon. Friend agree that these taxation powers, coupled with other powers that have been devolved to Holyrood, make it one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world? Does she also agree that, quite rightly, they make the Scottish Government accountable for their actions in respect of taxation, and that the Scottish Government are responsible for making Scotland the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom?
Jane Ellison
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The new devolution settlement does indeed deliver one of the most powerful and accountable devolved Parliaments in the world, and the people of Scotland will look to their Government to use those tax powers wisely to make Scotland as competitive and attractive a place as possible in which to do business. We obviously want the Scottish Government to use those powers to deliver that and it is for them to choose how they use them, but they do have to account for their use to the people of Scotland.
Simon Hoare
Does my hon. Friend share my confusion that the Scottish Government prefer the narrative of whinge, whine and waffle to using the powers that this Parliament has given them to prove their competence in running the country?
Jane Ellison
As I am sure many hon. Members also know, I am very aware from many of my conversations with businesses—particularly those thinking about their plans for the future, especially since the referendum last year—that they often see competitiveness through the prism of tax and that they want to know the Government are entirely focused on creating the conditions in which businesses can grow and thrive. I really think that all of us need to focus on pursuing our plans to make our respective countries very competitive. In Scotland, the Government have to understand that the decisions they take about using their powers are part of such a package for businesses.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Tories at Westminster are facing rebellion on their Back Benches on business rates. What advice are they taking from the Government in Scotland, who have listened to local businesses and put on a cap of 12.5% for businesses in the hospitality sector and particularly those in Aberdeen that have been hard hit by the oil price?
Jane Ellison
I think that is just an attempt to make a political bragging point. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government have made it quite clear that they will have more to say about that. They are listening carefully to the concerns of particularly the smallest businesses and of those hardest hit by business rates in England.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Will the Minister explain to me how, simultaneously, the Scottish Government can, first, be not using the taxation powers they have, and secondly, be the highest taxed part of the country, particularly when neither of those statements is in fact true?
Jane Ellison
It is for the Scottish Government to account to the Scottish people for their plans. These points might be interesting ones to bring to Westminster and knock about in this Chamber, but real people are looking at the impact of those plans on their family income and the Scottish Government will have to account to them for those plans. It is far more than just a debating point.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Jane Ellison
These are all very important points. It is for the Scottish Government to use the powers that have been devolved to them and to account to their people for using them, but there is no doubt that people look at the competitiveness of tax regimes, whether personal or business, and that those regimes are important in the key decisions that people make about competitiveness and other things.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Following the EU referendum, Scotland Office Ministers have regularly met representatives of Scottish industry and business. What comes out clearly is the appetite to seize and make a success of the opportunities afforded to us by leaving the EU, forging a new role for ourselves in the world to negotiate our own trade agreements and be a champion for free trade.
Heidi Allen
I am a bit scared to ask my supplementary question because I think my Scottish National party colleagues have had three Weetabix this morning. My question is about exports, of which Scotland has made a fantastic success, particularly in food and drink. How confident or worried should we be if we come out of Europe that those markets will be damaged, and what can the Government do to support them?
David Mundell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight food and drink as Scotland’s top manufacturing export, accounting for £8.9 billion in 2015. Leaving the EU offers us the opportunity to negotiate new trade deals across the globe and create even more opportunities for Scotland’s world-renowned food and drink.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Agriculture and fisheries are key parts of the Scottish economy and Scotland’s export sector. Powers for both are devolved to the Scottish Government. Under the Secretary of State’s Government’s plans, will all decisions on agriculture and fisheries be taken by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government after Brexit?
David Mundell
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have confirmed in the White Paper that all the powers that the Scottish Parliament currently exercises in relation to agriculture, fisheries and all other issues will continue. We wish to have a dialogue with the Scottish Government, the other devolved Administrations and stakeholders about what happens to powers that are currently held in Brussels and where they will rightly rest after the United Kingdom leaves the EU.
Angus Robertson
Anybody watching this will realise that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. During the Brexit referendum campaign, people were told that decisions currently taken in Brussels on agriculture and fisheries would revert to the Scottish Parliament. The Secretary of State has not given a clear answer to the question, which really matters to our rural industries, our rural economy and Scotland as a trading nation. Let me try the same question again, and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State answered it. Under his Government’s plans, will all decisions on agriculture and fisheries be taken by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government after Brexit—yes or no?
David Mundell
This Government’s plan is to engage with the Scottish Government and with the other devolved Administrations to discuss those serious issues. It is not to go out and tell the people of Scotland that the devolved settlement is being undermined by Brexit, which will lead to the Scottish Parliament exercising more powers. I can give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute guarantee that, after the United Kingdom leaves the EU, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers will have more powers than they have today.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Before I ask a question, I take the opportunity to send my condolences to the family of my great comrade, Gerald Kaufman, a genuine parliamentarian.
On 12 October, the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and said
“whatever support is put in place for businesses in the north of England will apply to businesses in Scotland.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c.287.]
That was in relation to the deal struck with Nissan. Does he stand by that promise?
David Mundell
I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Gerald Kaufman. He was a near neighbour of mine in the previous Parliament and I always found him to be the perfect gentleman.
I made it clear in previous answers that the Government’s approach will be consistent across the United Kingdom.
Mr Anderson
While some businesses and workers are aware of that welcome reassurance, I have yet to meet any businesses in Scotland that know about the commitment to give them the same deal as was done with Nissan. Why has the Secretary of State not been more public about the commitment? Why is it the best kept secret in Scotland?
David Mundell
I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman how the UK Government are approaching the Brexit negotiations and how we are fully engaged with businesses in Scotland to ensure that we understand their concerns. We can go forward on a basis that will ensure that Scotland and the whole United Kingdom get the best possible deal from the UK leaving the EU.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Scotland’s international exports have increased by 41% since the Scottish National party Government came into office in 2007, which is a fantastic success story for Scotland. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain why the UK Government failed to negotiate any geographical indications for Scottish produce in the EU-Canada CETA trade deal?
David Mundell
I hope the hon. Lady’s approach on the EU-CETA trade deal is more consistent than that of her parliamentary group. On the Monday of the week when the Canada deal was discussed, SNP Members voted in favour. By the Wednesday, they somehow found that they were against.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
As I have mentioned, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has regular engagement with the Scottish Government’s Finance Minister. They discussed matters relating to the Scottish Government’s budget for 2017-18 at a joint Exchequer committee in November, and at a Finance Ministers’ quadrilateral in February.
Seema Kennedy
What does my hon. Friend believe will be the consequences of the Scottish Government using their new powers for the Scottish economy to make Scotland the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom?
Jane Ellison
Colleagues are rightly focused on tax and competitiveness. The increased tax powers delivered through the Scotland Act 2016 mean that the Scottish Government have responsibility for raising more of what they spend. It is for them to decide how to use those tax powers to shape Scotland’s economy, growth and jobs. I might not like their plans to make Scotland a higher-tax nation—it is up to them—but they have to explain those plans to the people they represent.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The publication of this year’s draft Scottish budget had to be delayed because the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make financial information available until the autumn statement. What impact will the move to the autumn Budget have on the Scottish Government’s ability to plan effectively for their budget process?
Jane Ellison
There are many good reasons for moving to a single fiscal event in the autumn—allowing for longer-term planning is one of them. On the subject of planning for the long term and increasing certainty, I would add that taking the threat of a second referendum off the table is the single biggest thing that the SNP and the Scottish Government could do for certainty and confidence among the business community.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I have regular conversations with the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU on a number of issues. The UK Government have made it absolutely clear in their White Paper that securing the rights of EU citizens in the UK and of UK citizens in the EU is one of our top priorities in the Brexit negotiations.
Ian Murray
The Secretary of State’s answer is not very reassuring given the speculation about a potential cut-off date for EU nationals later this month. The other place will vote on an amendment today that will secure the residency rights of EU nationals. If that is passed, will the Secretary of State urge his colleagues to end this disgraceful uncertainty on residency rights for EU nationals, who contribute so much to the Scottish and UK economies? If he does not, he will send out a very strong message that he is willing to use the lives of EU nationals as a bargaining chip for a hard Tory Brexit.
David Mundell
I agree with one thing the hon. Gentleman says: EU citizens in Scotland, and indeed in the whole United Kingdom, make a significant contribution to civic life and the economy of our country. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear, we want those people to stay. She has sent out a very clear message, and it is clearly set out in the White Paper. We do not believe that the Article 50 Bill is the place to set it out.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I have No. 12, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has a very similar question and I rather assumed he wanted to come in.
Mr Vara
Mr Speaker
Order. This is on the importance of the rights of EU nationals. I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman meant.
David Mundell
I know that businesses across Scotland value the contribution that EU citizens make to their businesses, and I am clear with them that even when the UK leaves the EU, it will be important for EU citizens still to come to Scotland and play an important part in our economy.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
A recent report from the British Medical Association shows that 40% of European doctors might leave the UK after Brexit because of the Government’s shameful inaction on giving a clear guarantee to EU nationals. Why will the UK Government not do the right thing and give a clear guarantee to EU nationals, who are a valued part of our society in Scotland, that they have the right to remain?
David Mundell
I am absolutely clear about the importance we place on the role of EU nationals in the economy and the health service, but I would take the hon. Lady’s comments about encouraging doctors and other medical professionals to come to Scotland a lot more seriously if her Government had not decided to tax them more than any other part of the UK.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as safeguarding the role of EU citizens in the UK after we leave the EU, it is vital that we safeguard Scots people who have gone to live in other parts of the EU?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is vital that we secure the position of UK citizens in the EU, many of whom are Scots, and it is perfectly legitimate to take forward that issue in conjunction with securing the rights of EU citizens in Scotland and the rest of the UK. I am hopeful that that can be dealt with very early in the negotiations.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is clear that the Government are happy to play political football with these people’s lives. It shows contempt for 12,000 people working in our health and social care service in Scotland and for 20,000 people working in the food industry, which the Secretary of State has just bragged is the most important part of Scottish industry. When will he stop treating these people this way and give them the guarantee they need to live a happy and secure life in Scotland?
David Mundell
I have made it absolutely clear, as has the Prime Minister, how much we value the contribution that EU nationals make in Scotland to both the economy and civic society. We want them to stay, but we also want UK nationals elsewhere in the EU to be able to stay where they are.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The Government are committed to getting the best deal for Scotland and the UK in the negotiations with the EU. The Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations was established to facilitate engagement between the UK Government and devolved Administrations and has had substantive and constructive discussions in monthly meetings since November.
Ben Howlett
At the last meeting of the JMC, the Prime Minister committed to an intensified engagement with the Scottish Government on their EU proposals. Can he update the House on that process?
David Mundell
When I appeared last week before the Scottish Parliament’s Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, I was able to tell it that in the two weeks since the plenary meeting of the JMC, six substantive meetings had taken place between senior officials so that both Governments could discuss the proposals set out in the document, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”. We regard this as a serious contribution to the debate and continue to engage with it.
Mr Jenkin
May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been taking a great interest in the inter-institutional relationships within the UK, that we produced a report in December on this subject, which I commend to him, and that the main thrust of the recommendations are not about structures and institutions but about natural adversaries sitting down together and developing relationships and bonds of trust and understanding?
David Mundell
Obviously, I very much take my hon. Friend’s work seriously. Despite what often appears in the media, it is possible for the two Governments to engage in a constructive way. We are already in agreement on many issues in the Scottish Government’s document.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is not just a matter of trying to keep the EU nationals who are currently in our health and social care service. The workforce is the biggest challenge that NHS Scotland faces, so will the Secretary of State support Scotland having the powers to attract EU nationals in future, not just keeping the ones who are here now?
David Mundell
I have said previously from this Dispatch Box that I do not support the devolution of immigration powers to the Scottish Parliament, but I do support arrangements that will ensure that the vital workers needed in depopulating areas, skilled areas and in areas that rely on seasonal workers can come to Scotland.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Earlier, the Secretary of State refused to confirm that Scottish fishing and Scottish agriculture would become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. When will his Department present to the Joint Ministerial Committee a list of powers that will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament after Brexit, or will he refuse to do so and simply follow instructions from No. 10?
David Mundell
What I want to do and what I have attempted to do is engage in a constructive discussion and dialogue with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament about how we repatriate powers from Brussels. I do not try to make a serious and wrong political point that this is an attempt to destabilise the Scottish Parliament, because I know that when the process is complete, the Scottish Parliament will have more powers than it does today.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Sales from Scotland to the rest of the UK are worth nearly £50 billion, a figure that has increased by over 70% since 2002 and that is four times greater than the value of exports from Scotland to the EU. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom is the vital Union for Scotland’s economy.
David Mundell
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I find it strange that those who make such a fuss about the EU single market seem to have a complete disregard for a market that is four times as large to Scotland’s economy.
Maria Caulfield
Given that Scottish whisky is the largest net contributor to the UK’s balance of trade and goods, is the Secretary of State encouraged by the fact that if we move from the single market to World Trade Organisation arrangements, Scottish whisky will have a zero tariff?
David Mundell
It is important to note that there is a zero tariff for Scotch whisky under WTO rules. As to our future relationship with the EU, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we want to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, which would be enormously to the benefit of the Scotch whisky industry.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
All this UK single market business is quite interesting, but is the Secretary of State trying to suggest that a Brexitised isolated UK, desperate for friends and any trading partners, would not trade with an independent Scotland?
David Mundell
What I am suggesting is that if an independent Scotland were to put up tariffs and barriers with its vital largest trading partner, which provides four times as much economic development as the EU, that would be a disastrous series of events.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
How is job creation in Scotland affecting the Scottish economy?
David Mundell
It is vital that both the UK and the Scottish Governments work together to maximise the number of jobs created, but it is clear that the one thing the Scottish Government could do to help job creation in Scotland most is take the suggestion of a divisive independence referendum off the table.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
David Mundell
I also made it clear to that Committee that it was not appropriate to give a running commentary on the Government’s internal discussions on Brexit. What I am committed to do is delivering the best possible deal for Scotland in these Brexit negotiations.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing people in the UK, and across the world, a happy St David’s day. I am also sure that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to our former colleague, Sir Gerald Kaufman, who died over the weekend. He was an outstanding parliamentarian and a committed MP who dedicated his life to the service of his constituents. As Father of the House, his wisdom and experience will be very much missed right across this House. I am sure that our thoughts are with his friends and family.
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.
Andrew Bridgen
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks, and assure the many relatives and friends of our former colleague that they are very much in our thoughts and prayers at this difficult time.
Does my right hon. Friend believe that last week’s historic by-election victory in Copeland was an endorsement of her Government’s plans to maintain a strong economy, bring our society together and ensure that we make a huge success of leaving the European Union?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. First, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend, the new Member for Copeland, and look forward to welcoming her to this House very shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) is absolutely right that last week’s historic result in Copeland was an endorsement of our plans to keep the economy strong and to ensure that places such as Copeland share in the economic success after years of Labour neglect. It was also an endorsement of our plans to unite communities where Labour seeks to sow division and of offering strong, competent leadership in the face of Labour’s chaos.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in wishing everyone in Wales, and all Welsh people around the world, a very happy St David’s day? May I also express the hope that, today, the workers at the Ford plant in Bridgend get the assurances that they need about their job security and their futures?
I echo the Prime Minister’s tribute to Gerald Kaufman, who served in this House since 1970 and was the longest serving Member. He started in political life as an adviser to Harold Wilson in the 1960s. He was an iconic, irascible figure in the Labour party and in British politics. He was a champion for peace and justice in the middle east and around the world. Yesterday at his funeral, Mr Speaker, the rabbi who conducted the service conveyed your message on behalf of the House to his family, which was very much appreciated. Afterwards, I spoke to his family and to his great nephews and great nieces and asked them how they would describe Gerald, and they said that he was an “awesome uncle”. We should remember Gerald as that, and convey our condolences to all his family.
Just after the last Budget, the then Work and Pensions Secretary resigned, accusing the Government of
“balancing the books on the backs of the poor and vulnerable.”
Last week, the Government sneaked out a decision to overrule a court decision to extend personal independence payments to people with severe mental health conditions. A Government who found £1 billion in inheritance tax cuts to benefit 26,000 families seem unable to find the money to support 160,000 people with debilitating mental health conditions. Will the Prime Minister change her mind?
The Prime Minister
Let me be very clear about what is being proposed in relation to personal independence payments. This is not a policy change—[Interruption.] This is not a cut in the amount spent on disability benefits, and no one is going to see a reduction in their benefits from that previously awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions. What we are doing is restoring the original intention of the payment agreed by the coalition Government, and agreed by this Parliament after extensive consultation.
Jeremy Corbyn
Extensive consultation is an interesting idea, because the court made its decision last year, the Government did not consult the Social Security Advisory Committee and, at the last minute, sneaked out their decision.
The court ruled that the payments should be made because the people who were to benefit from them were suffering “overwhelming psychological distress”. Just a year ago, the then new Work and Pensions Secretary said:
“I can tell the House that we will not be going ahead with the changes to PIP that had been put forward.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 1268.]
The court has since made a ruling. The Prime Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), said:
“In my view, the courts are there for a reason. If they have come up with this ruling, which says that the criteria should be extended, then I believe we have a duty to honour that.”
Is she not right?
The Prime Minister
First, on the issue of these payments and those with mental health conditions, the personal independence payment is better for people with mental health conditions. The figures show that two thirds of people with mental health conditions who are claiming personal independence payments and in receipt of it are awarded the higher daily living rate allowance, compared with less than a quarter under the previous disability living allowance arrangements.
This is the second time that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that somehow the change was sneaked out. It was in a written ministerial statement to Parliament. I might remind him that week after week he talks to me about the importance of Parliament; well, we accepted the importance of Parliament and made the statement to Parliament. He also referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, and it can look at this matter. My right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary called the Chairman of the SSAC and spoke to him about the regulations on the day they were being introduced; he also called the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and spoke to him about the regulations that were being introduced; and he called both offices of the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, but there was no answer and they did not come back to him for four days.
Jeremy Corbyn
Calling—[Interruption.] Calling the Chairs of two Committees and making a written statement to the House does not add up to scrutiny, and as I understand it no call was made to the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), the shadow Secretary of State.
The reality is that this is a shameful decision that will affect people with dementia, those suffering cognitive disorders due to a stroke, military veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, and those with schizophrenia. Will the Prime Minister look at the effects of her decision to override what an independent court has decided, and think again?
The Prime Minister
The issues and conditions that the right hon. Gentleman raises are taken into account when decisions are made about personal independence payments. The court said that the regulations were unclear; that is why we are clarifying the regulations and ensuring that they respect and reflect the original intention that was agreed by this Parliament.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the support being given to people with disabilities, I say to him that this Government are spending more than ever in support for people with disability and health conditions, and we are spending more than ever on people with mental health conditions. What we are doing with personal independence payments is ensuring that those who are most in need get most support.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Government have overridden an independent court decision, and they should think long and hard about that. The Prime Minister’s hon. Friend, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), said this week that the Government have to
“make it very clear that physical and mental health has the same priority”.
In 2002, the Prime Minister made a speech to the Conservative party conference. I remember it very well; I was watching it on television. She described her party as the “nasty party” and said:
“Some Tories have tried to make political capital by demonising minorities”.
This week, her policy chair suggested that people with debilitating conditions were those who were
“taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety”
and were not “really disabled”. Is that not proof that the “nasty party” is still around?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend has rightly apologised for the comments that he made, and I hope that the whole House will accept his apology. The right hon. Gentleman asks me about parity between mental health conditions and physical conditions. It is this Conservative Government who introduced parity of esteem in dealing with mental health in the national health service. How many years were Labour in government and did nothing about it? Thirteen years!
Jeremy Corbyn
It was a Labour amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill that resulted in parity of esteem being put on the face of the Bill. I am surprised that the right hon. Lady has forgotten that; she could have taken this opportunity to thank the Labour party for putting it forward. The Prime Minister made a speech earlier this year supporting parity of esteem for mental health, and I am glad she did so. However, 40% of NHS mental health trusts are having their budgets cut, and there are 6,600 fewer mental health nurses and 160,000 people with severe mental health conditions who are about to lose out on support. Can she not recognise that parity of esteem means funding it properly and not overriding court decisions that would benefit people suffering from very difficult conditions? We should reach out to them, not deny them the support they need.
The Prime Minister
As I say, we are spending more than ever on mental health—£11.4 billion a year. More people each week are now receiving treatment in relation to mental health than previously. Is there more for us to do on mental health? Yes, there is. I have said that in this Chamber in answer to questions that I have received—
The Prime Minister
The shadow Foreign Secretary shouts, “Well, do it” from her normal sedentary position—[Interruption.] We are doing it. That is why we are putting record amounts of money into mental health. That is why we are seeing more people being provided with mental health treatment every week under this Government. There is one thing that I know: if we are going to be able to provide that extra support for people with disabilities and health conditions and provide treatment for people with mental health conditions, we need a strong economy that enables us to pay for it. And the one thing we know about Labour is that they would bankrupt Britain.
Jeremy Corbyn
That is rich, coming from a Government who, by 2020, will have borrowed more and increased the national debt by the total borrowing of all Labour Governments.
The mental health charity Rethink has said:
“The Government has spoken forcefully about the importance of parity esteem between physical and mental health, yet when presented with the chance to make this a reality...it has passed on the opportunity”.
As a society, we are judged by how we treat the most vulnerable. The respected mental health charity Mind has said:
“This misguided legislation must be reversed”.
Will the Prime Minister look again at the decision of the court and its consequences, withdraw this nasty decision, accept the court’s judgment and support those who are going through a very difficult time in their lives? That is how we will all be judged.
The Prime Minister
The way we are dealing with disability benefits is to ensure that payments are going to those who are most vulnerable. What we are doing in relation to personal independence payments is ensuring that the agreement of this Parliament is being put into practice. The right hon. Gentleman talks about funding and he talks about borrowing. I understand that today—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot have a constant debate while the Prime Minister is answering the question. The question has been put and was heard, and the answer must be heard without a constant hubbub in the background.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about accepting the court’s decision and paying for that. When asked how Labour would pay for the increase if it was put in place, I understand that the Labour shadow Health Secretary said today, “Err, we’ve not outlined that yet.” That just sums up the Labour party and the Labour party leadership. After the result in Copeland last week, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) summed up the by-election result by saying that it was an “incredible result” for the Labour party. I think that word describes the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership: incredible.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, which he is right to raise. We want the UK to be the go-to place for innovators and investors across the world, and we want to secure the best possible outcomes for the UK research base as we leave the European Union. Indeed, one of the objectives that I set out for our negotiations with the European Union relates to science and research. We already are a leading destination for science and innovation, and we would welcome an agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners. I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said, and I am sure that that report will be looked at carefully by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
We on the SNP Benches join the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour Party in extending our condolences to the family and friends of Sir Gerald Kaufman. We also extend our best wishes to the people of Wales on St David’s Day.
In Scottish questions just prior to PMQs today, Ministers were unable to answer basic questions about the Government’s plans for agriculture and for fisheries. Those are important industries for the rural economy and are devolved to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. With Brexit ending the role of Brussels in those areas, will all decisions about agriculture and fisheries be made at Holyrood—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows well that we are discussing with the devolved Administrations the whole question of the UK framework and devolution of issues as they come back from Brussels. The overriding aim for everything that we do when we make those decisions is to ensure that we do not damage the important single market of the United Kingdom, a market which I remind the right hon. Gentleman is more important to Scotland than the European Union is.
Angus Robertson
That is a very interesting answer because people in Scotland, including those working in the agriculture and fisheries sectors, were told during the Brexit referendum that farming and fisheries powers would be exercised fully by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. Judging by the Prime Minister’s answer, however, it seems that that will not be true. Will the Prime Minister confirm today—she has the opportunity—that it is her intention to ensure that UK Ministers will negotiate and regulate over large areas that impact on Scottish fisheries and agriculture post-Brexit?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman seems not to have understood this point, so I will repeat it. We are in the process of discussing with the devolved Administrations the whole question of which of the powers that currently reside in Brussels will be returned and will remain at a UK level for decisions and which powers will be further devolved to the devolved Administrations. That is the discussion that is taking place at the moment. He asks about the Brexit negotiations with the European Union, and it will be the UK Government that will be negotiating with the European Union, taking full account of the interests and concerns of the devolved Administrations and, indeed, of all the regions of England.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, which I know he has been working on for some time. He is absolutely right to identify circumstances where websites are acting in that way and causing those problems for people who genuinely believe that they are able to buy tickets for what they wish to attend. I understand that he recently met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital and Culture to discuss the issue. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced new rules on ticketing and a review of online ticket sales. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will shortly respond to the independent report by Professor Michael Waterson on this issue, but as a Government we are looking at the general issue of where markets are not working in the interest of consumers.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am happy to welcome the new hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) to this House.
It is precisely because of concern about how various people were being treated within our public services that last year I introduced a racial audit of the disparity of treatment within public services. As Home Secretary, I saw this when I looked at the way that people, particularly black people with mental health issues, were being dealt with by the police and in various forms of detention. That is exactly the sort of issue that we are looking at. I am very happy for the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) to write to me with the details of the particular issue that he set out.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating West Suffolk College on being given that award for best teaching and learning initiative for its MARS initiative. The college has put in place a really interesting initiative, and I congratulate all its staff. This award is a sign of the dedication of the staff and students at West Suffolk College. All colleges across the country should be aspiring to reach these standards, and she is absolutely right that we need to ensure that young people have not just a skillset but an inquiring mind that enables them, as they look forward to what may be different careers throughout their life, to embrace new skills and change.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
First, I am sure that Members from across the whole House will want to join me in offering our deepest sympathies to the family of this 16-year-old constituent—former constituent—of the hon. Lady. She raises an important issue, which is why the Government recognise the harm associated with the problem consumption of alcohol. We have taken action through the duty system, so that high-strength ciders and beers are taxed more than equivalent lower-strength products. We have also, of course, taken action on the very cheap alcohol by banning sales below duty plus VAT. But another element is involved, too, which is making sure that young people are aware of the dangers and harms of alcohol misuse. Public Health England and the NHS have run campaigns offering advice and support to young people, and they also work with charities and in schools to help to raise that awareness. I think that is an important part of this.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
First, I want to assure my hon. Friend that higher education institutions have a responsibility to ensure that they provide a safe and inclusive environment for all students. We expect them to have robust policies and procedures in place to comply with the law, and to investigate and swiftly address hate crime, including any anti-Semitic incidents that are reported. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation has recently written to remind institutions of these expectations, and he has also urged them to follow the Government’s lead in adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We have taken important steps to tackle money laundering, terrorist financing and other economic crimes; I oversaw the establishment of the economic crime command in the National Crime Agency. On the question the hon. Gentleman raises on SLPs, I understand that BEIS consulted last year on further transparency requirements for SLPs and will be publishing proposals soon, and that my right hon. Friend the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary is gathering evidence which may lead to further reform.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend will know, business rates are based on property value and it has been seven years since property values were last looked at, so I think it is absolutely right that we update them. But of course, as I recognised last week, there are different impacts on different businesses, and it is important that we have already put significant sums into transitional support for businesses so that we help the companies that are facing increased bills. As I said in this House last week, I have asked my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Communities and Local Government Secretary to make sure that the support that is provided is appropriate and is in place for the hardest cases. I would expect my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to say more about this next week in the Budget.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I am happy to say to the hon. Lady that we have, of course, protected the core schools budget in real terms. Yes, we have had free schools—I understand that she raises a concern about them—but we have seen the programme of free schools and academies continue under this Government to ensure that we are creating more good school places throughout the country. That is what we want to do and that is what our policy will continue to do.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is absolutely right to raise the importance of Wales. My right hon. Friend the Wales Secretary is doing important work to remind the world that Wales is one of the best places in the UK to live, work and trade with. In the forthcoming negotiations we are committed to getting a deal that works for all parts of the UK, including Wales. The best way to achieve that is for the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to continue to work together. I am pleased to say that I am going to be hosting a St David’s day reception in Downing Street tonight to celebrate everything that Wales has to offer. I once again wish all Members of this House dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I apologise to the hon. Lady, but I missed the first part of her question. I think she was talking about investment in infrastructure in her area. [Interruption.] HS3, right. The Government have obviously already set out the commitments we have made on infrastructure. As she will know, we believe infrastructure plays an important part in encouraging the growth of the economy and ensuring that we see increased productivity around the rest of the country. Over time, we will of course be looking at further projects that can do just that.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point about local maternity services. As I have said, I am looking forward to welcoming the new Member for Copeland to this House very shortly. During the recent campaign, she made it very clear that she did not want to see any downgrading of the West Cumberland hospital services. She also did something else. She put forward a powerful case for what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) has just suggested: a review to tackle the recruitment issues that affect the maternity services up there. A professionally led review seems very sensible, and I know that the Health Minister is looking into it.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am sorry, but I obviously do not know the full details of the individual case raised by the hon. Gentleman. We are ensuring that more money is being—and will continue to be—put into mental health conditions over the year. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Health will look into that case, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to him about it.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
As a leader who wants to spread wealth and opportunity as widely as possible, will the Prime Minister ensure that we end the practice of developers buying freehold land on which they then sell new houses on a leasehold basis? Many first time buyers on Help to Buy feel that they are being ripped off by this practice and look to the Government for help.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that issue, which he has raised with me previously. I know he is concerned about it and working on it. Our housing White Paper clearly sets out that developers should be building homes for people to live in. That means that we will act to promote fairness for the growing number of leaseholders, but we will consult on a range of measures to tackle unfair and unreasonable abuses of leasehold, as the Housing Minister has said. Other than in certain exceptional circumstances, I do not see why new homes should not be built and sold with the freehold interest at the point of sale.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We all recognise the important service that pharmacies provide, which is why spending on them has actually risen in recent years. There has been an increase of more than 18% in the number of pharmacies over the past decade. The system needs to reform so that NHS resources are spent efficiently and effectively. Let us look at some of the figures: two fifths of pharmacies are within 10 minutes’ walk of two or more other pharmacies; the average pharmacy receives roughly £220,000 a year in NHS funding; and most pharmacies receive the £25,000 establishment payment, regardless of size or quality. We looked at this concern when it was raised last summer, and made changes to ensure that greater support was available to pharmacies in particular areas.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
One of David Cameron’s greatest legacies was his effort to fight human trafficking under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Last year, this country looked after 800,000 children in Syria or the surrounding countries for the same investment as looking after 3,000 in this country. By doing that, we help to defeat human trafficking. Will the Prime Minister confirm that we will continue with that policy?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to David Cameron. I was pleased that he supported the Modern Slavery Act when I proposed introducing it. We are, indeed, committed to continuing our policy in this area. I have set up, and chair, a modern slavery taskforce at No. 10, bringing together various parties to ensure that we are doing what is necessary across Government to break the criminal gangs, deal with the perpetrators and provide the necessary support for victims.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
May I, on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing condolences to the family of the late Father of the House? He will be greatly missed.
The Prime Minister cannot fail to have noticed the recent intervention in the Brexit debate by two former Prime Ministers; I am sure they were very helpful. I am sure that she will know what they and everybody else mean by “hard Brexit” and by “soft Brexit”, but we are all now wondering what is meant by a “soft coup”, when it might be triggered, and when, indeed, we will know whether it has been triggered. Perhaps the Prime Minister will elucidate on that since she has been so helpful in many other ways. Will she take the opportunity today, however, to make it clear that, whatever former Prime Ministers or Members of the unelected upper House may say, the reality is that her plan to trigger article 50 by the end of March is now clearly on track?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. It is, indeed, my plan to trigger by the end of March, and when I refer to that, I refer, of course, to the triggering of article 50, rather than attempting to trigger any coup, soft or otherwise, that might take place. It is still our intention to do that. It is important; the article 50 Bill, of course, does respond to the judgment of the Supreme Court, but it also ensures that we are responding to the voice of the United Kingdom, when people voted to ensure that we do leave the European Union, and that is what we will do.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Mr Speaker, perhaps you, like many other hon. Members here today, took a shower this morning—[Laughter.] I am sure you were very careful to check whether the shower gel contained microbeads. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”]
Mr Speaker
Order. We must hear the thrust of this fascinating question. Mrs Pow, let’s hear it.
Rebecca Pow
Shower gel products containing microbeads can result in 100,000 microbeads or microplastics being washed down the drain every time we use them—into the water system, and then into the marine environment, damaging these precious habitats. Would the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the steps this Government are taking to introduce a ban on microbeads used in cosmetics and personal care products, with the consultation ending just a few days ago?
The Prime Minister
I think I should say for clarity to Members of this House that I am not in a position to know whether or not you took a shower this morning, Mr Speaker.
My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. It is completely unnecessary to add plastics to products like face washes and body scrub, where harmless alternatives can be used. As she said at the end of her question, our consultation to ban microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products closed recently. We are aiming to change legislation by October 2017, and we also ask for evidence of what more can be done in future to prevent other sources of plastic from entering the marine environment, because we are committed to being the first generation ever to leave the environment in a better state than when it was inherited. I am sure that, together, we can all work to bring an end to these harmful plastics clogging up our oceans.
Mr Speaker
I think both Philip and Sally are very reassured by what the Prime Minister has just said.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Along the M4 corridor in south Wales, over 1,000 families woke up this morning deeply worried about potential job losses at Ford in Bridgend. Families in Ogmore and Bridgend are particularly frightened—frightened that Ford is not going to be able to bring new contracts into the factory, with the uncertainty of Brexit ahead. Can I have an assurance from the Prime Minister that she will arrange for her Ministers to meet Ford and Unite the union to see what can be done to support Ford to ensure continuity of engine production in the Bridgend plant?
The Prime Minister
Can I reassure the hon. Lady that our automotive sector is one of the most productive in the world? We want to see it going from strength to strength. That is why Ministers in this Government have been engaging with various companies within the automotive sector, including Ford and other companies. Ford is an important investor here; it has been established here for over 100 years. We now account for around a third of Ford’s global engine production, and Bridgend continues to be an important part of that. We have had, as I said, dialogue with Ford; we will continue to have a regular dialogue with Ford about the ways in which Government can help to make sure that this success continues.
Petition
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I wish to present a petition signed by 1,587 local residents of Leicester East. It was collected by Councillors Luis Fonseca, Jean Khote, Abdul Osman and Sue Hunter, as well as many others. I declare an interest as the centre was named after my late mother, Merlyn Vaz, who was a local councillor in Leicester and widely regarded as a pensioners’ champion. The Merlyn Vaz health and social care centre is not closing, but a proposal exists to close the walk-in facilities that operate from it. I am afraid that if these proposals are enacted, it will turn our walk-in centre into a drive-by centre. The walk-in centre was opened in 2009. Since then, 156,089 patients have walked through its doors, including 22,179 in 2015-16. Our hospitals are already overstretched, and the closure of our much-needed walk-in centre will only push them to the brink of collapse.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Leicester East,
Declares that Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group plans to remove the existing Walk-in element of the service from Merlyn Vaz Health and Social Care Centre which would have a detrimental effect on the local community and other members of the public who use the "out of hours" facility, especially on the elderly and vulnerable people who do not have easy access to transport but are able to walk to the Merlyn Vaz Health and Social Care Centre.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group to reconsider their decision to remove the existing Walk-in element of the service from the Merlyn Vaz Health and Social Care Centre.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002021]
New Member
Points of Order
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
May I associate myself and Liberal Democrat colleagues with the tributes paid to Sir Gerald Kaufman and express our condolences to his family?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. I am concerned that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and, indeed, the Prime Minister may have inadvertently misled the House in relation to claims that they have made about the changes to the personal independence payment. I have checked the Government’s response to the PIP consultation dated 13 December 2012, sections 6.13 and 6.14 of which make it clear that the Government were going to award points to those whose mobility was impaired by their mental health. How can I set the record straight to make it clear that the policy change to restrict PIP is a wholly unacceptable policy change for which this Conservative Government are solely responsible?
Mr Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the warmth and courtesy of his remarks in respect of the late Sir Gerald Kaufman.
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important matter, but it is a matter of debate. I would say two things to him. First, as he will probably have noticed, this matter was treated of by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and others yesterday, although that does not preclude further consideration of it today. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is a wily old hand in this House, and he knows that by raising the matter in this way on the Floor of the House in front of Members on the Treasury Bench, he has found his own salvation. I cannot help but think that on this occasion he is more interested, as I often observe, in what he has to say to me than in anything I have to say to him.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you give guidance to the House? Is it not more appropriate that these matters are raised in departmental questions, and is it not a fact that no Liberal Democrat was present during Work and Pensions questions?
Mr Speaker
It is better for these matters to be raised in the relevant Question Time session. The hon. Gentleman is well seized of that age-old principle of campaigning, namely quantity, persistence and, above all, repetition. I think my short-term memory serves me well. His observation about the absence of members of a particular political party was made the other day, but he has opportunistically seized his chance to repeat it this afternoon. He has made his own point in his own inimitable way.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I thank you for responding to my point of order yesterday, which had the immediate effect of securing answers to overdue parliamentary questions from the Department for Communities and Local Government? One question that was due for answer last Friday has still not been answered and you, Mr Speaker, may think that it is very exacting. It asked the Secretary of State when he intends to respond to the letter from the mayor of Christchurch. I cannot understand why we cannot get an answer to that question and I hope that this point of order will embarrass the Department into giving an immediate response.
Mr Speaker
As I advised the hon. Gentleman yesterday, it is the normal expectation that responses from Ministers to written parliamentary questions are both timely and substantive. Moreover, I suggested to the hon. Gentleman that there was a growing spectre of potential embarrassment for Ministers from the relevant Department, the Department for Communities and Local Government—namely, if they did not respond speedily to his question, he might feel inclined to raise points of order over and over and over again about the matter. That would be gravely embarrassing to Ministers and I was sure that they would not want that to happen.
Ministers will have heard, or will hear very soon, of the hon. Gentleman’s perfectly reasonable question last week and of his point of order about it today and I am sure that they will not want the embarrassment of his coming back to the Floor and raising further points of order about the non-answer. The hon. Gentleman is starting to copy the tactic that has long been followed by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and that was followed regularly by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, the late Sir Gerald Kaufman, of raising in the form of either a further written question or a point of order the fact of a non-answer. That is gravely embarrassing and I feel sure that Ministers will not want it to continue for any length of time. I know the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—I have known him for 30 years—and he is a very persistent fellow.
Dr Offord
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I be the first to take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who is from a part of the country I know well from when I lived in Cumbria?
I was fortunate, Mr Speaker, to be selected for the 90-minute debate this morning in Westminster Hall on Iran’s influence in the middle east, but I was unfortunate in taking the Northern line from my Hendon constituency to the Houses of Parliament. The Northern line was suspended, meaning that I and many of my constituents were unable to get here. First, on that basis, may I ask whether a mechanism can be introduced so that if a Member is physically prevented from attending a debate or any other business of the House, someone else can take their place? Secondly, will you look favourably on having an Adjournment debate or another Westminster Hall debate on this issue before the festival of Nowruz on 21 March?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and, first, thank him for his courteous tribute to the new Member for Copeland, which will be warmly received and appreciated by her and a great many other colleagues to boot.
Secondly, I am sure that the delay on the Northern line, which is not an uncommon phenomenon—a fact of which I am well aware, hailing from that part of the world myself—was not deliberately contrived to disadvantage the hon. Gentleman in pursuit of his Adjournment debate, but it is nevertheless a very considerable inconvenience.
Thirdly, I would say to him that hard cases make bad law and I am cautious about the idea—I hope that he will forgive me—that on the basis of his bad experience a new rule should suddenly be introduced. That is something that the Procedure Committee could consider and I would be advised by the House, but I would be reluctant to make any precipitate judgment in his favour on that point.
Fourthly and finally, seeing as the hon. Gentleman raises his concern with me, I would simply say that the track record shows that on the very rare occasions—two spring to mind, but I will not name the Members for obvious reasons—on which Members unavoidably missed their Adjournment debates, their applications for another such debate soon in substitution were met favourably. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and recognise the importance and urgency of the matter. Perhaps we can leave it there for now.
Companies Documentation (Transgender Persons)
Wednesday 1st March 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate 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
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable transgender persons to apply to the registrar of companies for England and Wales for documentation relating to their change of name to be treated as protected information under the Gender Recognition Act 2004; and for connected purposes.
May I, too, welcome my hon. Friend the new Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and wish her every success in her tenure?
One of the privileges of being a Minister is having the opportunity to find out more about other people’s lives and concerns. In July last year, I was pleased to be able to publish the Government’s response to the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee’s report on transgender equality. I am sure that the response did not satisfy all the Committee’s demands, but I believe that it was another step to acknowledging that although we have the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and although the coalition Government published the world’s first transgender action plan in 2011, there is more that could be done by the Government, among others, to address the remaining inequalities, unfairness, violence and discrimination faced by trans people.
I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to steer the Government’s continued response on these matters, but I know that my successor as Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), and the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the excellent Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), are continuing that important work.
We were aware that many loopholes remained, and that for every loophole a trans person can worry that something will inadvertently reveal their transition. In my experience, some trans people are quite comfortable telling their own stories. In fact, many trans people are doing inspirational advocacy work in our schools and across our society to break down barriers and to tackle stigma and discrimination about transgender issues. However, for some trans people, their transition and history are very personal and something that they want to choose to share, rather than being forced to do so by someone else. That is the situation that my Bill aims to address.
In September 2016, I received a letter from Alex, who wrote:
“I am the sole director of a company I set up some years back to manage a small property portfolio…When I changed my name and title the process to inform Companies House was actually very easy and my name was updated quickly…I noticed afterwards however, that this change of name and title was recorded in the company filings that are freely available for public inspection on the Companies House website. The document in question is a…Change of Particulars for Director form and clearly states my original name and title and subsequently my new name and title. This very obviously discloses my change of gender to anyone who happens to look at the filing history of my company, publically outing me without my consent. The main issue I take with this is that of safety. In future there will be many people I meet and interact with who will have no idea of my transgender status because I simply will not tell them. If someone later finds out, this could potentially lead to violence, which is a reality that you are already aware the trans community faces.”
The potential for inadvertent disclosure comes about because of a conflict between section 22(4)(j) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and section 1087(1)(k) of the Companies Act 2006. In her letter to me dated November 2016, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James)—the Minister responsible for small business, consumers and corporate responsibility—makes it clear that the companies registrar must make available to the public all information held on the public register unless he is specifically forbidden to do so by section 1087 of the Companies Act.
Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act generally prohibits the publication of protected information held on a transgender person. However, section 22(4) details the circumstances under which it is not an offence to disclose protected information, which are if
“the disclosure is in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, an enactment other than this section.”
The Minister’s letter states:
“The Government is satisfied that this applies to the disclosure of a director’s former name as this is required to be placed on the public record by enactments in the Companies Act. In conclusion the data is not considered to be material excluded from public inspection by the Gender Recognition Act for the purposes of section 1087 of the Companies Act.”
I do not disagree with this interpretation, but I think that this is an unintended loophole that needs to be closed. That is what my Bill would do.
Alex also told me:
“In 2004 the GRA came in to place with the clear main goal of protecting people who were at risk of being vulnerable, and it was a world-leading piece of legislation which frankly I’m proud to say came out of the UK. What is happening now with Companies House is an entirely accidental and unfortunate flaw in the way that the GRA 2004 and CA 2006 interact with each other. This flaw is entirely against the spirit of the GRA 2004, and I think that anyone would be hard pushed to argue against that...I’m currently able to protect myself when it comes to my credit profile, my tax profile at HMRC, the FCA register, Government Gateway. I just personally think it is the right thing to do to force Companies House to be held to the same standard.”
The Bill would close the loophole by amending the 2004 Act in a way that would allow transgender persons to apply to Companies House to withhold from public inspection information about a director’s former name and for that information to be treated as protected information under section 22 of the 2004 Act.
Hon. Members and people outside this House might ask why such a disclosure matters. I argue that, as a country, we have provided a legal mechanism for people to change their gender. In my experience, this is not a decision that anyone enters into lightly, and nor does it happen quickly. Again, in my experience, once that decision is made, transgender people want to be able to move on with their lives, to be treated with respect, and to live without the fear of being inadvertently outed or subject to violence.
I am afraid to say that violence and discrimination do still occur. Home Office figures show that, in England and Wales in 2015-16, there were 858 transgender hate crimes, a 41% increase from the previous year. Living in fear because of who you are is unacceptable in the modern United Kingdom. Can hon. Members imagine what it must like for someone to live in fear of violence because of official documents that they have filed in compliance with a particular Act of Parliament?
Amending the law can be, even for lawyers, a rather dry topic. As always, however, behind the law lie real lives. In spite of such a fear, I thank those who have contacted me, including Alex. For example, in the course of preparing for these proceedings, I was contacted by another trans person who said to me:
“My current position is that I am unable to start my business without running the very real risk of outing myself as a transgender woman. Presently I want to start a business to provide technology and web development services. However as I cannot yet transition I am in the unfortunate position where if I started a business now and then transitioned this information would be publicly available.”
I thank the accountant who told me that the advice that they were given was to resign as an existing director and register a new director’s appointment in the new name, although clearly details such as their date of birth would be the same; or to close the company down, have it struck off and then set up a new company, with all the administrative expenses entailed in that course of action.
Just to illustrate the point, let me quote another message that I received:
“I used to do IT contracting and did so via a limited company. I changed my name and title by deed poll in 2012 and also need to change my details at Companies House as a director of my company. I’ve now had gender reassignment surgery and will be applying for my gender recognition certificate as soon as I receive the necessary report from the Gender Identity Clinic. Whilst this will give me a lot of protection in law it will still be possible for people to find out my deadname by interrogating the records of my company at Companies House which could possibly put me at risk if someone found out those details for malicious purposes.”
This small legal change would send out a big signal. Altering the Gender Recognition Act would be a simple change to make, yet it would mean a great deal to the many trans people who suffer this problem in silence. The House has an opportunity, by giving me leave to bring in this Bill, to close this inadvertent loophole and to show that we will tackle unfairnesses wherever we find them. I hope that hon. Members will support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Nicky Morgan, Mrs Maria Miller, Ben Howlett, Mike Freer, Mrs Flick Drummond, Norman Lamb, Angela Crawley, Jess Phillips, Peter Kyle and Anna Turley present the Bill.
Nicky Morgan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 149).
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The next item on the agenda is Second and Third Reading of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill. Standing Order No. 56 states that we shall not have a debate and that both Questions will be put forthwith. The Bill says that we will spend £254,713,662,000, but we will be agreeing to it without any debate or scrutiny. We have had the estimates days, but on those days we are not supposed to talk about the estimates and the budget lines provided. Will you give me some guidance, Mr Speaker? At what stage is this House able to scrutinise properly the departmental estimates that come before it, and is there any place in which we can do so adequately?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. Now is not the occasion for me to dilate on the procedure for such matters. I can tell her that her hon. Friend sitting immediately behind her, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), is very familiar with this procedure; he is certainly very familiar with his own discontent with it, upon which he briefly expatiated earlier in the week.
The way in which we treat of these matters is based on decisions that the House has made, and on the relationship between the House as a collective entity on the one hand, and our Committees on the other. If the hon. Lady is dissatisfied with the procedure—she has every right to be—that is a matter she should properly pursue through the appropriate channels in the House. For example, she could legitimately raise her concern with the Procedure Committee. My responsibility as the occupant of the Chair is to give effect to the procedure that is extant and has been approved by the House. If she wishes to change it, she can seek to do so, and if it were changed, I would operate the changed procedure. I think we had better leave it there for today.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Bus Services Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 1st March 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bus Services Act 2017 View all Bus Services Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 67-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 65KB) - (22 Nov 2016)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Buses are England’s most used form of public transport. With over 4.65 billion passenger journeys a year, they account for over 60% of all public transport trips. Buses support our economy, and they connect our communities to the workplace and vital public services, such as healthcare and education. They help to reduce congestion, and cleaner bus technologies also contribute significantly to improving air quality. The Government continue to regard this as a priority, and we are helping to drive it forward through investing in schemes such as the £30 million low emission bus scheme and the £7 million in the clean bus technology fund.
Across England, the bus industry is delivering excellent services for passengers. According to the most recent bus passenger survey by Transport Focus, 86% of passengers were satisfied with their services. Buses today are very different from the buses of 30 years ago: over 90% are accessible; many have free wi-fi, CCTV and USB charging points; and nine out of 10 have smart ticketing equipment. That is all thanks to significant private sector investment in the industry. I am particularly pleased that the five largest operators are continuing to invest in better services and that they will bring contactless payment to every bus outside London during the next five years. We have an industry of large and small firms, with large firms doing a good job and small firms doing a good job.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State congratulate our municipal transport company, Blackpool Transport, on not only introducing a new fleet of accessible buses, but making a profit last year of £1.38 million, £1 million of which was returned as a dividend to the council? Does not that make the case for extending rather than stifling municipal bus companies?
Chris Grayling
There is no doubt that in a small number of places, municipal bus companies have survived and that, in a place such as Blackpool, they play an important role in the local transport system. However, the Government do not believe that extending the provision of bus services to council after council is the right approach. It will stifle the private sector investment that has made such a significant difference. However, I pay tribute to Blackpool, which has also done excellent work on the tram system. Those of us who look back to the days of taking “The Ship” and the other historic trams up and down the seafront are slightly disappointed that that can now happen only at illumination time.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Secretary of State has talked about the bus service 30 years ago. Of course, the biggest difference is that buses are now genuinely accessible. Does he agree that it is welcome to see provision for audio-visual information, which my constituents have regularly raised with me?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is right. It is of paramount importance that we look after people with disabilities on our buses. An important part of that is ensuring that the right information is available and that we have the most accessible possible bus fleet. I am particularly pleased about the number of our newest buses that are manufactured in this country by some excellent firms.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm my understanding that the Bill is an enabling measure, and that there will be no compulsion on local authorities to change bus services when the arrangements between the council and the bus operators mean that a good service is already provided?
Chris Grayling
As I go on to talk about the Government’s approach to the Bill, I absolutely assure my right hon. Friend that it is not about forcing anybody down a route to change. No local areas should countenance asking or pushing for change unless they have a clear plan for delivering improvements for passengers. The Bill is not and should not be simply about moving deckchairs around.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to the Secretary of State. Bus passengers in many parts of England will think that he is living in a different world from them. In the 30 years since the deregulation of buses, fares have gone up and services have been withdrawn from poorer, often isolated communities. The picture that the Secretary of State paints would not be recognised in Greater Manchester. If the policy has been a success, would not bus patronage have increased? Will he confirm that, in those 30 years, it has gone down, down and down throughout England?
Chris Grayling
If people step on to a bus today, it is a wholly different experience from doing so in the past. We have a relatively new fleet and much better buses, and the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we have the best possible services for passengers in future. I made the point to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) that any change that arises out of the Bill should happen only if it will benefit passengers. My expectation and belief is that mayoral authorities and others will pursue change only if it will obviously improve things.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I agree with the Secretary of State—change should be made if will improve benefits to passengers. That will certainly be the case for my constituents, as I am sure he will agree. Currently, one company serves the route in one direction, a different company serves the journey back and my constituents have to buy two tickets. Does he agree that that is nonsense?
Chris Grayling
Having parties on both sides for several years has led to partnership agreements and now the Bill will ensure that we have the best possible arrangements for passengers. It is indisputable that the investment from the private sector over a long period has led to the improvements that I described in the bus fleet.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I have a note from the chief executive of one of the main bus operators in South Dorset. Although, as private bus operator, he welcomes the Bill, believing that working together is a good idea, he thinks that franchising is a slightly perverse route for a Conservative Government to follow. He states:
“If a franchise model was adopted, this could lead to a future layer of bureaucracy being introduced, and the local authority would be designing the bus network and setting prices.”
Will my right hon. Friend comment on that point?
Chris Grayling
The essence of the Bill is that franchising will be available to mayoral authorities automatically, but to deliver change, they will still have to demonstrate that it would benefit passengers. They will have a legal duty to do that, otherwise their decision will be subject to judicial review. Other authorities will have a duty to demonstrate to the Secretary of State that they will transform services to get permission to make a change. Ultimately, the Bill is about the passenger, who has to come first.
Bus networks in England’s six metropolitan areas are estimated to generate £2.5 billion of economic benefits every year. They are a lifeline for many rural communities, which I will talk about shortly.
Let me make it very clear: the Bill does not introduce wholesale re-regulation of the bus market. It is not a return to a pre-1986 world of local councils running bus services. Private operators will continue to dominate the bus market. They will still deliver services, whether through the current arrangements, improved partnerships or franchising. The aim of the Bill is to increase bus passenger numbers and to improve bus services by giving local authorities and operators new options. The Bill builds on existing partnership powers, making them more attractive and easier to use, and introduces new, enhanced partnership scheme powers, which will enable local authorities to work with bus operators and introduce a set of standards for bus services in their areas. They both operate in a deregulated environment where commercial operators can make decisions about where and when buses run.
The Bill also refreshes bus franchising powers, honours our devolution deal commitments and recognises the successes of the franchising model that was introduced for London in 1984. One of those successes is the easy access that London bus passengers have to information about their bus services, with over 500 smartphone apps available. The Bill will make it easier for passengers throughout England to get such information on timetables, fares and routes. That is particularly valuable in rural areas where bus services may be less frequent.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
In 1986, South Yorkshire had a renowned bus service. It was cheap, frequent and comprehensive and 268 million passenger journeys were made. Since deregulation, that figure has fallen by 62% to 102 million. I welcome the regulatory powers in the Bill, but if the Secretary of State does not extend them beyond mayoral combined authorities, what criteria will he use to judge other requests for franchising from areas that do not automatically get it under the Bill?
Chris Grayling
As I said earlier, there has to be a point of accountability. That is the mayor in a mayoral authority and the Secretary of State in other areas. Any change must deliver benefits to passengers. Since 1986, this country is more prosperous, with broader car use. We want improved public transport, particularly in cities, where there is congestion and better bus services can make a real difference. We will offer those cities the opportunities to develop schemes that they believe will work for them locally, but we are clear that any change should deliver benefits to the public.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
On data, in London, Transport for London owns the data and was able to make them freely available to all the creative web developers out there who wanted to make interesting apps. The problem outside London is that the data are owned by private sector companies, which hoard them in the hope of monetising them in some way. The powers in the Bill to force those companies to make the data open source and stimulate innovation in the app market are important.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady is right. There is no reason in today’s world for such information to be anything but widely available to the public. We believe in open data and the best possible passenger information right across our transport system. The Bill will make a significant difference in that respect.
That point is important. The focus of every option in the Bill should be on what delivers for the passenger. I want and expect the industry and local authorities to use the powers in the Bill, whether on franchising or enhanced partnership, to work together to put the travelling public first.
I make it absolutely clear that the Bill in its current form is not the Act that the Government wish or intend to pass. A number of changes were made to the Bill and the proposals we tabled that we believe are not in the interests of passengers, and that we will seek the consent of the House to reverse. The changes are also not in the spirit of the devolution deals we have reached. After I have given way a couple more times, I will describe what the Government intend each of the main parts of the Bill to achieve.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I remember you, Mr Speaker, warning me that making remarks about bus companies is one of the most dangerous things any MP can ever do. Nevertheless, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), I have had representations from my local bus company, Bluestar, which welcomes the provisions of the Bill in so far as they enhance partnership schemes, but which worries about the potential of franchising arrangements to introduce rigidity into the system and lessen the circumstances in which an enterprising bus company will introduce, for example, new routes at its own risk, unlike a cautious local authority that would be unprepared to take that risk. Will the Secretary of State comment on that?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I make it clear again that, while we are extending the kind of franchising powers we see in London to other big cities and mayoral areas, it is not the Government’s intention to offer automatic franchising powers to other areas. Other areas that want to make franchising proposals will have to demonstrate clearly that they can provide an improved service for passengers. When making those decisions, we should bear in mind the flexibility and rapid innovation he describes.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Government signed a devolution deal with Cornwall in 2015 to give Cornwall Council bus franchising powers. Does he agree that, in a county that has historically suffered from poor public transport, that will enable more buses to be on the road and more routes, and make Cornish communities more resilient and connected?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is right, but the interesting thing about Cornwall is that it is proceeding without seeking to use those powers, precisely because it has forged a better and stronger partnership with the local bus companies, which are already enhancing those services. That is my point. We are not seeking particular structures in particular places. We are seeking to ensure that we provide the best possible services for passengers around the country. Cornwall is already doing a very good job of that.
Chris Grayling
I will give way one more time and then make a good deal of progress, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
Chris Grayling
It is somewhat ironic that the hon. Gentleman, whose party has always argued for localism, argues for centralisation of something that I believe should be a local decision. That is a matter for local decision making and local priorities. I have no doubt that Southport Council will take wise decisions about what is best for that town, as will others around the country.
As I said, the franchising powers are not entirely new—they have been available in London for many years—but are being refreshed. Franchising enables local authorities to specify the services that should be provided to local communities, with bus companies competing for contracts to provide those services. Local authorities that implement franchising will have more influence on where and when services run, but they will remain commercial operations, with the private sector providing those services.
That is what happens in London. The deregulation of the London bus market took place in the 1980s, but took a path different from the market outside London. Competitive tendering in London was introduced in 1985, and privatisation of the bus companies took place in the mid-1990s. That has evolved into a network with almost 2.3 billion passenger journeys a year. Those powers are being extended to other Mayors in other parts of the country, to give them the opportunity to operate in the same way as London. The Bill therefore provides for the Government’s intention for all combined authorities with elected Mayors to have automatic access to franchising powers.
Andy Burnham
I am listening carefully to the Secretary of State. He praises the London model. Is he therefore saying that the model and experiment inflicted on the rest of the country has, as Labour Members believe, been a total disaster? Is he saying that deregulation as introduced in 1985 was, in hindsight, a major mistake?
Chris Grayling
I do not believe it was a major mistake, because we have seen substantial investment from the private sector that would not otherwise have happened. The interesting test for the right hon. Gentleman if he is successful in his mayoral bid in Greater Manchester—I say “if” because he has issues to deal with, such as the reputation of his party leader and the strength of other candidates—is whether he manages to use those powers to deliver the better bus services for which he argues. I will watch with interest if he is successful.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, but the Secretary of State is on a very thin point when he justifies what has happened over the past 31 years with investment in new buses. Does he realise that that investment has come from the extreme exploitation of bus passengers, particularly in metropolitan areas, where bus companies exploiting monopoly positions have been able to get a rate of return on capital that is much higher than they would get from real competition, and much higher than companies get in the franchised London area?
Chris Grayling
In a sense, the hon. Gentleman argues against himself. He complains about competition in those areas, but at the same time says that bus companies have been able to exploit monopoly positions. That is inconsistent. We will see whether the next Mayor of Manchester manages to demonstrate that he or she can do a better job than the private sector. That is the test. Let us see whether they can deliver that. If the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is successful in his campaign, we will watch with interest.
This is not just about mayoral authorities but about authorities elsewhere. I want to be clear that, while we are open to plans from other authorities to take franchising powers, we will give them only if they can demonstrate that they can do a better job than the current one. A compelling case needs to be made before any other authority receives consent. The key point is that we have the point of accountability with the Mayor, who will have a legal duty to demonstrate an enhanced service, or a point of accountability in the Government, who likewise will judge whether a proposal will deliver that enhanced service.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
One of the great successes in London was the introduction of smartcard ticketing, which increased the number of passengers on public transport. Will our excellent Conservative candidate for the West of England Mayor, Tim Bowles, be able to introduce smartcard ticketing using the Bill?
Chris Grayling
Smartcard ticketing is important, and the Bill should give the powers and flexibility to introduce it. I want not smartcard ticketing that links simply to one mode of transport, but integrated ticketing on a common platform, so people do not have to have a different card for every city. One of the good things we see is bus companies almost entirely using ITSO technology. The same technology is now used for smartcards on most of our railways, so we have the potential for interoperability and to make our transport system properly integrated.
Ninety per cent. of buses operating local services in England are fitted with smart ticketing. Major operators have committed to introducing contactless payment on all their buses by 2022, but the vast majority of bus fares are still payed in cash. Some operators even require exactly the right change. In response to my hon. Friend’s point, we are updating in the Bill the existing powers to establish multi-operator ticketing schemes to recognise that latest technology. The Bill will allow a local authority to require all operators within its area to sell and accept a particular multi-operator smartcard. Under the powers, local authorities will not be able to set the price of the products—they cannot fix the fares, but will be able to determine the technology, which is important in ensuring that we get integration locally.
That might be enough to improve services for passengers in some areas, but if not, the Bill offers further options. For example, new enhanced partnership schemes enable greater integration of ticketing. They allow authorities and operators not only to agree the price of multi-operator tickets, but to set common ticket zones or concessions and to join other modes, with their agreement, to offer an integrated ticket.
I will pick up briefly on the open data point made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). I want to make it simpler for passengers to plan their journey and to know when their bus will arrive and how much it will cost. She is absolutely right that there is enormous variability across England, and it is essential that that changes. Where the service is good, passengers have access to real-time information, but where it is not good, they do not, and it is important that the former becomes universal. The open data provisions in the Bill are designed to allow public transport app providers, such as Citymapper and Traveline, among others, to develop a new generation of products that will do precisely that.
The Bill will also introduce new arrangements for local authorities and bus operators to work together in partnership. Partnerships between bus operators and local authorities appear to be working well in some areas and passengers are happy. Liverpool, for example, the city of origin of the right hon. Member for Leigh, the Labour mayoral candidate in Manchester—an unusual achievement, if I might say so—has developed strong partnerships with the private sector. It might be something that the next Mayor of Manchester, Conservative Councillor—[Interruption]—Sean Anstee, will decide to introduce when he beats the right hon. Gentleman to the post. [Hon. Members: “He didn’t know his name!”] The note is about something completely different.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Now that the Secretary of State has found out the name of the Conservative mayoral candidate for Greater Manchester, and given that the Labour candidate has said what his policies are, can he name one policy on transport from the Conservative candidate in Greater Manchester?
Chris Grayling
The note is actually about my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).
I will tell the House what my colleague in Manchester will do. He will deliver an efficient system, end some of the failures of Labour administrations of Greater Manchester and build on the excellent work done by Conservatives in councils such as Trafford. We will work together to deliver improvements on the Northern rail franchise that will benefit Greater Manchester and the rest of the north and we will discuss ways to improve further the Metrolink, in which the Government have invested. I am proud of the work the Government are doing in Greater Manchester. The Ordsall Chord, the construction of which, funded by the Government, has already begun, will deliver trains between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoria for the first time, creating a wholly different experience from the days when I commuted into Manchester city centre by bus from the other side of Salford.
Kate Green
I had not wanted to divert the House from buses to trains, but happily the Secretary of State has already done it. He is right that the Ordsall Chord is incredibly important for transport links in Greater Manchester. Will he confirm that the Government will also ensure investment in platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly station, because without it the investment in the Ordsall Chord will be wasted?
Chris Grayling
I am committed to ensuring that we enhance Manchester suburban rail networks and have the capacity we need to deliver it. Going back to buses, I remember what the buses in Manchester were like back in the early 1980s. I used to commute from Worsley into the centre of Manchester on a bus through Salford, and believe me the quality of bus today is better than it was then.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
In reflecting upon regional mayors, will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the policy focus from Andy Street, the West Midlands Mayor, on east-to-west connectivity across rail and bus networks? Is this not in the sharp contrast to Sion Simon, the Labour Mayor—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have two problems: they cannot both be Mayor—they are both candidates—and I do not want us to get into electioneering.
Chris Grayling
I suspect that none of us knows the name of any Lib Dem mayoral candidate in any part of the country. That certainly unites us today. On Andy Street and Birmingham, I would say that Birmingham is a great city that would really benefit from the wisdom and expertise of an experienced business leader, rather than a failed Labour MP.
Richard Drax
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way to me one more time, and I hope he will forgive me for butting in on his eloquent address, but I have to go to a Committee in 10 minutes. My bus operator is concerned that, if in the franchise modelling the revenue is reduced, there is a risk that the shortfall will be made up from other means that will affect the local taxpayer and business rates payer.
Chris Grayling
This is the essential point. We have to ensure both public and private funding for buses. Those who seek to make a change need to understand the impact and be certain that they will bring improvements to passengers. There is sometimes a dogma and ideology that assumes that greater state control means a better service, but often a lack of private sector investment means nothing happens at all—so it is the other way around.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State is as familiar with the bus services in Newcastle as he is with those in other parts of the country. In Newcastle in the ’80s, we had a bus service where someone could travel across the region, on Nexus, and use the metro and the buses on one ticket using a transfer. He says that it is not likely that the state will be as innovative as the private sector. Will he acknowledge that in Newcastle we have been innovative, and hope to be again when we have proper control of our buses?
Chris Grayling
We have never argued, and I do not seek to argue, that the state has no role to play. Indeed, one of my Department’s priorities is to drive forward with smart ticketing across the country on our rail networks in a way that integrates with our bus networks, given the widespread use of the ITSO system on our buses. I do not disagree with the hon. Lady about the desirability of integration, although we might differ over the role of the private sector, which I think adds value that the public sector cannot add.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It is interesting to hear colleagues representing metropolitan areas talk about the hundreds of routes they have available. Will the Secretary of State comment on the effect of the Bill in rural areas where there are no routes? I welcome the flexibility and focus on community transport it will bring, but will he say how it might lead to a greater provision of bus services in rural areas?
Chris Grayling
I was about to come to that. The essence of the Bill is partnership. In the public transport arena, partnership between the state and private sector is really important. Through the provision of greater flexibility, the Bill will allow for enhanced partnerships that take forward existing partnership arrangements. In a rural area—where it is not always about building bus lanes, for example, but about other ways of improving services—the Bill will give local authorities greater flexibility to work with a private operator in a new and enhanced partnership that delivers improvements without some of the straitjackets in the previous arrangements. And of course we will continue to fund community transport, which plays an important role in many parts of the country, particularly rural areas. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who will speak later, plays an active role in making sure we do the right thing by community transport.
I will wrap up now to give others time to speak. I want to make clear what the Government do not want the Bill to do. As I said, this is not the Bill the Government originally introduced or the Bill we intend to deliver on to the statute book, subject to the consent of the House. The amendments in the other place on opening up the automatic access to franchising powers to all local authorities would reduce certainty in the bus market and reduce investment and the attractiveness of bus services being offered. It would not be good news for bus passengers and certainly not for bus manufacturers and the people who work in those factories right across the UK, from Ballymena to Stirling and Yorkshire. We will therefore bring forward an amendment to reinstate the two-step process for non-mayoral combined authorities wishing to access franchising powers.
We shall also seek to reinstate the ban on local authorities setting up new municipal bus companies. My view is that local authorities have other priorities today, and this is about partnership between the private sector and the public sector. That is the big difference between the Government and the Opposition. They do not want the private sector investment that comes in and delivers better and newer buses, providing jobs in Ballymena. They want to go back to the days of the past, but we are not going there as well.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Chris Grayling
No, I am going to conclude, I am afraid. I have given way extensively already.
The Government strongly believe that striking a balance between local authority influence and the role that private sector bus operators can play will help to ensure that both are incentivised to deliver the best services for passengers. We are not going back to the 1970s world of local authority-planned and delivered bus services. That was not a golden era, but one of indifferent services that cost the taxpayer. As far as possible, we want the commissioning and provision of bus services to be kept separate, and to ensure that we retain the strengths of the private sector.
We will therefore seek to return this Bill to what was tabled in the first place. We welcome and accept the thoughts of the other place on some amendments—on accessibility, for example—but not the broad principles of change that were written in the House of Lords.
Chris Grayling
I will give way one last time to both sides of the House, but then finish.
Lilian Greenwood
I shall take up that opportunity. I was seeking to understand the Secretary of State’s approach to municipal bus operators. If we look at the UK bus awards, we find that they have been won by a municipal bus operator in four out of the last five years. I do not believe that municipals are the answer to everything, and I certainly would not expect every local authority to want to set one up. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not let local authorities decide what is best for them?
Chris Grayling
That is the point of difference between us. We do not want to go back to the situation in which every Labour council is trying to set up its own bus company. We think that will absorb public sector capital that could be more wisely used elsewhere, take up essential time that should be devoted to other services and not deliver a good deal for passengers.
Richard Fuller
I do not want my right hon. Friend to look backwards; I want him to look forwards in this Bill, particularly with respect to the provisions on accessibility, which are most welcome. Could he ask his excellent ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who will be winding up the debate later—I know that my right hon. Friend is wrapping up his contribution now—to respond on the issue of the sense of timing for when the regulations will require operators to provide the bus services? If that could be clarified to a certain extent today, it would be very helpful.
Chris Grayling
The simple answer is that once the Bill is passed, we shall seek to move ahead as quickly as possible. It cannot be done overnight. We cannot simply wave a wand and bring in new systems immediately. As the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman rightly said, shortly.
The Bill seeks to do one thing; our goal is to do one thing; my Department’s work is all about one thing—to improve services for passengers. The Bill offers a balanced set of tools for local authorities and operators to use to make bus services even better than they are today. The Bill as originally drafted—I stress that proviso—provides an opportunity to make a real difference to passengers in all parts of the country. Through franchising and enhanced partnerships, this Bill provides councils with new ways to co-operate with bus operators to improve journeys for passengers. Open data provisions will allow passengers to plan their journeys better, while on-board information will help all passengers to get where they need to be and will reinforce the message of accessibility that is so important to all Members. Together, all these measures will put passengers at the heart of improvements to bus services. That is the simple and only goal of this Bill, which I commend to the House.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I begin by placing on the record my relief that the Bus Services Bill is finally having its day in the House of Commons. We have been waiting for this piece of legislation for some time—and you know what happens, Mr Deputy Speaker, you wait an age for a Bill and then another one comes along in a minute, namely the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill.
I would like to thank all those involved in the passage of this Bill so far—the noble Lords on both the Government and Opposition Benches, members of staff and Clerks of the House, as well as my Labour colleagues, of course, both Front and Back Benchers, who have campaigned relentlessly for better bus services and have paved the way for the Government’s change in policy and this Bill.
The original Bus Services Bill has been expertly scrutinised and amended, leaving us with a much improved piece of legislation. Labour supports the Bus Services Bill, and we welcome the changes made in the Lords, which we hope to retain as the Bill goes forward.
Buses are an integral part of the UK’s economy and social life. Sometimes, a disproportionate amount of attention is paid to our railways and to aviation, but it is buses that play by far the most important public transport role for the greatest number of people. This is clear when looking at the number of passenger journeys alone. For example, there were 1.7 billion passenger journeys on our railways last year, a figure dwarfed by the 5.2 billion passenger journeys made by bus. Whether people are travelling to work or school, visiting family or attending a hospital appointment, it is more likely that they will do so by bus than by any other form of public transport. Buses provide a vital service to people in all areas of the country, supporting local economies, tackling congestion, combating social exclusion, and lessening environmental and climate change impacts.
This is why we want to see local authorities empowered and enabled to support thriving bus services, and to reverse the long-term decline of bus services that was brought about by the disastrous deregulation of bus services in England outside London by the Conservative Government in 1986. This Bill is an acknowledgment that the deregulation of bus services has not worked.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I apologise to my hon. Friend for being late for the debate. Members will know that I have other duties on a Wednesday. Does he agree that the Bill and its related secondary legislation and guidance should enable a simple and straightforward process for metro mayors to introduce bus franchising in their area if that is what they and their combined authorities wish to do?
Andy McDonald
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. If this is to mean anything, making this happen in reality must be a smooth and quick process rather than a long and protracted one.
The rationale behind deregulation was that turning services over to the market would give the customer the final say; companies would compete and, as a consequence, would better cater their services to passengers. In theory, it is a competitive market, but in reality most bus services are provided by five large companies that avoid competing against each other. Since deregulation, bus use in metropolitan areas has decreased by a half and in non-metropolitan areas by a fifth. Meanwhile, in London, where buses were not deregulated, bus journeys have increased by 227%, mileage has increased by 74% and London journeys now outnumber bus journeys in the rest of England, while fare increases have been lower than in the city regions.
Andy McDonald
I would always want to see our young people encouraged to use our bus services. I was somewhat disappointed when I heard what the Secretary of State said about young people and their access to buses. He might want to reflect on that as the Bill proceeds.
Gordon Marsden
As my hon. Friend will know, the background behind the inability of local authorities to subsidise travel schemes for young people is the huge cuts to local authority funding over the whole period of this Government and the previous one. Is it not scandalous that this Government have brought nothing forward in any shape or form to permit major improvements, particularly for young people, students and apprentices, in this area?
Andy McDonald
Indeed. I could not agree more. One of the critical issues facing our young people today is getting from A to B—to get to their further education colleges or to go after job opportunities, especially when they have to work with the Department for Work and Pensions in trying to find work and are then penalised if they do not get there. It is critical to have a properly integrated transport system across the country so that young people can benefit from it.
Andy Burnham
If I am successful, I would be looking to give young people in Greater Manchester, particularly 16 to 18-year-olds, concessionary or free bus travel. In my view, that could be a replacement for the education maintenance allowance, which was so wrongly scrapped by the Conservatives. Does my hon. Friend believe that that policy could be worth looking at as a Labour policy for the next general election, using the powers granted by this Bill?
Andy McDonald
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. If that initiative, which tries to redress the imbalance that has been visited on our young people, is to be put in place in areas such as Manchester, I am convinced that it will completely appeal to people and that it will be the right measure to address the deficit that he so accurately described.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Has the hon. Gentleman costed Labour’s new policy of giving free concessionary travel to 16 and 17-year-olds?
Andy McDonald
Suggesting that we will not extend assistance to 16 to 18-year-olds says more about the hon. Gentleman’s attitude towards young people than it does about Opposition Members.
Under the current system, bus companies determine their routes and provision of services on a commercial basis, which means that commercially unprofitable but socially valuable services are left for local authorities to support. Since 2010, more than 2,400 routes have been downgraded or withdrawn. A combination of Government cuts and commercial operators deciding provision on a commercial basis means that individuals or communities become isolated, cut off from employment, education, healthcare, and friends and family.
Mr Betts
The Secretary of State derided what was happening before deregulation when, in fact, bus services were affordable and available. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Under the current arrangements, we often see bus companies over-competing on the main routes, but providing no services at all to the wider-spread communities. With regulation, we can use the same resources and the same number of buses to provide a better service to those currently disenfranchised communities.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes an entirely proper point. That problem is repeated throughout this country. People on our outlying estates do not even have access to bus services, because those services are run on narrow channels. Operators exploit those narrow routes for the singular purpose of maximising commercial profit, and they do not give a hang about the socially important things such as ensuring that people are connected in their communities.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman. On this variety of choice and the duplication and triplication of routes to which he refers, he can come to Dorset, Somerset or anywhere in the south-west and he will not find such issues. That is a metropolitan problem from which we would love to suffer.
Andy McDonald
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the fact that there are vast swathes of towns and cities that are not served by a comprehensive bus network. They are left isolated for considerable lengths of time. Some inner-urban areas have no services whatsoever on a Sunday. That is the reality of the bus services in this country at the moment.
I am delighted that we have an opportunity to put buses front and centre of the national conversation about transport. This Bill is to be welcomed, as is the historic U-turn of the Conservative party towards re-regulation of our bus services, which is something that Labour has consistently fought for.
Although this Bill appears to be an acknowledgment by the Government of the failure of the deregulation of buses, the Bill as originally drafted did not go as far as we would have wished in remedying the underlying problems in the current model. In its current form, the Bill gives local authorities a number of options to improve bus services, allowing authorities to work in partnership with private operators, to plan and run their own network of bus services, or, if they wish, to keep things as they are. The recognition that local authorities can best judge what services they require and should be allowed to select the model that best meets their particular needs is welcome, but, if changes made in the other place are reversed, the freedom to deliver the best services will be taken away.
Powers to re-regulate local bus services should be available to all areas that want them, not just to combined authorities with an elected mayor. Not all areas want a combined authority, and the Government do not intend that every area of the country should be covered by a combined authority. That does not mean that the Government should prevent those non-combined authority areas from improving bus services solely on the basis that they are not combined authorities.
Chi Onwurah
The point that my hon. Friend makes is particularly appreciated in Newcastle and Tyne and Wear where we do not yet have a combined authority and where we do not seek to have a mayor, but where we have long sought to have better control of our bus services. Our bus services are critical in Newcastle, as they are how we get to work. I have received so many complaints and concerns about the bus services. Will he urge the Secretary of State to ensure that Newcastle and Tyne and Wear can finally control their own services?
Andy McDonald
I have no hesitation whatsoever in urging the Secretary of State to do exactly that. Newcastle has a proud history of focusing on trying to deliver the best possible services for its people. To be prevented and excluded simply because it does not fit the devolution model currently on offer is basically to deny localism to huge swathes of our country, which cannot be the intention of any sensible Government.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Has the hon. Gentleman made an assessment of which local authorities would want to take up these opportunities? In 2000, the Labour Government introduced a contract scheme, which they described as similar to franchising, yet not a single authority has used it. Where is the evidence that more authorities want these powers?
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is referring to the quality partnership schemes that Labour brought in. Interestingly, what he says makes my point. It is up to local authorities to make the decision for themselves. It is not a question of people on the Labour Benches telling local authorities what they should or should not do; local authorities should have those options made available to them. From the way this Bill might be amended, it looks very much as if that choice will be denied to them.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
Having agreed to insert free bus passes for 16 and 17-year-olds in our manifesto in the run-up to the next general election, will my hon. Friend also agree to insert some words saying that we will allow local authorities, if appropriate, to set up their own municipal bus companies? It is purely a matter of ideology, which is why we had deregulation of buses in the first place. The Government are refusing to allow, from a localism point of view, local authorities that wish to establish their own municipal bus companies to do so. Why should they not be allowed to do so?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. It is absolutely right that local authorities should have that freedom. To restrict them in this way, as the Government purport to do, is basically to say, “You can have devolution in England, but you will have it only on the terms that we decide are available to you.” In other words, authorities can do what they want as long as the Government agree with what they are doing—[Interruption.] Yes, any colour as long as it is black.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
As one of the few MPs who made their living for several years as a bus driver, I do welcome this Bill. My hon. Friend is extolling the virtues of localism, but may I caution him that localism is all well and good as long as there is the money to go with it? At the moment, we see a huge imbalance in England between the money spent on London for public transport and the money spent elsewhere. He pointed out that the reason why public transport works better in London is partly due to the fact that there is non-deregulation, but it is also due to the fact that funding is far better. Will Labour commit itself to adequate funding for this localism of bus services?
Andy McDonald
I think that I am being invited to write a manifesto at the Dispatch Box. I am quite happy to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you could just give me a few minutes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the gross imbalance in spending in this country. In the north-east of England, we spend £229 per head of the population on transport, compared with £1,900 per head in London, so there is an imbalance. Undoubtedly, that must be corrected if we are to rebalance our economy in the UK.
It is interesting that this denial of opportunities to start up a new municipal company flies in the face of some of the more successful companies in the country. Why on earth would people not want to have a look at that as an option? There is no suggestion for a single second that there will be a mad rush of local authorities wanting to do this. They will want to weigh up and do what is best for their localities. Why on earth a Conservative Government would want to deprive them of making that choice is beyond me—or perhaps it is not.
James Heappey
I warmly welcome the shadow Minister’s announcement that he supports the view of many rural Conservative MPs that transport infrastructure spending should be redistributed to the regions, away from London. Too much has been spent there for too long, while too little has been spent in rural areas in particular. Does the Mayor of London agree with him?
Andy McDonald
I am sure the Mayor of London well and truly acknowledges that other parts of the country outside London need to have the benefit of investment, but this does not have to be an either/or. It is a question of priorities and making sure that we do not ignore vast swathes of the country.
We won on an amendment on Report in the other place to extend powers to re-regulate bus services to all areas. I hope that the Government’s stated commitment to devolution and improving bus services is not restricted to those areas that have struck deals for combined authorities with elected mayors. Labour was successful in removing clause 21, which would ban local authorities from forming their own bus companies and replicating the success of existing municipal companies. As the Minister is surely aware, municipal bus companies often outperform their rivals. Nottingham City Transport, for example, achieved a 97% overall satisfaction score in the most recent Transport Focus survey, while none of the big five bus operators broke 90%.
Removing the incentive to profit from operations can allow a greater focus on the social and economic purpose of bus services, meaning that buses can better cater for the social or business needs of a particular geography. Labour did not introduce a clause mandating municipal operators, but simply removed a clause prohibiting them, because we believe that there is not a one-size-fits-all model for running bus services. Indeed, there are a number of solutions for different areas, and it follows that, given the success of existing municipal bus companies, localities may judge that the municipal model is best suited for their area and may wish to attempt to replicate that success. If the Secretary of State is committed to devolution and believes that devolved authorities should be allowed to choose the best model to meet their needs, I hope that the Government will accept that the option of municipal operation should be preserved and that clause 21 should not be reintroduced.
We have an opportunity with this Bill to make significant improvements to bus services and, as a consequence, the social and economic life of much of our country, but Labour wishes these opportunities to be available across England, not just in some areas, and to be available to the fullest extent possible. We are happy to support this Bill, but ask that the Secretary of State listens to the forthcoming arguments—on both sides of the House, no doubt—and commits to transforming bus services in England for the better.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I warmly welcome this opportunity to debate bus services in the Chamber; we too seldom have an opportunity to reflect on the importance of the bus network for millions of people and to acknowledge the crucial role bus services play in our public transport system.
As has been acknowledged already from both Front Benches, buses provide a crucially important lifeline for millions of people, including people who choose not to drive a car and those who cannot afford to drive a car. We should also recognise the importance of buses for the elderly, many of whom feel that they no longer want to deal with the risk of driving a car or can no longer afford to do so. For all sorts of reasons, therefore, we in this House need to do all we can to support our bus networks around the country. I pay tribute to all the people involved in delivering bus services and helping us get to where we need to be.
I am enthusiastic about much of this Bill, but I do have worries about clause 4 and the changes made to the Bill in the other place. I warmly support the provisions in clauses 7 and 8 to facilitate the delivery of smarter ticketing technologies, which, as has already been acknowledged, can do so much to make bus travel an easier and more convenient and attractive option.
I also welcome clauses 1 to 3 and 9 to 15 on partnerships. Partnership-working between local authorities and private sector bus operators can be a highly effective way to improve bus services for passengers. There is a long list of successful examples from around the country, including places such as Sheffield and Bristol. The extension of the statutory partnership structure beyond the provision of infrastructure to include general bus improvement measures makes sense, and is an important part of the Bill. It is also a welcome step forward to enable statutory partnerships more easily to cover larger areas and have a more joined-up approach between different operators.
It is also helpful to make the Competition and Markets Authority a statutory consultee. Its current status as a powerful but somewhat unpredictable presence outside the partnership process can be a barrier to ambitious measures that both the operator and the local authority might sincerely believe are the right way forward. Giving it a more formal role internal to the process can help generate the certainty needed to support investment in measures to improve bus services for passengers.
As I have said, I am worried about the effect of clause 4 and the proposals to grant local authorities the right to specify bus services. We have heard a lot about the comparison between London and the rest of England, and it is true that in London bus routes, timetables and fares are specified by Transport for London and then tendered out to the private sector bus companies for delivery under contract, but London has unique circumstances.
There is a range of factors in London that contribute to comparatively high levels of bus usage, which are simply not present in most of the rest of the country: the scale and density of the population; relatively low rates of car ownership compared with other areas; millions of visitors; very high costs for parking in central London; a pretty aggressive approach by successive Mayors to bus priority measures; and a congestion charge that generates very significant sums to support the bus network. So while I do not see any need to change the regulatory system that operates in London, I do not accept that expanding that system to other parts of England would deliver the same high levels of ridership in places where the circumstances are very different. Indeed, the regulated bus network in England before privatisation in ’86 was simply not delivering great quality services for the customer, nor a thriving a bus industry, and it would be a mistake to look back on it with too much nostalgia.
Lilian Greenwood
Is the right hon. Lady aware of the experience on the island of Jersey? It franchised its bus services to a social enterprise just two years ago, and has achieved savings of £800,000 a year, introduced new routes, and increased passenger numbers by a third. What does she think that shows about the opportunity for franchising to perhaps work in other places?
Mrs Villiers
I have not looked at the Jersey example, but my anxiety is that rolling back the clock, essentially, and renationalising and re-regulating the bus network could ultimately mean that we lose the investment we have received from the private sector into bus services over the last decades. My key worry here is that the effect of the provisions introduced by clause 4 would be to enable local authorities, who perhaps 30 years ago sold their bus operations at a commercial price, now effectively to confiscate those self-same businesses.
The inevitable impact of this clause is that companies large and small, who might have spent many years and a great deal of money, energy, effort and innovation building up their business, might be barred from operating in the event that they lose the franchise contest. They could see their operations in a particular town or city disappear overnight, leaving them with buses, staff, depots and equipment that they cannot use.
I am particularly worried about the impact on smaller bus operators, who provide important services in many parts of the country. Those with a successful business serving a relatively small area and small range of routes might find it very difficult to tender for a big local authority contract. They might also find the tender process for running services to be complex and expensive, and require costly professional advice. If the process is anything like rail franchising, complexity can be truly daunting.
Andy Burnham
I think that people would struggle to agree with the London-centric point that the right hon. Lady was making a moment ago, when she suggested that London was somehow completely different from the rest of the country. My constituents would not accept that. Nor would they accept the point about the poor companies that she is talking about. She is making an argument for them rather than for the travelling public. Does she not accept that, for the past 30 years, bus companies have made considerable, and in some cases excessive, profits at the same time as receiving a public subsidy?
Mrs Villiers
My goal is to improve services for passengers, and I believe that private sector investment in our bus networks has had a positive impact on passengers. I do not believe that reversing that would produce better outcomes for passengers. One has only to look back at the pre-1986 position to see that the ridership on buses before that date had plummeted. It is not the case that there was a golden era for bus services before 1986.
The trouble is that if we create a system in which we discourage private sector investment in the bus network, we will create uncertainty in the bus industry. Discouraging such investment will have a negative impact on passengers. That is what I am worried about.
Mrs Villiers
No, I have already given way.
We need to bear it in mind that, in competing for bus contracts, local operators might be up against large transport groups owned by overseas Governments with deep pockets. I am particularly concerned that the amendment that was approved in the other place will mean that bus operators could even find themselves having to contest for contracts alongside a company owned by the franchising authority that is making the decision to award the contract, giving rise to an obvious and unacceptable conflict of interest. I fear that clause 4 would inevitably result in a number of bus companies going out of business, which would be bad for passengers. I am also concerned that local authorities that are keen to take over the provision of bus services will find that taking on revenue risk could be a very costly exercise that would deplete the funding available to support those crucial non-commercial routes that do not generate enough passengers to cover their costs.
No local authority has introduced a quality contract to re-regulate bus services, despite their having been on the statute book since the early years of this century. I acknowledge that there are different reasons for that, but one of them is that taking over bus operations is inevitably a very expensive project for local authorities. To those who think that passing greater financial responsibility for investing in the bus network from the private sector to local councils is a great idea, I would point out that it involves investment in buses and bus services having to compete with pressing priorities such as social care, libraries, waste collection and all the rest, and that that investment—and bus passengers—are likely to suffer as a result.
Ever since 1986, there has been a vigorous and lively debate about the effect of deregulating bus services outside London. It cannot be denied that many millions of pounds of investment have been made by private sector bus operators in the years since privatisation. That brings me to a key problem with the franchising proposals—namely, the uncertainty that they will cause. If bus operators are unsure about whether their businesses could end up being taken off the road, they will be reluctant to invest in new buses or to improve passenger facilities such as ticketing systems.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I have listened with some frustration to what the right hon. Lady is saying. I fail to grasp why something that works in London and no doubt delivers very well for the people she represents cannot be done in other parts of the country. The insecurity that she talks about could have the reverse effect in large parts of the north-east, where the insecurity at the moment rests with the travelling public, who do not know whether there will be a bus to get them to hospital on a regular basis.
Mrs Villiers
There seems to be an assumption that if the London model of regulation were to be applied everywhere else, it would suddenly deliver London standards of bus services, but a causal link between the two has not been established. A whole range of factors in London contributes to the high levels of ridership and the success of the bus network. Simply reproducing that regulatory system elsewhere would not deliver the same end result, not least because Londoners pay several million pounds in congestion charges every year that are recycled into bus services. That larger level of subsidy makes a difference to the quality of the services.
Mrs Villiers
No, I will not give way.
In my previous role as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I was contacted by Wrightbus of Ballymena. The company was concerned about the chilling effect that even the proposals leading to the Bill were having on orders for new buses from operators in England. Wrightbus is a hugely successful company that exports buses to many places around the world, as far afield as China. It delivers the highest quality engineering and provides training and opportunities for hundreds of young people. It is a great asset to Northern Ireland and to the UK as a whole. Its concerns demonstrate that the re-regulation of bus services outside London is not a step to be undertaken lightly. It is not a cost-free option. If we get this wrong, it will be the passenger who suffers. I therefore appeal to the Minister to table amendments that would remove clause 4. At the very least, it is important to amend the Bill to reverse the changes made in the other place, which extend franchising powers beyond mayoral combined authorities and which would allow all local authorities to set up their own bus companies.
Mrs Villiers
No, I am just concluding my speech.
Reverting to the Bill’s original drafting would not deal with all the issues that I have highlighted today, but it would certainly mitigate the problems caused and the uncertainty that is likely to damage the interests of passengers by undermining the viability of bus operations and investment in those services. I therefore very much welcome the intention expressed by the Secretary of State to amend clause 4 as it stands, and I give the Government my support in their endeavour. As the Bill progresses, I hope that they will consider going a step further and remove clause 4 altogether.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to unaccompanied children in Greece and Italy, the Ayes were 254 and the Noes were 1, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I rise to say a few words on clause 17, which is the only UK-wide provision in the Bill. I am going to start by doing something that I have not done before, which is to commend the Government and the other place for agreeing to amendments that brought in clause 17 and the provisions on accessibility. This is a victory for common sense as well as for equality. It makes no sense that train operators have had to provide audio-visual information for years, yet bus companies are under no such obligation. By default it is clear that more people use buses and that people with visionary or sensory impairment are likely to require access to buses far more frequently than to trains.
As part of the Talking Buses campaign, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), and also used my first question to the Prime Minister to raise awareness of the campaign, so I am well aware that at that point the Government were not for moving on this matter. The Transport Minister’s response stated:
“Such systems are expensive to install, potentially creating a disproportionate financial burden to bus companies”.
He also stated:
“We propose that franchising schemes could require the installation of equipment to provide accessible information on buses where the local authority feel this is appropriate”.
We cannot have the Government putting out the message that these provisions would be too expensive for them, only to ask local authorities to deal with them instead.
Rob Marris
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the concerns about the cost of these proposed measures are entirely misplaced? When I drove a bus, it was a requirement of my job that I announced every stop as it was upcoming. Most bus drivers have a voice and can announce these things as part of an audio-visual information package for people with disabilities without spending any more money at all.
Alan Brown
I thank the hon. Gentleman for passing on his experience. That makes sense. In fact, the Department for Transport’s own figures suggest that the provision of audio-visual information would cost less than £6 million a year, which in terms of its overall expenditure is absolutely nothing.
The Government have previously suggested that phone apps might be the way forward. While apps have benefits, they cannot be the only solution. I was contacted by a company that gave me a phone to trial, so I handed it over to a constituent with a visual impairment. They told me that the app was fine as far as it went, but it could not be relied upon 100%.The app’s functionality also depends on the type of phone being used, so the Government cannot use that sort of technology as a way around the problem. We need audio-visual technology on buses.
Huw Merriman
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the Government on the change? When the Royal National Institute of Blind People gave its thoughts to the Transport Committee, the situation was that such technology would only be for new buses. This measure goes further, so will the hon. Gentleman give some credit where it is due?
Alan Brown
I think I have the usual problem here of people not understanding my Scottish accent, because I said in my opening remarks that I commend the Government and the House of Lords for bringing this measure in. I do commend the Government; I was just saying some “buts” as usual to put the message out that they must go forward and fully implement the proposal. That is why I was making some minor criticisms.
As part of the campaign that I was involved in, I also participated in a Guide Dogs for the Blind Association blindfold walk through Kilmarnock—my constituency’s main town. The drivers were excellent, but my experience reinforced the need for new technology. When I went on the bus, there was absolutely no way of telling where I was on the journey or where I could get off. Buses clearly do not call at every bus stop, so if there is no information, people have to rely on help from drivers or other passengers.
Lilian Greenwood
I did a similar thing to the hon. Gentleman’s blindfold walk and know how important audio-visual announcements are to people with visual impairments. However, such announcements help everybody who uses the bus. One thing that puts people off using buses is not being quite sure where the stops will be and where to get off, which is why they like trams and rail systems. Audio-visual technology is important for increasing everybody’s bus use.
Alan Brown
I absolutely agree. It gives everybody the confidence to go on the buses, particularly the elderly and tourists and other people who are not familiar with different cities and towns. There are benefits for all passengers.
Returning to people with a visual impairment, a Guide Dogs report states that seven out of 10 passengers on buses that do not have audio-visual information have missed their stop because they did not know where to get off or were not assisted in getting off. I cannot imagine how distressing that must be. People who feel uncomfortable in using public transport would be reluctant to go back on a bus after an experience like that. I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) has also participated in a blindfold walk. If any pressure comes up during the consultation about costs, I urge the Government to resist it. If anyone has any doubts, they should do what I and other Members have done and go on a blindfold walk to see what it is like.
In conclusion, I commend the Government again—as long as they follow through in the consultation and implement the proposal within an appropriate timescale. I also commend Guide Dogs, and the 30 organisations that supported it, for running a successful campaign, the many constituents who have contacted me, and the 30,000 people who signed the petition.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I rise to support this enabling Bill, which has the potential to reinvigorate bus services across the UK and in Greater Manchester. Bus use has changed over the past 30 years. Since 1985, usage has fallen by half in metropolitan areas and by 30% in Greater Manchester. Meanwhile in London, where the franchising of routes was introduced, the number of bus journeys has increased by well over 200%. For almost a generation, service provision has been based on commercial profit-making routes, with local authorities being able to subsidise loss-making but socially critical routes. However, such services are increasingly under threat. In Cheadle, the X57—a vital service for my constituents that runs from the centre of Manchester to the small rural village of Woodford—has been all but lost. Various reasons have been cited, including falling passenger numbers on a service that is bedevilled by congestion along its route, which causes problems for the timetable.
When people move from buses to cars, congestion increases and services ultimately suffer. It is therefore imperative that we take the opportunity afforded by the Bill to reinvigorate our bus services. The Bill will enable local authorities—particularly Greater Manchester, with its devolved powers—to address current service shortfalls, to tackle congestion on our roads, and to provide a vital link for people to access work and town centre facilities. All that will further support our local economies.
Work is ongoing throughout the Greater Manchester area to encourage greater public transport usage. While I look forward to an extended Metrolink in the long term, I welcome the recent opening of the £165 million Second City Crossing, which is part of the Government’s £1.5 billion expansion plan for bus, cycle, rail and tram. In the short-term, however, introducing a smarter, cheaper, and more extensive bus service could have real benefits for constituents such as mine.
Mary Robinson
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that what we really need is an integrated transport system that works for passengers, invigorates the area, and enables people to get to work and to enjoy their towns and cities.
Chris Green
While orbital routes for the tram network are a good idea, does my hon. Friend agree that they are not always possible? For Greater Manchester’s future, we must ensure that good bus routes go where orbital routes cannot.
Mary Robinson
It is important to look for ways to improve all services, even those in the most difficult of areas, and buses play a significant part in that.
As a Greater Manchester MP, I look at the Bill in the context of the ongoing devolution of powers to the area and the commitment to economic growth fuelled by the northern powerhouse. I do not underestimate the importance of an effective public transport network that supports jobs and underpins our local communities. Bus services are a critical part of our transport network, accounting for almost 80% of public transport journeys across Greater Manchester. More frequent and better-quality services are essential for Greater Manchester’s growth and would help local residents to contribute to and benefit from future economic prosperity.
Franchising presents an opportunity to introduce simple and integrated smart ticketing across Greater Manchester. It could also alleviate some of the problems in the current system of multiple providers. Some 22 different bus operators provide services across Greater Manchester. Each has its own fares and branding, which gives rise to inconsistency. Compare that with the single, unified brand that operates successfully across London. A change to the current system will allow seamless travel through joint-ticketing and a more stable service. It could also end injustices such as passengers having to pay a 10% premium for a ticket that can be used across different operators.
Furthermore, the Bill is an opportunity to improve disability access and, importantly, disability training, so that drivers know the importance of where to pull into at bus stops and how to provide the best service for people with disabilities. The Bill will encourage a joined-up approach between local authorities, and it is important that disability access issues are properly considered, whether through audio-visual announcements or just by giving people with disabilities the time and space to access services.
Rob Marris
Franchising—I would say that there are four ways to provide a service without franchising in the area—can also cover emission standards, which is particularly important in metropolitan areas.
Mary Robinson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that important point, which I will discuss later.
People want passenger-friendly bus services, which is about not only how information is delivered, but having good-quality information available in the first place. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is no longer in the Chamber, about the importance of open data. Open data can allow passengers more easily to compare offers from various providers, thereby increasing their confidence in the service they can expect and when they can expect it. At present, bus operators have no obligation to provide information about fares, except at the point of boarding, or how routes are performing. Live information via information screens at waiting stops and smartphone apps is key to empowering passengers, encouraging the use of services, and allowing operators to understand local needs better so that services can be improved.
Addressing air quality is a key aspect of the Bill. Poor air quality contributes to an estimated 1,000 early mortalities a year across Greater Manchester. The increased use of public transport will clearly help to address the problem, so I welcome its being part of the Greater Manchester 2040 strategy. Air quality is particularly important in Cheadle, where the local pinch point at the Gatley-Kingsway junction causes a great deal of congestion and misery for local road users and commuters. More people using buses, and combined authorities having the ability to set minimum standards for bus fleets across the region, have the potential to reduce dangerous emissions.
Andy Burnham
I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. Members on both sides of the House have been far too complacent about the growing public health crisis that is due to air quality. The Government have issued a list of six places that they will designate as clean air zones, but Greater Manchester is currently not one of them. Will she support my call for Ministers to include Greater Manchester on the list of places that can introduce clean air zones?
Mary Robinson
It is important that the next Mayor of Greater Manchester makes a point of improving our air quality and decreasing congestion on our roads. I look forward to that happening.
The A34 is the bane of many of my constituents’ journeys to and from work. I have spoken about the A34 and the Gatley junction on a number of occasions in this House, and our most congested road would significantly benefit from a reduction in single-occupant car journeys and an increase in people making journeys by bus.
It is vital that the Bill works for my constituents by changing attitudes towards public transport, and improving services through increased reliability and allowing the introduction of a more seamless smart ticketing system. For Greater Manchester, it is important that no obstacles are placed in the way of our enacting the Bill ahead of the mayoral election in May so that the Conservative candidate, Sean Anstee, may continue the improvements already instigated by this Conservative Government.
The Bill is a revolutionary step for Greater Manchester, its population and its further growth. Regionally, we need a better, more integrated bus service to encourage a more user-friendly public transport system, and I am pleased to support the Bill.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The Transport Committee was pleased to have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill after its consideration in the other place. Indeed, that was the fifth occasion in this Parliament and the previous one that the Committee had considered the state of our bus services, which indicates the level of dissatisfaction with the problems of the current system and the need for change.
Nobody should doubt the importance of buses to our local communities. About five times as many public transport journeys are made by bus than by train, yet little attention is given to buses. Overall, across Great Britain, buses account for 62% of passenger journeys, but the figure reaches over 80% in Manchester, Merseyside and the west midlands. We are therefore talking about a lot of people. I have always found it totally incomprehensible that there is so little national interest in bus services when so many people across the country are affected by them.
Good local bus networks open up new education opportunities for young people, provide routes to work—64% of jobseekers cannot drive or have no access to a vehicle—and ensure that people have proper access to healthcare and social facilities. The converse is also true. If bus services are inadequate or, indeed, do not exist at all, many people lose out on opportunities to develop their abilities or even to get a job, and the economy loses out, too. Interesting new analysis that was recently published by the University of Leeds suggests that a 10% improvement in local bus service connectivity is associated with a 3.6% reduction in social deprivation. Simply put, we cannot afford to neglect our bus networks.
Rob Marris
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties with buses can be the huge cost? My home is less than a mile and a half from the centre of the city, yet a one-way ticket is £2.40. That is absolutely ridiculous, and the situation is replicated across the country.
Mrs Ellman
I agree with my hon. Friend that the cost of bus services often deters people from using them, which indicates that the promise of deregulation has not materialised. We were told that competition would bring down costs and fares, but that simply has not happened.
In England, outside London, we have seen a long-term decline in bus passenger numbers since the deregulation of the bus services market in 1986. Since then, operators have been able to run bus services on the routes of their choosing, with the frequency and fares that they feel appropriate. The result is that we now have a two-tier system outside London. Commercial operators, especially the big five companies that dominate the market, run profitable routes and, as the previous Transport Committee found, a lack of competition means that they are failing to provide an adequate service in many areas. Routes in those other areas have often been funded by local authorities, which have often stepped into the breach if socially important services are not commercially viable.
Local authority budgets have been cut in recent years, which has taken its toll on the provision of local bus services. Indeed, since 2010, funding for supported bus services in England and Wales has been reduced by 25%. Our inquiry heard that, in practice, whole villages and towns have been cut off from their neighbours, but this is not always about villages and towns because estates or whole areas of a city or town can be cut off. That prevents people living in those areas from having reasonable access to jobs and training, or being able to get on with their life.
One problem with the current system, as hon. Members have said, is a lack of integration and proper information. Passengers are offered a confusing variety of tickets covering different operators. Different fares are set and various technologies are used, and timetables are not always properly accessible to people who want to use buses. Accessibility is an important aspect of making bus services attractive. People will use buses if the services are there, if they feel that those services are reliable and if they have proper information about what is available, but too often that simply does not happen. The fact that timetables are not integrated with those for other modes of transport is another problem.
Integrating different modes of public transport is important for reducing congestion and addressing the important issue of air quality. We need more integration of our public transport services—that is what most people want—but the current system does not facilitate that. There are alternative models to the two-tier system of deregulation, and London is the most prominent one. Patronage across the capital has doubled since 1986 and, on average, fares there have been lower than in other city regions. The system that is operated in London might not be suitable for all parts of the country, and certainly not all local authorities would want to take it up, but the situation there shows that when appropriate powers are given to local authorities to work with the private sector, which provides the actual buses, the system can work.
Some attempts to reform the system that began operating in 1986 have brought about improvements, albeit limited ones. Our inquiry was given examples of innovative partnerships operating around the country. For example, the west midlands bus alliance has benefited passengers through integrated timetabling and joint ticketing, and FirstGroup told us about a successful partnership in Bristol. I am sure that there are many other examples of partnerships on offer under the current system that have made things better and been able to address some of the problems.
However, those achievements have been few and have come too slowly, and some parts of the current framework are clearly not fit for purpose. Members have mentioned quality contract schemes. They were introduced to give local authorities the opportunity to implement a system similar to franchising if they wanted to do so, but no such scheme has ever been implemented. As has been indicated, it might be that no authority wanted to do so, but I do not think that that is the case. The system that was set up—not by this Government but by a previous one—was so complicated, complex and convoluted that in practice it was difficult to implement, so authorities simply did not attempt it.
I am glad that the Bill has had such widespread general support. It is the latest in a series of attempts to address the problems created by bus deregulation—I believe it is the third such Bill to be presented to Parliament since that time. The Transport Committee looked at the Bill in general and examined its details, including the changes made by the other place. We support the Bill and most of what is in it. We support the general principle of local authorities deciding the structure of bus services that is most appropriate for their communities. That structure might be a deregulated market left as it is, or it might be about partnerships, franchising or setting up a municipal operation. Our report on the Bill states clearly that we would encourage local authorities to look at each of the possibilities sequentially to see which is the most appropriate to address problems in their area. The question we should be asking now is: how will the Bill improve the situation? How will this Bill put in place something different from what has gone before? How will it make things better? Let me say at the outset that this Bill is a much more comprehensive approach to improving bus services than either of the previous Bills because it looks at the system as a whole and the improvements it suggests are much more substantial and comprehensive than before.
The Committee heard powerful testimony about the difficulties faced by people with visual impairments when using the bus, and we commend the Government’s commitment to introduce regulations on improving audio-visual provisions. In particular, we heard evidence from Jacqueline Juden, a guide dog user, who described graphically the problems experienced by visually impaired people when using buses. The latest information shows that only 19% of buses provide reliable next-stop audio-visual information, with most of those being in London. I was appalled to read evidence from Guide Dogs saying that its survey found that 32% of visually impaired people using buses had missed a stop because they were too worried to inquire about where they were. It provided the equally horrendous and surprising statistic that 28% of drivers had refused to tell these people that information. Hon. Members have talked about problems when people do not have enough access to information and data. We wholeheartedly welcome the Bill’s provisions to make those much more available, as that is very important.
Let me turn to the structural changes proposed in the Bill, as amended in the other place and as the Secretary of State intends to take it through this House. Will those changes make a substantial difference? The provisions as amended—even before that—will make a welcome, positive change. The Bill offers stronger powers for local authorities to work with private operators and for new forms of partnership—advanced quality contracts, enhanced partnerships and franchising. We were very concerned about the Department’s failure to publish regulations and guidance when we considered the Bill, as that impeded scrutiny. It was very wrong that that was the situation, but since that time changes have been made, and guidance and some regulations have been published. However, it appears from that guidance that even authorities with a directly elected mayor, which are eligible for franchising—the Secretary of State confirmed that again this afternoon, as the Government do not propose to change that proposition—would have to make what the regulations call a “compelling case” for franchising to the Minister.
May I ask for clarification about the position? The Committee did not have that information when we considered the Bill, and we were concerned that we did not know what the regulations and guidance would be. I must ask the Minister what that provision means. Does it in any way cut across the commitment, which was repeated today, that areas with directly elected mayors would be able to opt for a franchising system if they want to do that?
We are still unclear about whether transport authorities without a directly elected mayor will be able to have franchising if they feel that that is suitable for their area. I sense some ambivalence in the Secretary of State’s comments. It is clear that he does not want franchising powers to be held in areas outside those with directly elected mayors, although I understand that a separate agreement has been made in relation to Cornwall. However, the guidance is still in place, so what exactly does it mean? What kind of application could be made by local transport authorities outside areas with directly elected mayors? Would the process be complicated, meaning in effect that these areas would not get authorisation? What is going on, and will this be very confusing?
Our inquiry also heard about the deep frustration that communities feel when bus services are cancelled without proper notice being given. We therefore very much welcome the provision in the Bill that will allow the designation of bus routes as community assets. That would mean that the cancellation of a route could be delayed while alternatives were considered, which we think is a very good idea. We also looked at the question of whether municipal operators should be set up, and we felt that, in general, local transport authorities should be able to have the system they think appropriate for their areas. We certainly recognised that there could be conflicts of interest, but we felt there were ways in which those could be addressed. We did not think it was right—we felt it was disproportionate—to say that no new municipal operators could be set up.
Lilian Greenwood
I wonder whether my hon. Friend can offer me some advice. Local authorities that currently have a municipal operator will already tender for a supported service. In my local authority, those supported services are provided not by the municipal operator, but by our community transport organisation. Does that not demonstrate that it is possible to have a municipal operator but still operate a competitive tendering process?
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. She represents an area in which a successful municipal operator has been functioning very effectively for a long time, and gives us a clear example of how possible conflicts of interest can be addressed. Even at this late stage, I urge Ministers to look again at that issue.
Traffic management has not yet been mentioned. Buses are important not only for mobility, but in addressing environmental issues, and making transport around our cities and towns easier. Running buses cannot be dissociated from effective traffic management. While there are some relevant provisions in the Bill, I call on Ministers to consider activating the provisions in part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 that would give local authorities powers to act on moving traffic offences. The Act is in statute, but the relevant section has not been activated. Local authorities repeatedly ask for it to be activated as it would be important in helping bus services.
Mrs Villiers
Does the hon. Lady agree about the importance of bus priority measures to make bus travel more reliable and therefore more attractive to passengers? Many local authorities are not prepared to make the quite courageous decisions required to deliver priority measures.
Mrs Ellman
The right hon. Lady makes an important point. Bus priority measures are indeed important; they are part of the range of measures available to local authorities when they are looking at how buses can be facilitated in their area and how to work with other traffic to make the best and most efficient use of road space.
The case for the Bill is clear, and the Select Committee welcomes it. We are pleased that it has come forward and very much welcome its comprehensive nature. Many of our communities suffer inadequate bus services. The existing regulatory framework is not fit for purpose, and previous efforts to restore it have not been comprehensive enough and have not been successful. The Bill makes important strides towards supporting bus networks throughout England, but more must be done to ensure that local communities and transport authorities have the information and powers that they need to provide effective bus services. This time, we must get it right. It is clear that we cannot afford another squandered opportunity for reform. I support the Bill, and it is supported by the Transport Committee.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I welcome the main aims of the Bill, which are to increase passenger numbers and give local authorities and operators new tools to improve services. With that in mind, I wish to make a brief contribution on rural bus services, which are of huge interest to my constituents, particularly those in the more rural and isolated parts, because I am keen to hear from the Minister how the Bill can help them. Without a shadow of a doubt, the biggest turnouts at the public meetings I have held have been at those at which bus services are being discussed. At a recent event in Kingsbury, where a route was being cut—I will return to that later—such was the strength of feeling that we had to shut people out of the room because capacity was quickly reached.
Obviously, many people rely on public transport. At a time when we are encouraging more people to use it, it is important that we do not forget the areas that need services, so that people have the opportunity to get good jobs and to shop and socialise, and so that they can choose where they are educated. Sadly, that is not currently happening in North Warwickshire and Bedworth. I hear regularly from constituents that there are not enough buses, that they do not go at the right times, and that they do not go where people need them to go. I have to admit that there is a stark contrast between my time spent in London, when I think of using nothing other than public transport because of how excellently it works, and my time spent back in the constituency, where it is just not viable to use it.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the difference between cities, which are so well provided for, and rural areas such as North Warwickshire and, indeed, west Oxfordshire. I suspect his constituents are in the same position as many of mine. Does he agree that for our constituents—such as the elderly in rural villages who need to get to clinics, the children who need to get to school, or the young people who need get to employment opportunities—the provision of regular, effective and far-reaching rural bus services is a real concern?
Craig Tracey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall discuss the elderly a little more later, because we need not only to ensure they can get to clinics, but to address issues such as isolation and loneliness, which have a big impact on health services.
The contrast between public transport in London and in my constituency is demonstrated by the fact that if I wanted to get a bus from my home in Shuttington to my constituency office in Atherstone, which is around 7 miles and takes around 15 minutes by car, it would take me an hour and a half to get there by bus. Similarly, if I wanted to get into the nearest town, Tamworth, which is 3 miles away, the bus journey would take around one hour and 40 minutes. That is not a good service for anyone wanting to get to a 9-to-5 job or to their doctor, or to use other local amenities.
I am sure the Minister is aware that HS2, which also falls under his remit, is a huge concern for the residents of North Warwickshire—arguably the most affected area outside London. At a time when much is being made of the speed with which people can access other areas of the country, my constituents currently feel let down by the speed of access to their local towns and cities. The promise of the supposed employment and benefits that HS2 could bring to the area are negated by the fact that many of my constituents simply will not be able to access them. For a resident living in Kingsbury, a community with a population of more than 7,000 that is heavily affected by HS2, it currently takes two hours and 10 minutes on public transport to get the 15 miles into Birmingham city centre, with only one bus getting there before 9 am.
We recently saw the loss of a vital lifeline link, when the 116 bus route was withdrawn with very little notice, leaving people from areas such as Kingsbury and Curdworth unable to get to work, again. The operator complied with the guidelines, but they were not robust enough to enable sufficient notice or consultation to allow people the opportunity to engage or make alternative arrangements, even though for many that would not have been possible in any event because it was their only method of transport. I appreciate that there is a Catch-22 situation, whereby although there needs to be a degree of commercial viability for companies, if they do not run the services when people want them or get people there in a reasonable time, they are simply not going to be used.
I recently ran an event on the impacts of loneliness and isolation, which have far-reaching consequences for our blue-light services and the NHS. It is clear that access to great public transport could have a huge effect on rural communities and afford people, particularly the elderly, who often need our support most, the ability to enjoy the opportunities that less remote areas enjoy as a matter of course. The benefits to the overall public purse could be very significant, not to mention the health benefits that a more active lifestyle would offer.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman is making a really important point about how buses can help with social exclusion. Has he considered the potential to create in rural areas what are called total transport networks, whereby social services buses, non-emergency patient transport, and school and college transport are pulled together to provide the sort of services he would like to see for this constituents?
Craig Tracey
The hon. Lady makes a good point. That is something I have been looking at as part of my work on isolation. We need to take the opportunity offered by the Bill to look not only at solutions from the past but at the innovative opportunities out there.
We need to consider how rural bus services are run, and the passage of the Bill seems like an opportune time to do so. As I have said, I welcome the measures set out in the Bill, but would like the Minster to look at how we can ensure that our rural communities are not cut off and left behind. With an ageing population and the likelihood that people will become more isolated if more is not done soon, as well as the pressures that increased building will put on our already struggling infrastructure in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, better service provision is an absolute must. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on how the Bill can make that happen.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It is worth going through a little history to put the Bill into perspective. Although I support this Bill, there is one real sense in which I, as Labour MP, think it is not necessary. The fact is that since the Transport Act 1985 was implemented in 1986, virtually every Labour Member has seen it as a catastrophic failure for people who use buses. It saddens me that a Labour Government did not bring forward a better Act than the Bill before us now. However, the Government have brought this Bill before us, and it is worth supporting.
Given what the Secretary of State said about reversing the Lords amendments, it is worth remembering why we have this Bill at all. It came about because the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), had discussions with the chief executive of Manchester City Council, Sir Howard Bernstein, who retires this month and to whom we should all pay tribute for progressing this item, which will undoubtedly improve buses. The then Chancellor recognised what many of us had been saying for some time—that this country would be much better off economically if we made our major cities work, rather than depriving them of resources and of allowing them to run their transport system in favour of the economy and people who live in the area. Sir Howard Bernstein and Sir Richard Leese persuaded the then Chancellor, and we now have this Bill before us.
It was always an ideological position of the Conservative party, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Chipping Norton, that it wanted a complete free-market approach to buses. However, the Government conceded that they would allow reregulation if combined local authorities agreed to have an elected mayor. That negotiation was entered into and agreed. One has to bear that in mind when the Government say that they will reverse the Lords amendments. I agree with that in principle, but I would not like to lose the Bill, given that a negotiation happened and an agreement was put in place between local authorities and the Government that will improve life for many people I represent and for many in mayoral combined authority areas.
I will go through two major issues. First, the right hon. Member for Chipping Norton gave the argument for the exceptionalism of London or, to put it another way, “It’s okay for us in London. You lot can get on with it.” [Hon. Members: “ Chipping Barnet.”] I am sorry; if the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) were in her place, I would apologise to her. She put forward three arguments as to why London should have something that the rest of us cannot. One was that it would bring uncertainty to the bus companies. Well, there would probably be a bit of uncertainty for the bus companies, as they will have to compete in a different way to run services, but my prime interest and concern is for the passengers who, for the past 31 years under the deregulation Act, have only had six weeks’ notice—in practice, sometimes less—of bus services being withdrawn. Part of the Bill takes some of that uncertainty away from passengers, so that argument does not stand up, particularly if our priority is the passengers.
To be completely straightforward, I did not understand the right hon. Lady’s second point, which was about the renationalisation of the buses. The Bill is not about renationalising the buses. It is primarily about reregulation in metropolitan areas. Although I accept the deal, and allowing local authorities to set up municipal bus companies was not part of that deal, I do not think it would do any harm for local authorities that saw the need for it to have the right to set up municipal bus companies, particularly if the private sector moves out, as it has threatened to do on a number of occasions if the Bill goes through.
The right hon. Lady’s third point was about the finance that goes into London from the congestion charge. The really important thing is that there was a period between 1986 and 2000, when Ken Livingstone won the London mayoralty, when there was effectively no subsidy. There was certainly no congestion charge for there to have been subsidy. There was no loss of bus passengers in Greater London over that period, whereas the number of bus passengers plummeted in the west midlands, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, and Bristol. The figures fell by two thirds in South Yorkshire and by half in Manchester, but without the subsidy from the congestion charge, the passenger figures in London remained the same. The arguments of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet against this Bill do not stack up.
It is worth taking a deeper look at how the deregulation has worked, why it does not work and the flaw in the arguments in support of it, for those who still support deregulation. When the legislation was introduced—incidentally, I have sadly been around long enough to have campaigned against the introduction of the 1985 Act—the argument was that competition would improve the bus services because bus services were run by municipal authorities that had monopolies and were not providing the best possible service. I do not believe, as the Opposition have been accused of believing, that that was a completely utopian, golden age. It was not; there were flaws. Many bus routes in South Yorkshire, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) talked about, and in Greater Manchester and Merseyside, were still running on the schedules and timetables of the old tram system. They did not respond quickly enough to the changes in population after slum clearance. There were faults, but there were night services, people could get across the conurbations to see their parents on Saturdays and Sundays because there were bus services, and people could get to work early in the morning or home late at night after shifts. All that has disappeared. So, no, it was not a golden age, but it was a much better service than is being provided by the private sector.
It is important to understand why the competition that was supposed to deliver has not worked, and it has not worked for two reasons. Where there was severe competition, as there was in south Manchester, Preston, Edinburgh and other places, bus companies went head to head and really had a go at trying to run the other bus company off the road. Those places got not a better service, but terrible congestion. City centres were blocked up. The system did not work where there was severe competition, but that was very rare. The Competition Commission did a study in 2011, finding that there was virtually no on-the-road competition. Supplementary evidence shows that there was very little competition because companies in the London system—as much as the bus companies’ accounts can be understood—were getting a much lower rate of return on their capital than companies elsewhere, although it still enabled them to invest in new buses.
John Pugh
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also a myth about deregulation meaning the introduction of the private sector? There were many splendid private sector operators in Liverpool prior to deregulation, such as Crosville and Ribble, which existed alongside the municipal sector.
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman is quite right about Merseyside. In Manchester, Mayne Coaches ran a service in the private sector, but it was regulated; it could not just—as happens under the deregulated system—decide to run a bus service one day and take it off six weeks later, or vice versa. So the issue is not privatisation but the lack of regulation.
The point I was getting to is that there is supplementary evidence that competition did not work. The rate of return in London was much lower, and FirstGroup moved out of the London market because it could make a much higher return in South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester.
Rob Marris
My hon. Friend may be aware that, of the major metropolitan urban areas outside London, the west midlands had the least competition, with over 85% of services run by Travel West Midlands and then by National Express. The ridership dropped less in the urban west midlands than in any other metropolitan areas, but, literally, at a price, with some of the highest fares and some of the highest returns on capital. So the competition was not there, and we had the high prices, but at least we had the continued ridership.
Graham Stringer
Indeed. It was often the change that led to the loss of ridership. When companies such as FirstGroup and Stagecoach operated their services, they were certainly, whether by tacit agreement or not—I doubt whether there was a written agreement—operating semi-monopolies, which enabled them to charge much higher fares. It is not only that the ridership has gone down, but fares have gone up by about 43%.
The question I was coming to in terms of supplementary evidence is this: in terms of the way the legislation has worked so far, does anybody think that we, as the taxpayer, have had our return from Brian Souter and his sister, who have become billionaires out of this—I do not mind people being creative, being entrepreneurs and making money—pocketing money by gaming the system, running semi-monopolies and putting buses out, when every single bus that goes out of the depot has, on average, a 50% public subsidy? Certainly, Brian Souter and his sister have made money out of gaming the way the subsidy works. The system has not worked; it has not been competitive. Moving to a system where there is competition, not on the road, but by tender by private bus companies, will be better for the travelling public. I agree with competition by and large, because monopolies tend towards inefficiency, but the competition is better off the road, not on it.
I have one question about reliability, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) asked about. We are often told that congestion makes the buses unreliable, and it does. However, when the Transport Committee took evidence, we found that, in the majority of cases where buses did not turn up, that was not because of congestion, but because of mechanical failures in the buses, which had not been properly maintained, or because drivers had not turned up. That is an important point to bear in mind.
Finally, I would like to ask the Minister, who is in his place, the same question my hon. Friend asked: is saying that mayoral combined authorities have to have a compelling case before they re-regulate the buses trying to bring back the very high hurdle—the very high benchmark—that was in the Transport Act 2000, which effectively prevented those authorities that wanted to re-regulate the buses from doing so? Is it there to undermine what is essentially a good Bill? I hope the Minister will answer that in summing up.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Bill presents a unique opportunity to improve bus services, tackle congestion, support local economies and boost regional growth in my constituency and in Greater Manchester more widely.
The benefits of franchising mean that Greater Manchester will have the ability to decide the routes, frequencies, timetables and quality standards for buses, as well as a Mayor to hold to account should the service falter—all things that London has and takes for granted. That will particularly benefit people living in areas—especially rural areas—where current bus services are unreliable. Providing these franchising powers only to local authorities with directly elected mayors will ensure that there is a decision maker to hold to account, although other authorities without mayors will not necessarily be excluded and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The Conservative devolution agenda has the potential to be hugely beneficial to those areas included, especially because of the ability to apply joined-up thinking to planning and other areas of governance. Unfortunately, I am not convinced at the moment that the leadership in Greater Manchester is taking the opportunities presented. The Greater Manchester spatial framework has recently been published, and it seems to have been done in complete ignorance of the needs of public transport and of people right across Greater Manchester. It seems designed to optimise urban sprawl and the consumption of our green spaces so that councils can gain the maximum council tax receipts, but it shows little to no evidence of how best to use public transport infrastructure. Bus companies cannot economically operate frequent services from early morning till late at night if their passengers are spread thinly over large areas. We just have to look at where public transport works best, which is in areas of high population density, to know that. The authors of the GMSF need to take the opportunity of the Bus Services Bill to reflect on the needs of public transport and to take serious account of the contributions to the GMSF consultation. Essentially, the current proposals need to be shredded and the whole process started again.
Good public transport infrastructure has many benefits in relation not just to housing and planning but to improving jobs and employment, including supporting young people to get into work. When I recently chaired the all-party group on youth employment, many young people compared the opportunities and transport links in London and the north of England. Poor public transport in the north is a barrier to their getting into work. With an ageing population, many of whom reach a time in their lives when they are no longer able to drive, it is more important than ever to ensure that vital services are connected to good public transport and, because of their comprehensive nature, especially to buses.
I met the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association in my constituency, and I note that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) took the blind walk, where you are blindfolded and follow the guide dog. That is a disorientating experience for anyone, although, after a few minutes, you get some idea of what you are doing and you get that trust and confidence in the guide dog. I am really pleased that we have now made progress on audio-visual provision, and hearing about it certainly had an impact on me, as it does on anyone else who has spoken with the association. The association briefed me on the importance of visual aids for not just blind people but those with partial sight loss. This is about giving people far more independence than they have at the moment. Sight loss is a significant barrier in daily life, in daily experiences, and in getting and retaining a job.
I am pleased that the Bill allows enhanced partnership schemes between local authorities and bus operators, to require all buses in a local area to provide audio and visual next-stop information. Authorities using the new bus franchising powers will also be able to place similar requirements on affected operators. It is particularly welcome that the Government have, in clause 17, amended the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to require service operators to make such information about audio-visual aids available to passengers. However, I want the new Mayor of Greater Manchester to use these powers to ensure that all users have an improved service—not just people with difficulties with sight but those who may not use the bus services regularly. I will be lobbying the new Mayor to make sure that all buses in Greater Manchester use AV—no matter who the Mayor might be, whether Sean Anstee or one of the many other candidates.
The provisions on joint ticketing make it much easier to introduce multi-operator and multi-modal smartcards and e-ticketing, making bus travel easier and more convenient—the starting point for wider application across the whole of the public transport network. Colleagues may be interested to know that the benefits of integrated multi-modal smart ticketing was the subject of the Science and Technology Committee’s evidence check web forum on smart cities. From its introduction—from the very beginning—it is necessary to collect and interpret travel data so that further improvements can be made to Greater Manchester’s public transport system. Again, I intend to raise this with the new Mayor of Greater Manchester and Transport for Greater Manchester.
The Bill’s requirements for open data on fares and real-time running means that passengers will be able to access details of timetables, fares and routes in a much simpler format, putting an end to the frustration of not knowing when the next service will turn up. This has the potential to be further developed into passenger information apps or websites giving door-to-door real-time travel information and live updates on the status of bus routes, as Transport for London currently does through one of the largest automatic vehicle location systems in existence. AVL allows real-time passenger information, service control, and performance management. I would like to see this and smart ticketing used in Greater Manchester in future, following bus franchising.
However, I do have some concerns about the Bill. The Government must ensure that small and medium-sized bus operators are able to compete in a franchised environment. It is encouraging that the Bill includes a requirement to ensure that franchising authorities consider in their procurement strategy how to facilitate smaller operators. I hope that as well as considering this in their strategy, local authorities will ensure that there is a wide range of service providers—often innovators coming in with new ideas for new routes, who ought not to be excluded from franchising.
Rob Marris
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that that is already allowed under clause 4 on franchising. Franchising does not provide a monopoly. Clause 4 provides four different ways in which bus operators can provide a bus service within an area but outside the franchise regime, including additionality—that is, the innovative new routes that he mentioned.
Chris Green
It is also incumbent on the new mayors and the new systems that we have in place locally not just to allow that to happen but to encourage it to happen.
The Conservative party has often led the way on public transport. In Greater Manchester, we need only look back to our reintroduction of the tram network in the early ’90s after an absence of decades, and only this week we have seen the completion of the latest expansion of Greater Manchester’s Metrolink. We need a better integrated and thought through service on buses, as we have on our trams. These improvements to Greater Manchester’s public transport network have not always, unfortunately, been matched with great ideas from Labour, which wanted to impose a congestion charge on people travelling in Greater Manchester—a burden that would have disproportionately affected people in the Bolton, Wigan, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport Tameside and Trafford boroughs.
Chris Green
Absolutely—and parts of Manchester outside the two rings. I am pleased to say that Labour bowed to pressure to have a referendum on the damaging congestion charge proposals, and the people of Greater Manchester in all 10 boroughs rejected that idea.
Currently across Greater Manchester, bus services are not fulfilling their potential in a desired integrated transport system. This Bill provides the tools to achieve that, and we must ensure that it does so. We have to think about buses large and small—not just the larger and double-decker buses but the increasingly used smaller buses—in getting this increased connectivity. Buses must be linked together with all the other forms of transport—with trams and rail, and with car drivers by having more park-and-rides. I will do all I can as a Member of Parliament to ensure that the new Mayor and administration take advantage of every opportunity given by this Government.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green). It is noticeable how many Greater Manchester MPs are in the Chamber today. That is an indication of how important this Bill is to us.
It is funny how sometimes conversations stick in one’s mind. I have a very vivid memory of a conversation in, I think, 1997. I was sitting in Café Renoir in Fallowfield on Wilmslow Road—
Jeff Smith
As you do. This being south Manchester, Eric Cantona was playing chess at a nearby table. I was sitting with my girlfriend watching empty bus after empty bus go past the window along Wilmslow Road. I was a recently elected councillor, and enthusiastic, and I began to hold forth to my girlfriend about how we really needed regulated buses like they had in London because deregulation was not working. [Interruption.] The relationship did not last, people will not be surprised to hear. Twenty years later, Café Renoir is no longer there, sadly; Eric Cantona is now, bizarrely, a movie actor; my girlfriend, I am glad to say, is happily married to someone else, with four fine children; and we still do not have bus franchising in Greater Manchester.
I am very proud of the achievements of the Blair-Brown Government. We should never forget, particularly people in my party, how we rebuilt public services in cities and towns across the UK after 18 years of neglect. I am very proud of that record. However, we did not get everything quite right, and that includes public transport management.
In Greater Manchester, we have been asking for London-style bus franchising powers for many years. That is why I am very pleased today to welcome this Bill, and most especially the bus franchising powers, because, as we have heard, deregulation has not worked for Greater Manchester. Since deregulation, bus use has fallen from 355 million passenger journeys a year to about 210 million passenger journeys a year. The system is confusing for passengers. We have 22 different bus operators running about 440 general bus services, and each of those operators has its own branding. The quality standards of the buses are inconsistent. The variety of fares and the pricing structure is confusing. We have 140 types of bus tickets across the Greater Manchester region, and passengers have to pay a premium for a ticket to use across different operators.
It does not work in serving our communities, either. In my constituency—at the end of my road—we have what is often claimed to be the busiest bus route in western Europe. I have never been able to verify whether that is the case, but what is not in doubt is that it is a busy and profitable arterial route through to the university and the city centre. Because of that, bus companies are competing for passengers and, as we have already heard, that competition is not always a good thing. Bus companies are running dozens of buses every hour—sometimes full, sometimes empty, but it is always chaotic and always congested.
At the same time in my constituency we have had cuts to services such as the 44 bus, which served Didsbury, and the 84, which served Chorlton. That leaves communities isolated. The Broad Oak estate in Didsbury and the Arrowfield estate in Chorlton are no longer served, cutting those communities off from access to their local hospitals and to local services. That is no way to run a public service. I am pleased that proper bus franchising will give us the opportunity to design a system that serves our communities properly.
I mentioned confused pricing, and I am also looking forward to our being able to simplify ticketing and introduce an Oyster-style system. Since I have come to this place, I have realised that one of the great things about London is the Oyster system. A similar system would be fantastic for Greater Manchester because it would integrate our buses with our other great transport, such as our fantastic Metrolink system.
We have been asking for these measures for some time and we are ready to implement them. We welcome the Government’s clear commitment to introduce them. I agree with the House of Lords and my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Transport that these powers should not only be available to mayoral authorities; they should be available to others as well. However, if the Government are going to reverse the Lords amendments, which would be unfortunate, I urge them not to delay giving powers to the mayoral authorities and not to water down those powers.
We need the powers proposed in the Bill and we need to get on with improving the transport system in Greater Manchester, because we have a willingness to prove the model. We can make it work. We have the capacity and willingness to deliver. We can make public services better for the people of Greater Manchester if we are given the opportunity.
Transport for Greater Manchester is concerned about the recently published guidance on how the system will work, which appears to be pretty opaque and confusing. On Transport for Greater Manchester’s behalf, may I repeat the calls from my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer)? Once the consultation on the guidance is complete, we need greater transparency and clarity, particularly on the question of the compelling powers that my hon. Friends mentioned—I will not repeat their points.
Finally, I welcome the opportunity to make our bus fleets more environmentally friendly. We know that 40,000 people die in this country prematurely every year as a result of poor air quality. It is a silent killer and vehicle emissions undoubtedly contribute a great deal to that problem. Air quality on bus routes is often a problem, so if we can set better minimum standards for buses, we can help to tackle those dangerous emissions and prevent those early deaths.
We have a growing population in Greater Manchester and we need a transport system that can cater for that growth without leaving our communities too reliant on private vehicles, both to support the economic growth that we are successfully generating and to safeguard the environment. This is a welcome Bill and an important step in putting right some of the problems we have had for the past 30 years. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) when he is elected as the Labour Mayor to design a system that works for all the people of Greater Manchester.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith). I feel I should apologise for not talking more about Manchester. Fabulous place though it is, I think that it has been well-represented in the Chamber today so, instead, I will talk briefly about the importance of buses to rural communities, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), who is no longer in his place, and for Witney (Robert Courts), among others.
Just last week I met the Frome and villages bus users group, chaired by the indefatigable Peter Travis. Like many such groups, it faces the challenges of rural areas—thinly distributed populations, some routes with little use at certain times that are busy at other times, and buses that are empty for much of the day—but the bus is a vital amenity for many people for work, school, or health care visits and to combat rural isolation.
Buses may not appear to be the most glamorous form of transport—they are perhaps more functional than glamorous—but they make a tangible difference to the quality of life in rural and other areas every day. One constituent, whom I know very well, lives on the outskirts of Frome and relies on the bus to see her husband in the Royal United hospital in Bath. In her case—there are endless examples of this—without the bus service, it would be quite impossible for her to function properly. Despite the relative importance of one or two other Bills going through Parliament at the moment, I must say that the Bus Services Bill has every right to stand up against them as a keenly anticipated piece of legislation.
I joined colleagues last year in asking for the £250 million bus service operators grant to be protected, and I was pleased that that commitment was made. Some 42% of bus operators’ income comes from public funds, and although those funds are extremely welcome, the rural west country in particular still faces enormous and continuing challenges. Ministers both in this House and in another place have emphasised the latent economic potential that can be unlocked by better bus services. The key point is that, on top of the issues of rural isolation and the need for people to travel for school or healthcare, there are also economic benefits for a whole host of reasons in specific areas.
As I see it, three key areas are particularly vital for rural bus services. The first is co-ordination between operators, passengers and local authorities. The new powers in relation to franchising and partnerships are very welcome, but it is important to note that places where there is no trend of declining bus usage are often areas where there is much more and much closer co-ordination in such relationships. The Government are absolutely right to reflect that reality in their approach to the Bill, which represents a real advance in pushing forward and in pushing for a more coherent strategy. It seems, however, that many of the franchising powers are available only to mayoral combined authorities. That is a real worry for Somerset, in large parts of which the desire for a directly elected mayor has been conspicuous by its absence. I will come back to this point later.
Secondly, clear communication is very much at the heart of the Bill. The democratising of information will allow people to make informed choices about their travel and to make travel choices using real-time information. We are giving rural communities the same access to information, so that they are armed with the same tools as passengers in London. That can only be positive.
Robert Courts
In the course of making many important points, my hon. Friend has touched on something of relevance to my area of west Oxfordshire, where there is an absence of rural bus services. As I have mentioned, that causes many difficulties for people in hard-to-reach areas, but in many places the local communities are stepping in. For example, the Our Bus Bartons bus company, in the council ward that I still have the honour of representing, and the Villager Community Bus have volunteers who step in to provide some services. However, an absence of information in many cases makes it difficult for them to know whether it is practicable to set up such a service. Such freedom of information, as it were—my hon. Friend mentioned that it is referenced in the Bill—will make that very much easier. Does he agree?
David Warburton
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and he must be reading my mind, because that leads on very neatly to my third point, which is about increasing choices in the chain of provision—passenger choice and supplier choice.
I am conscious that the franchising measure will ensure, as the Government have made clear, that
“only authorities with the ability, powers and funding necessary to make a success of franchising…will be granted access to franchising powers.”
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said, I think it is absolutely vital to ensure that this positive framework is available to all who wish to access it. I am therefore keen to hear what the Minister can say to reassure areas that may decide not to adopt that particular model of devolution. What will happen to them and what might, therefore, happen to us? That is even more crucial, given the potential for cross-pollinating and subsidising less profitable routes from more profitable routes, which would help the less-used services in rural areas that we have all been trying so hard to save.
Those mechanisms and the fresh focus on enabling bus services are long overdue. From a rural standpoint, the Bill should go some distance towards allowing communities to maintain and build on the services that they need.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill. As several hon. Members have said, it is all too rare to have a whole afternoon in the Chamber devoted to discussing buses, even though they account for many more journeys on public transport than our railways. Buses rarely get the attention they deserve in Parliament or, indeed, in the media, yet for many of our constituents, they are vital, linking them to jobs, services, amenities and, just as important, family, friends and a social life.
There are few places in the country where buses are more important than Nottingham. Our city has the highest bus use per person of any city outside London, and patronage is still rising. That did not happen by accident; it is the result of sustained political commitment and leadership over decades. I am incredibly proud of our city council’s work, often in partnership with local bus operators, to encourage and increase walking, cycling and public transport use. I will say more about the lessons that can be learned from Nottingham’s experience shortly.
I admit that it came as a surprise when the Government announced that they would provide the option for combined authority areas to be responsible for running their local bus services, because Ministers had long opposed such powers as unnecessary. The change of heart is welcome. Giving local authorities more powers to plan and manage local bus services will bring real benefits to local communities. We have heard from Government and Opposition Members about their aspirations for that.
As many Members have noted, it is more than 30 years since the Transport Act 1985 deregulated bus services in England outside London. On Second Reading, the then Secretary of State for Transport said that the purpose of the Bill was
“to halt the decline that has afflicted the bus industry for more than 20 years.”
He argued that competition would deliver the improvements that passengers wanted, including lower fares. Competition was to be the key to improvements and to increasing patronage. He said that the Government would not sit idly by while the industry was sinking, leaving more people isolated. Instead, they offered
“a full-scale rescue plan for the bus industry.”—[Official Report, 12 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 192 and 199.]
If only the outcome had been as grand as his claims.
Competition did not deliver the improvements that the then Ministers promised. Across the country, buses continue to receive very high levels of public support, with 41% of the industry’s costs met by subsidy. As the Competition Commission found, genuine competition between bus companies is rare beyond occasional and disruptive “bus wars”. In too many areas, the market does not provide comprehensive networks, forcing councils to fund additional services where they can still afford to do so.
Thanks to strong campaigning, London was protected from the 1985 Act, and could therefore build a planned, integrated network, with competitive tendering for routes. That, combined with other factors, some of which are unique to the capital, meant that bus use increased dramatically—by some 227%—since 1985-86, in contrast to the decline in patronage nationally. In 1985, one in five British bus journeys took place in London. Today, the figure is one in two. That is great for Londoners, but not for passengers in towns, cities and villages where services have been cut.
That promise of lower fares has not materialised either. The average bus fare rose by 45% in real terms between 1995 and 2016, with significant regional variation. While fares in London rose by 36% over that period, in other metropolitan areas, they rose by 60%. Since 2010, the subsidised socially necessary services provided by local authorities have borne the brunt of the huge real-terms reduction in Government funding to local authorities. As the Campaign for Better Transport has consistently revealed, 46% of councils reduced their spending on such services in 2013-14, and a total of more than 2,400 services have been cut or withdrawn, particularly affecting rural and isolated communities. The simple fact is that the market and on-road competition have not delivered.
The Bill presents an opportunity for local transport authorities to select from a wider and more usable range of powers to improve bus services as part of planned and integrated transport networks, including the power to franchise services. The ability of the local authority to invite tenders to run bus services has been available in theory for more than a decade, but the quality contracts process has proved too cumbersome and complex to use, although I pay tribute to Labour councillors in the north-east who were brave enough to try.
It is vital that the new powers are workable and practical to implement. The process and any guidance underpinning it must be unambiguous, clear and transparent. Most importantly, the full range of powers should be available to all authorities, even if they choose not to use them. Like many Labour Members, I am disappointed to hear that the Government intend to reverse changes made in the other place to reinstate the restriction of the measure to mayoral combined authorities. If the powers to provide better bus services are good enough for Bolton, Birmingham and Boscastle, why are they not good enough for Boston, Bournemouth and Beeston, and other towns and cities beginning with other letters of the alphabet?
That is not to say that I believe that franchising is the only way to improve services, or that it is a panacea. In places such as Greater Manchester, there are already well developed plans to utilise the new powers—I look forward to seeing them in action. Other areas are considering the range of new options, but the ability to deploy franchising will undoubtedly focus minds in any partnership scheme negotiations.
Not only cities need all the options. Hon. Members have seen how Transport for London has used its powers, but as I mentioned, Jersey is an interesting and successful example of bus franchising. There are examples from across Europe where tendering for services is the norm. The ability to pool funding and cross-subsidise less profitable but socially necessary routes by linking them to more profitable ones could be of great value in rural areas.
I have no hesitation in claiming that my local area has the best public transport system in the UK, and without doubt the best buses. I recognise that hon. and right hon. Members often make grand claims for their constituencies, but in this case I can provide reliable evidence in the form of the Transport Focus bus passenger satisfaction survey. I will not dwell on it today, but it is no coincidence that our tram system is also outstanding. The survey shows that 94% of Nottinghamshire passengers are satisfied, very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their bus journey. That is the highest in the country. I suggest that, if the survey were limited to Nottingham city, the figure could be even higher.
There are three key reasons for Nottingham’s public transport success: consistent political leadership, our outstanding municipal bus company and the presence of an excellent private sector operator. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) suggested in his speech that buses were not glamourous. I invite him to come to Nottingham to travel on a Trentbarton bus, with its leather seats, wood laminate floors, free wi-fi and USB charging sockets. They innovatively show how immensely glamourous buses can be. One difficulty we face in persuading people to travel on buses is that their memory is of their last school bus, which was probably old and rattly, and not a very pleasant experience. The new buses in my city are a million miles away from that experience.
Over several decades, Nottingham City Council has demonstrated a clear vision for transport in the city and a willingness to support that vision with investment in measures that make public transport an attractive and realistic option. Bus lanes and bus priority measures, good bus stops, good shelters, real-time displays and clean, environmentally friendly vehicles have all played a part. While the vast majority of bus services are run on a commercial basis, the city also has a range of tendered services providing links to the city’s hospitals, university campuses, major workplaces, local district centres and the city’s park-and-ride sites.
The workplace parking levy has enabled Nottingham to continue to invest in this network, which is now served by Europe’s largest electric bus fleet and operated by partners, Nottingham Community Transport. The benefits of the new buses are clear. They cut carbon emissions, improve air quality, reduce traffic noise, result in cost savings and, by getting more people riding, ease congestion.
Rob Marris
Does my hon. Friend agree that we ought to investigate much more thoroughly the possibility of reintroducing trolleybuses around the country, which would be commensurate with the provisions in the Bill in terms of emissions?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. It is certainly an interesting one. I am not sure that any local transport authorities in the UK are currently looking at trolleybuses, although I have seen them operating effectively on the continent, including in Lille, where they are part of the transport network.
One issue on which Nottingham City Council showed great foresight and some bravery was the decision to retain its municipal bus company, of which I think there are now only eight left in England. I can confidently say that Nottingham City Transport, the municipal bus company, is the best bus company in the UK, as it has won the UK Bus Awards’ coveted “Bus Operator of the Year” award in three of the last five years and topped the 2015 bus passenger satisfaction survey with 97% satisfaction. It has consistently invested in high-quality, cleaner, greener, new buses that are accessible for wheelchair users and parents with buggies, have audio-visual announcements, are equipped with wi-fi and are driven by well-trained staff.
We are fortunate in Nottingham that NCT is not the only excellent local operator. Trentbarton, a local private sector operator, has also invested in a high-quality fleet, shown a genuine commitment to serving passengers, been innovative in growing patronage and has similarly high satisfaction scores.
Nottingham’s public transport system is an example of what can be achieved through good partnership working between the local authority and local operators, but it is not perfect. The use of the Oyster card revolutionised travel in London, particularly by enabling passengers to move seamlessly between different modes and operators, but it proved difficult to introduce a similar successful multi-operator smartcard in Nottingham. Passengers still face a confusing range of fare options, and there are two different multi-operator/multi-modal smartcards, which give rise to different fares and cannot be used on all buses and trams in the city.
Partnerships can deliver real improvements, but they also have limits, and even the enhanced partnerships envisaged in the Bill rely on operators’ agreement, which can be difficult to achieve. Local transport authorities cannot always ensure that the best interests of passengers are served without access to the full range of options in their toolkit, and I find it hard to understand the Government’s justification for denying the vast majority of local transport authorities the opportunity to use franchising powers. I was equally disappointed by the Secretary of State’s explanation for reintroducing the ban on local authorities setting up municipal bus operators. While I do not believe it would be widely used, the Government’s opposition seems to be based on purely ideological grounds. First he seemed to argue that it would undermine competition but presented no evidence to support his assertion, and then he admitted that he simply did not want to allow Labour local authorities to act in the best interests of their residents—so much for localism.
Bus services are essential: they link people to jobs, training and education opportunities; support local businesses; combat isolation, particularly among the young and the old, disabled people and those who do not have access to a car; and cut congestion. New cleaner, greener buses can also improve air quality and contribute to our climate change obligations. It will be very disappointing if the Government now seek to remove the changes made in the other place. I hope that Ministers will think again and finally give our transport authorities the full range of options they need to put passengers first and ensure that they have access to bus services wherever they live.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). Like her, I welcome this chance to have such a detailed debate about bus services. We usually find ourselves talking about trains—we have spent a lot of time talking about one particular train line in this Chamber over the past few years—but as has been rightly pointed a number of times, most people’s experience of public transport begins and ends with a bus. Many railway passengers start their journeys by taking a bus to a main transport hub from which they can access the rail network. For most people using public transport, certainly those in Torbay, the bus provides the backbone of the service.
It is worth considering briefly how things have changed since 31 years ago, when full regulation was in place. We might look back at “On the Buses”, thinking that it was a great film and brilliant comedy, but the system then would be an absolutely awful model for running real services today. Services have moved on hugely. Nobody would have envisaged at that time internet access, better services, and the sort of high-quality vehicles that are now on the road. Full accessibility is also important, because not that long ago, it was almost impossible for a disabled person to plan a bus journey, but now all buses are accessible.
I am particularly pleased that the Bill contains provisions on audio-visual aids, which a number of people have lobbied me about. Some 9% of people in one ward in my constituency are aged over 85, which brings unique challenges when it comes to planning public transport. In another part of Torbay, well over 50% of the population is aged over 65. That means that people are likely to have visual problems and to have had to start using public transport because they were no longer medically able to drive a car.
The key thing is to break the idea that the bus service is the last-resort social service for those who cannot drive, and that people will use buses only if they absolutely have to do so. As we heard a few moments ago, many bus operators are making their services more attractive by putting in place comfortable seats, and offering a safe environment and on-board CCTV.
We have heard about people’s experiences on the old school bus. I certainly remember getting on a school bus about 25 years ago. It would bounce along—that could happen on a normal bus service, it has to be said—with people smoking at the back of the upstairs part of the bus, even though they were not supposed to do. It would not be very comfortable. The experience was such that by the time people reached 17, the priority would be to stop using a bus. That remains the image for a lot of people, because when they had to use the bus, it was awful. However, many people, including me when I use the buses in the bay, now get a very pleasant surprise when they find that those sorts of days are long gone.
Andy Burnham
Somebody once said in 1986:
“A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.”
Does the hon. Gentleman know who said that, and does he agree with it?
Kevin Foster
I was on a bus last Wednesday. Yes, I do know where that quote comes from but, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the focus is on what we are doing today. To be blunt, if bus deregulation was such a bad thing, Labour Governments had 13 years—I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet—in which to change the system.
Things have moved on with public transport, and sometimes we need to be careful about instantly ascribing cause and effect. Car ownership, and particularly households owning more than one car, has increased hugely since the early 1980s. We can debate whether that is a good thing. In many parts of urban built-up areas that were designed for no vehicles, the fact that households have multiple vehicles has created a range of problems. That has inevitably had an impact on how many people use a bus in such an area, but that is not to say that we should not wish to have quality transport systems.
When we talk about bus priority measures, I am loth to look at how they could apply everywhere. They can make sense in congested urban centres, but they will not make a huge difference in parts of Torbay. We do not have a major central business district or a huge morning rush hour. Local authorities need to be able to choose what makes sense for their areas, rather than our coming up with an arbitrary idea and thinking that if something works in one area, it will automatically work in another.
I can remember dealing with operators in the west midlands. We often heard members of the public refer to the fact that buses were running empty, and we made the point that those services were being run not by the council, but by a commercial operator, which was paying the bill for them. I told them that it would be a bit bizarre for me to write to the operator demanding that it provided fewer services around my ward to deal with that problem.
Before services had to operate commercially, there was an issue with the tight regulatory structure, as it made adaptation and change difficult. For example, there would be services to factories that did not exist anymore, or those that did not reflect new and growing populations. Although it is important that we give areas—particularly mayoral combined authorities—the powers to shape services and integrated transport networks, we do not want to go back to the days when, in theory, a committee would argue for half an hour about exactly where a bus should run through a local housing estate. That is not an appropriate plan for the future.
We have heard lots of references to local services in this debate. I hope that the Bill will help councils such as the Torbay unitary authority to deal with situations such as the one that we are having with the Local Link services. A small bus company—it is not the main provider in Torbay—has announced that it will withdraw all 16 of its services from 1 April. It did that not following consultation, but by putting the relevant notice in to the transport commissioners. The services do not operate on the main routes, but they do provide social value, particularly for the elderly population. When we analysed the services, it was interesting to find that 83% of passengers were using the concessionary bus pass scheme. That is perhaps not a huge surprise, given the demographics of Torbay, but it was quite surprising to see just how much pensioners valued the services, particularly buses 60 and 61, which serve Preston, and 62, which serves Cockington village.
I hope that the Bill will give councils the opportunity to work with operators. I know that Torbay Council is already working quite constructively with an operator—I have been asked not to name it publicly—to try to find a solution to the problems on many of the routes. We are also looking at bringing on board a not-for-profit model. The Torbay Community Development Trust is looking at how it can provide services, effectively as a social enterprise. Some of the routes will provide enough to enable it to wash its face—cover its costs—but will not provide any form of commercial return. That is why this debate is both timely and welcome, because we can see what is happening in Torquay and Paignton today, and I am able to stand here as the local MP and look at possible solutions.
Although the Government will look at individual cases when it comes to franchising powers, I hope that such powers are automatically given only to mayoral or combined authorities. This is partly about having a bulk. Some people in Torbay might think that we could run our own bus services but, in reality, we would inherently be dependent on neighbouring areas.
It is also right that we should know the name of the person who can take decisions so that we can hold them to account—they might be the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) or Councillor Anstee in Greater Manchester in the near future. People should be aware of who those people are. That situation is very different from that of the old integrated transport authorities. If we had asked people to name the chairman of the authority in their area, most would be unable to do so. There would be less direct accountability for people serving on those authorities because they were indirectly appointed by local councils. There was not the ability for someone to say, “Actually I voted for this person,” or, if they did not vote for them, to say, “This person was elected”—I suspect that I might have that experience if I lived in one or two of the areas concerned.
This is about holding someone to account for how they use their power, rather than power being handed to a local authority in a similar way to under the quality contract scheme, which was not a practical thing to use and not of an appropriate scale. Likewise, decisions will not be made in a back room by people who might have an indirect mandate, but one that is not as strong as the mandate of a directly elected mayor.
I very much welcome the Bill. Obviously there will be a fair amount of debate as it goes through Committee and its remaining stages, but I welcome the general tenor of today’s debate. This is a Bill whose time has come. We can all debate whether it is on time and, indeed, whether more transport legislation is just round the corner—
Kevin Foster
There could even be driverless buses. It would be interesting to see how they would go down with passengers, given that many people—particularly older people—value a familiar driver. Whether they could have a similar relationship with the friendly robot welcoming them on board is another matter. However, 10 or 15 years ago, the idea of driverless vehicles on our roads was unimaginable. Now they are on their way, although I am not necessarily advocating that we should have them.
This is a good Bill that focuses on local transport services, and I think that it is one that will deliver. The Government’s intentions are right, and it is absolutely right that we give the Bill its Second Reading today.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise with gratitude and optimism regarding the presentation of this Bill to the House of Commons. The powers that the Bill will grant to Greater Manchester, and its effects on services in Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, Dukinfield and Longdendale, are sorely needed and long overdue. I am extremely grateful to the leaders of the 10 Greater Manchester councils for negotiating these powers. They include Sir Richard Leese in Manchester and Councillor Kieran Quinn in Tameside. I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for honouring the deal struck by the former Chancellor with those leaders when the Greater Manchester devolution settlement was first agreed.
As we have already heard, some Conservative MPs will find this an unusual Government Bill—it is one to which they might be instinctively ideologically opposed. I want to set out why the powers are pragmatic, why they are needed and why, if we all want better local bus services, as we all do, the House should come together and pass the Bill.
I am a great believer in better transport. When I look at London, I see a labour market that is open for employment to more than a fifth of England’s population because the city’s transport system is so good, and I want that for the north as well. I argue regularly, often with some success, for major transport projects in my own constituency. The Mottram bypass—a £170 million road scheme—has already been agreed by the Government, the trans-Pennine rail electrification is under way, and there is a possibility of a trans-Pennine tunnel and perhaps HS3.
Those big projects are important, but anyone who knows anything about transport is aware that the vast majority of local public transport journeys are made by bus and that the present system just does not work outside London. Services are infrequent and expensive, there is poor signage, and the buses take cash rather than electronic payments. There is no joint ticketing between bus companies, let alone joint integrated ticketing between buses and trams. The big bus companies are sensitive to this, but the data are stark. After deregulation, bus use outside London plummeted, whereas in London, where deregulation was not pursued, it has soared. However good the intentions of bus companies might be, they cannot give the public what they need under the present system. Fares cannot be standardised, because that would breach competition law. They cannot be flat within a certain zone, for example, and joint ticketing just does not exist.
In addition, there is no public accountability or public certainty. I am sure that I am not the only elected representative in this Chamber who has experienced, either as an MP or a local councillor, a crucial local bus service being withdrawn or amended. When our constituents get in touch about such changes, the truth is that there is effectively nothing we can do about it. People need to be able to depend on those services. They need to know that they will be able to get to work from the place where they live. We should ask ourselves why local tram networks are so sought after and have such an impact on house and land prices, and one of the answers is that they offer transport certainty. No one worries that a tram will be withdrawn at short notice or following a six-week notification period, but the same is not true of local buses. The lack of meaningful competition means that even profitable bus routes get chopped up and amended to make them more profitable, which makes coherent transport planning impossible.
Travelling by bus is also expensive. The last time I got a bus in the morning from my home in Stalybridge to my constituency office in Hyde, the fare was about £3.60. That is for a journey of less than three miles, so the cost per mile is more than first-class rail travel and some flights to the Canary Islands. Unless we improve bus services outside London, I can honestly see technologies such as Uber killing off local public transport rather than private car use.
As a northerner, these next words are particularly painful for me to say, but I am extremely envious of London’s frankly superb bus network. It is good value, reliable and frequent. No cash is involved. Tickets are integrated across all forms of public transport. Buses are modern and accessible, with space for up to two pushchairs. For someone like me who has lots of children, there is even space for a double buggy. The system is easy to understand. In my first year as an MP, when I was new to London’s public transport, I came back from the Labour party conference in Brighton late on a Sunday night. My train arrived at Victoria station and, because I am fairly tight, I did not want to get a cab back to the parliamentary flat in Lambeth, so I set off walking. As I got adjacent to a bus stop, I saw a bus coming, and I could check the signage at the stop in a split second to see where the bus was going. I knew that I could get on it, I knew that I did not need cash or a ticket, and—we underestimate this point, because it is useful for not only people with disabilities or a visual impairment—I knew when to get off the bus because it told me where I was. If a stranger tried to do the same thing after arriving late into Manchester Piccadilly station, they would have no way of easily getting such information. Who knows where they could end up? If things went particularly badly, it could be as far away as Liverpool.
I know that London has a much higher population density and that it gets revenue from the congestion charge—we rejected such a charge in Manchester in what was another poor referendum experience for most of us—but London’s system is better and we should just try to copy it. London’s model clearly works and that is all I want for my constituency. A similar system is used by almost every other major European city. By allowing the new Mayor of Greater Manchester to have such powers—I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is taking part in the debate—the Bill will be a huge step forward for our public transport system. Once we have the basis for a better-run system, there will be a significant improvement in public consent for engineering works, bus priority lanes and priority junctions because people will see a system that works for them. I also think that passenger numbers will improve. Although bus companies are wary of such powers, they stand to gain a lot from these things happening.
I warmly back the Bill. I hope that it is taken forward through all its parliamentary stages with a pragmatic spirit that will address the real shortcomings of what we have now, and that it delivers the better bus services that my constituency and all other constituencies are crying out for.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). As ever, he is an eloquent campaigner for his constituents. I admit that I am excited about this Bill and have been excited for a long time, largely because of the size of my inbox and the number of times I have had to visit the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), about contact from constituents on bus matters or about bus regulation. I look forward to hearing from him about my hobbyhorse: cycle racks on the front of buses, rather than on the back, of which I know he is a staunch advocate.
I support the Bill, which will provide local authorities, including Bath & North East Somerset Council, with the means to improve local bus services. In a city such as Bath, where air pollution is an increasing problem, anything that makes it easier and more convenient for my constituents to travel by bus, or for people from outside Bath to travel in on a bus, should be encouraged. I am therefore pleased that the Government support local bus services and continue to invest in greener transport. I recently unveiled First Bus’s eight new hybrid double-decker buses, which do not break down on some of the steepest hills going up to Bath’s park and ride and up to the university. They will have a huge impact on air quality across my city and in other parts of the authority area.
The bus industry offers significant potential to improve our environment and the way we travel to and from work or relax at the weekend. Given the number of tourists who visit my constituency and those of other hon. Members, it is important to think about buses as not just a local transport issue, but an economic issue that offers opportunities to grow jobs and utilise economies of scale. Creating a financially sustainable economy of scale will help to drive down costs for passengers, which has ultimately been a great success in London. Areas such as Brighton, for example, have also been able to create economies of scale, and passenger numbers have increased and prices have been driven down as a result.
When he is the new Mayor of the west of England, the great Tim Bowles will hopefully be able to work with our local authorities to introduce a smartcard ticketing system in an economy-of-scale franchise—that is to be confirmed—which ultimately helps to deliver real benefits to passengers across the area. However, local authorities need to be able to make changes that help to address their residents’ needs, as local authorities are better aware than anyone else of what will improve the local provision of those services.
The Bill ensures that local authorities will be able to set required standards of service from bus providers, including on ticketing and frequency of services, both of which are an issue in my constituency, where we have multiple bus providers with multiple ticketing options. I have listened to Members on both sides of the House, and unfortunately our system is not the best in the country. It is a good system—do not get me wrong—but it can definitely be improved. We have heard the examples of Nottingham, Greater Manchester and, particularly, London, and hopefully we will be able to share their best practice in Bath.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend concede that those places are all major conurbations? Part of the Bill’s flexibility, which we all welcome, is that it also works for rural areas and even small market towns. The Westley route in my town is currently under threat due to lack of capacity.
Ben Howlett
My hon. Friend is a stalwart campaigner for rural bus services, particularly in Bury St Edmunds. I know the area quite well from when I was growing up.
My area of the west of England is a mixture of Bristol, smaller cities and towns such as Bath, Thornbury and Yate, and rural areas. We have decided that, by increasing the scale, a franchising model would work in our area, because we would be able to integrate all bus services across a larger area and increase the economies of scale. Given the financial pressures that all local authorities are under, we would be able to ensure that the efficiencies are spread over a larger area. We would probably be able to subsidise many more of the routes that are already in existence and pass the benefits down to the passenger by introducing smartcard ticketing. Enabling more people to use the service would hopefully mean that prices ultimately fall. That change could happen because of the Bill.
Smartcard ticketing would bring benefits to my constituents, who use a variety of transport, often across authority borders. My constituents would definitely be more encouraged to rely on public transport for journeys from Bath to Bristol if they needed only one ticket, or ticket type, for the bus to the station, for the train to Bristol and then for the bus from Bristol to their place of work. An integrated system would be the holistic opportunity that we have been missing for a long time.
I recognise what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said earlier about doing this on not just a regional basis but a national basis so that we can see larger economies of scale and larger interconnectivity between different devolved areas, particularly between the west of England and the west midlands.
Smartcards and contactless payments have made a dramatic difference to way that Londoners travel, and it is about time that that benefit is spread outside the south-east. The changes are likely to see an uplift in the use of public transport and, ultimately, an increase in the revenue that local authorities receive from it, covering any initial cost of installing the new systems.
I am pleased to see provisions in the Bill to require bus operators to provide accessible information to passengers. Many of my constituents have made representations to me in support of Guide Dogs talking buses campaign, which asks for audio-visual equipment to be installed on all buses to ensure that more people, no matter whether they have a disability, can rely on buses with confidence. For people with a visual impairment, getting on a bus is one of the most difficult things, and I know that the Minister has been working hard on this area, as has the entire Department. The Bill takes this issue into consideration, which is incredibly welcome. Without this equipment, passengers with sight loss have to ask the bus driver to tell them when to get off and they run the risk of missing a stop, which can be distressing and potentially dangerous. Hon. Members may wish to take up the opportunity to take a blindfolded walk or bus trip, and I recommend that they do so, as it is inspiring. The Bill requires bus operators to provide audio-visual information indicating the route, the next stop and the final destination. Members on both sides of this House must support that important development, which will make journeys for blind and partially sighted people easier and less stressful.
One problem we face in my constituency is controlling the amount of tourist buses that circle our city, and I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on this. Bath is a beautiful city, so it is not surprising that people want to visit it and see the sights from an open-top bus on a warm summer’s day—or a rainy day, as is often the case, given the west of England’s local climate. The local authority needs to be able to regulate these buses to ensure that their impact is not detrimental to local residents who rely on traditional buses. With the introduction of a new enhanced partnership scheme responsible for traffic regulation conditions, Bath & North East Somerset Council could have to renegotiate the traffic regulation conditions, which have worked well for more than 10 years, tackling environmental issues that had previously been exacerbated by buses. I know that this is an intricate regulatory issue, and I have already made my representations on it, but I cannot stress enough that city-centre residents in my constituency could face problems with multiple tourist buses going round and round in a circle and causing huge congestion and pollution, as we could end up with the law of unintended consequences coming into play. It would therefore be incredibly welcome if the Minister could confirm in his closing remarks how Bath & North East Somerset Council could go about keeping this arrangement, while also being able to benefit from some of the new powers.
Finally, I turn to the part of the Bill that will give powers to new directly elected mayors, such as the one in the West of England. The powers will allow them to take greater control of their services, as Transport for London does in London, with a budget to match. At the moment, there is discussion as to the best use of the transport budget: whether it is best to use it to provide free bus travel for young people or to introduce a smart ticketing operation across the West of England.
I hope that Front Benchers will deal in their winding-up speeches with the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) on the costings of free bus travel for children. It is one thing to propose that for 16 and 17-year-olds in Manchester, but our West of England Labour candidate has promised to introduce free bus travel for all children. We have yet to see any costings for that, and it is a hugely expensive operation. Just in Bath & North East Somerset, the smallest of the three authorities involved, we are talking about £11 million. With a devolution deal of £30 million each year going forward, it seems that the entire budget—the entire devolved operation—could end up being subsumed into one uncosted commitment; although this may sometimes politically be beneficial, it may not be a funded commitment. We will need to be aware of that, so any costings that could be provided from either Front Bencher would be incredibly useful.
I wish to reiterate my support for the introduction of a smartcard ticketing system across the West of England area, and I hope the Minister will join me in that. Our West of England mayoral candidate has made a commitment on that. Such a system would give residents and visitors to the area the freedom to explore more with an easier, simpler ticketing system, just as we benefit from the schemes working in London. This much-needed Bill will further improve the use of buses around the country, and I look forward to supporting the Government on it later as it progresses through Parliament.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a great honour to speak in this debate and to follow the eloquent and thoughtful contribution made by the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett), but nothing illustrates the north-south divide more than how we pronounce the word Bath. Equally, nothing illustrates it more than how envious we are of the system down here in London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) mentioned. MPs are often accused by constituents of leading a glamorous life, but we have now spent four hours examining this important Bill. It is been a real honour to do it with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), Labour’s mayoral candidate for Greater Manchester, but that is what real politics looks like: politicians taking the time out to make sure we have good public policy that will benefit our constituents.
It is it hard to say it, but I congratulate the Minister. He was derailed by the small matter of Brexit. I know how frustrated he was that the Bill did not come before the House a few weeks ago, and how committed he is to it. We have some differences over what the regulations, loopholes and guidance will look like, and I shall push him on that later, but he has shown great commitment to the Bill.
I want a better deal for passengers, as does the Minister, I am sure. Indeed, there is no doubt that everybody in this House wants that for their constituents. An effective and efficient transport network supports jobs and underpins our local economies and communities, making travel easier for residents and connecting people with they want to go. I know that to be true from first-hand experience.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) was exactly right when he said that buses are not the social services. I recently visited a major property developer in Greater Manchester called Orbit Developments, which rents out a number of properties to businesses. It is a successful company that does astonishingly good work in providing high-value office accommodation, but staff there said that its rentable values are not the same as in London because people can get around this conurbation within the hour, whereas in Greater Manchester it can take half a day or longer.
Over the past few years there has been significant investment in transport infrastructure in my constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale East. The development of the new bus exchange at Wythenshawe town centre has brought an extra 4,000 passengers a week. At the bus and tram interchange, the tram route opened a year early, and in its first year carried 1.5 million passengers from Manchester city centre to Manchester airport. I am sure the Minister will know that having the airport in my constituency probably maintains around 100,000 jobs in the region. I am fortunate to have the most visited constituency anywhere in the north of England; 25 million people have come to Manchester airport over the past few years.
My constituency will also get High Speed 2, which is fundamental to this debate. Currently, journey times from Manchester airport to Euston are two hours and 25 minutes; that will go down to 59 minutes with the introduction of HS2. We really are beginning to think holistically about how we connect up the country.
On Friday, I will launch the £15 million enterprise link road for airport city north, in my constituency. Look at the added benefit: Amazon has just created 1,500 jobs on the airport city site, along with Virgin, which has 900 jobs, and Vodafone, which has 650 jobs. I am fortunate to represent an extraordinarily successful bit of the conurbation but, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) said, the key thing is how we connect up that conurbation. We need people in other parts of the conurbation to be able to get to the growth areas. There is nothing more important for that than this Bill, which is why I have waited to speak in this debate.
One part of the transport system that has always been ignored is the bus, perhaps because too many of us in this Chamber do not catch one often enough. It has been seen as a Cinderella service compared with the tram or the train, but that should not be the case. Bus services are a critical part of the transport network. Some 80% of all journeys throughout Greater Manchester are taken on the bus, yet, since deregulation, the number of passenger journeys has fallen from 355 million a year to 210 million a year. I cannot speak highly enough of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). Not only was he a great leader of the council for 12 years, between 1984 and 1996, when he battled deregulation, but he has such expertise, showing how deregulation has really disbenefited the economy in Greater Manchester.
There has been a loss of 2.8 million commercial bus miles in the Manchester local authority area since 2006, with around 140,000 such miles lost across Trafford in the same period—those are the two local authority areas that cover my constituency. That worries me because, if the decline continues, people will lose faith in a mode of transport that is essential to everyday life. I really do not blame the bus operators, as I have always supported private sector bus companies operating on our streets, but I do not understand why they are operating in a deregulated market. The first priority for companies in that market is to make a profit for shareholders, because they are forced to do so. That is how the market works, but something is fundamentally wrong if bus usage continues to fall. It cannot be good for operators and it is definitely not good for passengers. That brings me to the heart of the issue: the failure of a deregulated system to deliver a bus network that works in favour of the passengers.
I catch the bus all the time from my house to my constituency office, to Manchester for a night out, and to the Etihad to watch Manchester City. When doing some constituency work switching on the Christmas lights in Sale Moor village one Sunday evening, my wife and I caught the 41 First bus. The fare was £2.50 each, so it cost us £5 to get one way. Unfortunately, there was no return bus. It was a different operator, so we spent £5 coming back—£10 for a 4 or 5-mile round journey. For an extra pound or two, we should have got a taxi. That route is a particular pinch point in my constituency. First Bus runs seven 41 buses an hour, so Stagecoach has now decided to compete down that route with five 143 buses an hour. We now have 12 buses an hour going through a real pinch point in Sale Moor village. Each company is just trying to run the other off the road, which is not beneficial for passengers.
Deregulation creates a confusing picture. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) summed it up by mentioning that there are 22 different bus types and 140 different ticketing systems in the area. I talked to people from Transport for Greater Manchester, who could not tell me the best system. People need a mathematics degree to work out how best to travel around our conurbation. There is also no maximum cap. As an MP catching the bus to my constituency office and the tram to MediaCityUK, Manchester city centre or Manchester airport—one of my constituency’s major employers—a constituency Friday can be a complicated day, and the costs rack up and up every time. If it is difficult for me, it must be much more difficult for my constituents. There is an integration issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington pointed out. People have to pay a premium for tickets covering two or more companies.
So what can be done to fix the issue? Thankfully, the Bill is the first thing. I thank the Secretary of State for bringing the Bill to the House. I believe that it will go some way to remedying the structural deficiencies in the bus market across Greater Manchester. As has been pointed out, the last Labour Government tried to take some measures, but the Transport Act 2000 did not go far enough, including measures that could not really be introduced because of complications. That could be the failure of this Bill, especially if we get the guidance wrong, so it is important that its provisions are passed, particularly the option for the newly elected mayor to consider bus franchising after a public consultation. The franchise system here in London, as I have pointed out, is second to none.
It is vital that there are no onerous obligations or hoops for transport authorities to go through when considering the case for franchising services. I really would like the Minister to reassure us about that. Yes, it is right that there should be a tough assessment process and a consultation period so that the mayor can make an informed decision, but let us not make the mistakes of the 2000 Act by issuing unworkable regulations and guidance. It is vital that they are clear, transparent and unambiguous, and that they fully reflect the spirit of devolution. I acknowledge the Minister’s commitment to follow through with what was agreed in the 2014 Greater Manchester agreement. Let that not be undone by regulations and guidance.
The provisions in the Bill have the potential to improve significantly transport for residents of and visitors to Greater Manchester, and the option to explore bus franchising is a potential game changer for our city region. A better co-ordinated, more stable network is essential if people are to have confidence in using buses and public transport more widely.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane).
I broadly support the Bill, as do many Members in the House, and I acknowledge that a number of sector bodies, including the respected Urban Transport Group, also support it. However, I say “broadly” because I have concerns that it contains a fundamental deficiency, and I will come to that later in my speech.
The Bill promises what many have been pressing for since bus services were deregulated in the 1980s: the reintroduction, in particular, of local franchising powers. The model before deregulation was by no means perfect, but many, including sector bodies, believe that deregulation has been an unmitigated disaster.
London, of course, did not suffer the same fate—it did not lose its local decision-making and franchising powers. Those remain, and they have arguably supported the vast improvements seen in London under the auspices of TfL and the Mayor of London. Regrettably, areas outside London, including my home city of Bradford, saw bus services subject to intense and increased centralisation.
Local decision making on bus services is common sense. Ensuring local accountability to the travelling public is worth while and valuable. More importantly, decisions are better informed when they are made locally. Why else are we pursuing devolution deals up and down the country?
The case for reasserting local decision making over our local bus services is more compelling than at any time in recent history. That is because our local and regional public transport models are falling desperately short of their desired aims. Public transport is not delivering for our local communities, and that is for a number of reasons.
First, the use of local bus services in metropolitan areas outside London has faced steady and relentless decline. That is despite concerted and strenuous efforts on promotion and education over the years. That decline is compounded by rising private car use across the country. In the largest city regions outside London, the number of bus journeys has fallen by over 51% since 1984. That decline in bus usage, along with rising private car use, has caused widespread and persistent congestion on the roads in my constituency. However, the story of Bradford is not unique. Congestion blights communities, impedes economies and causes frustration for the travelling public.
The need to improve bus services is compelling for another reason: the ongoing cuts to local government budgets. For many years, local authorities across the country have subsidised local bus services. Without those subsidies, many bus routes would be unviable, as low passenger numbers mean that they are uncommercial. As local government budgets are cut further, councils will have less and less capacity to continue to subsidise bus services. The size of these subsidies must not be underestimated. The public sector is responsible for 40% of private bus companies’ income, mainly through fuel subsidies, support for the older person’s pass and support for non-commercial services. Given these challenges, the need to cut congestion is beyond doubt.
The reintroduction of franchising is long overdue. Competition in most areas is limited, and as a result, excess profits are rife. Those excess profits undermine the viability of local bus services, and have done so for many years. Analysis by the Urban Transport Group reveals that profits in city regions are running at double the levels seen among bus operators in the capital. In London, bus operators make 4.1% profit on average, but the figure is 8.1% in city regions. That reduces the amount available to bus services. Dividends to shareholders have taken priority over the bus travelling public for far too long. The reintroduction of franchising across all regions is key; the operation of local bus services in London over recent decades offers strong and undeniable evidence of that.
I turn now to the fundamental deficiency in the Bill: the Government’s decision to restrict franchising to those local authority areas where a devolution deal is in place. My suspicion is that the responsibility for conflating the reintroduction of franchising powers with this Government’s devolution agenda lies at the door of DCLG Ministers. We must recognise that devolution deals involve complex negotiations across many local authorities and take time to finalise. Some are in place and others are imminent, but many others may take months or years. The decision to conflate local bus franchising with devolution is at best tactless and at worst cynical. All local areas, not only those that have agreed local deals, should have access to franchising powers. All local areas have a strong interest in improving local bus services for the communities they serve. Denying the benefits of this Bill to certain areas until devolution deals have been agreed is a cynical ploy. It delays the undoubtable benefits of franchising until local areas relent. I urge the Minister to consider that point. Local bus services are too important to become a bargaining chip in this Government’s devolution negotiations.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I have heard lots of mention made of mayoral elections in this debate, so I should probably declare my interest in saying that I am a candidate in one of those races and will indeed seek to use the powers in this Bill should they become available to me. The comments I wish to make today are born out of 16 years as the Member of Parliament for Leigh and the issues I have dealt with relating to bus services in my constituency, which frankly, in my view, have never been good enough in that time.
To put the debate into its proper context, I want, like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), to go back to the 1985 legislation. Let me read out the words of the then Transport Secretary, Nicholas Ridley, when he introduced the Second Reading of the Bill that became the Transport Act 1985:
“The Bill is about competition...We want to see competition providing an incentive to be efficient and to offer passengers a better quality of service. The customers…want greater efficiency, lower fares, smaller buses going into residential estates, greater comfort or a more polite and helpful driver. Competition is the key to these improvements. It is the key to increasing patronage.”—[Official Report, 12 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 192.]
Having listened to the current Transport Secretary today, I can only say that he put the bravest face that he could on the situation and glossed over some of the real problems that we have seen in bus services ever since that flawed legislation was introduced. He tried to point to all the investment that the private sector had made and said that there had been service improvements, but I am afraid that that is not how the travelling public see it.
It is certainly not how I saw it when I was growing up. I was of an age where those changes directly affected me. I was 16 when the legislation came into being, and then saw it affect me in my teenage years and as I moved towards work. The Secretary of State is fond of reminding people, as he did today, that I was born down the M62 in Liverpool, but he needs to know that when I was one, my dad got a job in Manchester and we moved halfway between, so I was a regular user of the orange and white buses from Leigh bus station—the 26 and the 39—into Manchester; it used to cost us 10p. The minute the 1985 legislation was put in place, the price shot up, the services all changed, and nobody knew where they were. I could not get to work at my first job on the Middleton Guardian using the bus, because it was an unpaid job as a trainee reporter and I could not afford it. Those experiences live with people.
Anybody who has used the buses in Greater Manchester over the past 32 years since the changes came in would say the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) said, bus usage has gone down from 355 million journeys in 1986 to 210 million journeys now. The picture has been the same in South Yorkshire and other metropolitan areas that have been mentioned—a huge decline that is very much linked to the cost and quality of the services.
Graham Stringer
I am listening with interest to my right hon. Friend as he refers back to Nick Ridley’s speech. Was he aware that when asked the then Secretary of State could give only one example in the whole world of a deregulated system such as the one he was going to impose on everybody in the rest of the country apart from London, and that was Kuala Lumpur?
Andy Burnham
It is interesting, is it not? I read the Second Reading debate and that point was put to the then Secretary of State many times, and, Kuala Lumpur notwithstanding, there was no other evidence to support the major changes. I seem to remember that there are plenty of rickshaws in Kuala Lumpur, but I do not know whether he was including that in his argument.
That Secretary of State and his Government inflicted an ideological experiment on the country without evidence to support it. The facts show that it has been an unmitigated disaster for the travelling public. Today, Members on both sides of the House should at least agree to call time on it and give the various parts of the country the powers they need to correct it.
I want to say something about coverage and quality of services. I know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) said in his excellent speech—I wish I could have been in that café with him while Eric Cantona played chess; it was a great image—that in parts of his constituency, particularly as it goes into the centre of town, buses are nose to tail. Particularly as they get towards Oxford Road in Manchester, people can see that the bus congestion is just ridiculous. I was with the vice-chancellor of Manchester University last week and she told me that the record number of buses that students had counted along Oxford Road was 34 continuously nose to tail. Of course, that has a terrible effect on traffic congestion in the city centre and it simply does not work.
We have saturation on the lucrative routes, as the bus companies see them, but, as we have heard today, they abandon more isolated areas that do not make a profit for them. The Higherfold estate in my constituency, which is in an isolated area, has constantly had problems with services being unilaterally withdrawn. Then there is an attempt to hold the passenger transport authority to account by saying, “Give us a subsidy or there is no service at all.” That leads to large subsidies for the bus companies that operate in such a way.
A year ago, a Mrs Healy wrote to me to say that the withdrawal of the 12 and 15 services from Leigh meant that her son could no longer get to work in Little Hulton and he had lost his job. No notice was given of the withdrawal of that service. This has a real impact on people’s lives and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, because many people in this Chamber do not use buses they might not understand how detrimental poor bus services can be to some people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned the Arrowfield estate. I recently went there to meet the Arrowfield and Hough End residents group, who told me about the withdrawal of the 84 service, which he mentioned and which, I think, served Withington hospital. The group said that that service had been withdrawn without any formal consultation with the community and the new service that was meant to replace it stopped at 5.30 in the evening, meaning that people could not get home from work. It is not acceptable for the public to be treated in this way.
Then, of course, there is the cost. In London between 1995 and 2016, fares rose in real terms by 36%, but in metropolitan areas, particularly Greater Manchester, fares rose by 60%. As we have heard today, the fare for a single journey can often cost more than £3. Because of the free-for-all, because operators are all running different ticketing systems and because of the chaos, we cannot have an integrated Oyster-style system, so, again, the public lose out.
During a consultation with young people in Bury a few months ago, I asked about the issues facing them, and the cost of transport came up again and again. I asked them whether they travelled on buses and whether they could afford it—this goes back to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East—and the answer was that it was cheaper to get an Uber. If there are four of them, they can get an Uber together and it is cheaper than the bus.
Is it any wonder that the roads of Greater Manchester are becoming more and more congested as every year goes by? As the quality and the coverage of our bus service has gone down and the cost has gone up during the past 30 years, congestion has got worse and worse. That is affecting the air quality in Greater Manchester, and it means that Greater Manchester is in breach of the standards—the legal limits—for nitrogen dioxide. This simply cannot carry on, and I welcome the focus in the Bill on air quality.
I hope that the Government will go further and give Greater Manchester the powers to introduce a clean air zone. I ask the Minister: what reason can there be for the Government to exclude Greater Manchester from the list of places that they have allowed to introduce clean air zones, other than cost? Cost is not a good enough reason. It is not good enough that children are breathing in polluted air on the way to school. We look forward to his and the Government’s help in solving that problem.
If all of this were not bad enough in the experience of the travelling public, we are paying through the nose for it as well. A £100 million subsidy has been given to the bus companies annually, while at the same time they have been paying out large dividends to their shareholders. This system really does not work for the public in any meaningful way. As I say, it is time to call time on what is a failed ideological experiment.
I give credit to Sir Howard Bernstein, who has been mentioned, and Sir Richard Leese and Lord Peter Smith, as well as other leaders of Greater Manchester, who in my view were right to insist that the Bill should be part of the devolution deal that was done with Greater Manchester. I pay tribute to the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), for agreeing to that request, and indeed to the current Minister and the Secretary of State for sticking by the deal and making sure that the Bill was put before the House.
However, I want to press the Minister and the Government on a number of concerns. An issue that several colleagues have raised today is the decision to reintroduce the clause that will restrict municipal ownership of bus companies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, why restrict people, because we could at least have that as an option? From my point of view, as someone who might consider using the franchising powers, to have the fall-back option of a publicly owned company being able to come in and provide the service if there were no bidders on the terms sought would provide leverage, would it not? It would do so if they knew they could run a service because they had such an option up their sleeve. I say to the Minister that nobody wants anything to happen to the Bill that might disrupt its passage, but the Government should surely give people such flexibility so that they can make full use of the powers proposed in it.
Another issue I want to mention is the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton. He talked about the regulations that have been published very recently—within the past couple of days—relating to the Bill. They state that the powers in the Bill can be given to a metropolitan mayoral area only if a “compelling case” is presented—not just a viable case, but a compelling one. In his winding-up speech, the Minister needs to spell out precisely what that means. Is he erecting a high hurdle to prevent metropolitan mayors from using the powers in the Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
indicated dissent.
Andy Burnham
The Minister shakes his head, but I want to see more reassurance than that. If he wants to intervene and say more about it now, he is more than welcome to do so. We cannot have such obstacles placed in our way that may actually limit our ability to use the welcome powers in the Bill.
I see that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) has retaken her seat, and I do not want to finish without making some reference to her speech. Frankly, I did find it quite difficult to listen to at times. She said that it was right for London to have the powers it gained by being exempted from the original deregulation measures because London is so different. I will tell her one way in which London is different: for every £1 in transport investment that we receive in the whole of the north of England, London gets £6. That inequality has existed for many decades. Consequently, people in London have several public transport options. They can use high-quality commuter trains, the tube network, the docklands light railway, regulated buses, and the bike scheme and dedicated cycle lanes. My constituents have no such choice. They are stuck with using the bus if they do not have a car. That is the difference. It is so wrong of the right hon. Lady to say that what is acceptable for her constituents is not right for Opposition Members’ constituents, who are stuck in their cars.
Mrs Villiers
I am a great supporter of investment in infrastructure in the north of England. It is vital to rebalancing our economy. My point was that re-regulating the bus industry outside London will not solve problems with bus services, but arguably make them worse.
Andy Burnham
Instead of deleting the clause that lets us try, why does she not let us be the judge of that? My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton warned of the consequences when he was leader of Manchester City Council when deregulation was introduced. He has been proved right. If Government Members now believe in devolution, let them give us the chance to try. Then the right hon. Lady may be able to come back and say that it has not worked, but I believe that we will make it work. I am confident that we can make it work.
Mary Creagh
We just had a classic example of the Conservative party telling people in the north to know their place and be no better than they should be. In my right hon. Friend’s list of transport options in London, he neglected to mention the innovation by the recent Conservative Mayor of London, the cable car, which has been a disaster.
Andy Burnham
I agree with my hon. Friend that if the constituents of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and other London Members had a public transport system like that of our constituents, there would be riots on the streets. They would not put up with it, yet we are told that we should. I am sorry, but we will not put up with it anymore; we are going to have improvements.
Jo Churchill
It is not a matter of north-south. In Suffolk, I would love a service like the one in London. The issue is therefore nothing pejorative like north-south, but the quality of service that all our constituents deserve. I hope that the Bill will start to unravel some of those inequalities.
Andy Burnham
I agree that it is not north-south. It is a problem in our political system: London-centricity. Why was London allowed to opt out in 1985 when everywhere else had to take part in the experiment without evidence to support it? Because most policy makers in the House of Lords, this place and the Government civil service live within the M25, they thought that the services were fine and that there was no problem because theirs were regulated, while everyone else was going through chaos. That explains why devolution is necessary. It means that we can fix the problem for the benefit of the travelling public.
I agree absolutely about the cable car. If there is the money here to throw at cable cars that people do not use, that makes the point about the inequality in transport investment. It is just not right.
Investment has been committed for HS2, but we are now considering two other potential major investments: HS3, or northern powerhouse rail, and Crossrail 2. In my view, HS3 is the highest transport investment priority for this country: high quality rail linking the great cities of the north. I would say that it is a higher priority than HS2, but it is absolutely a higher priority than Crossrail 2. If the Government put Crossrail 2 before HS3 in the queue for investment, they will perpetuate the gross inequality of many decades in transport investment in our country.
Andy Burnham
I agree—that was the conclusion of the independent economic review. The Government should build HS2 and HS3 as one system. Why build one, go away and do the north another time? Why not build them together as a single high-speed railway and high-quality infrastructure project that will deliver those economic benefits? I say to the Government that we cannot have a northern powerhouse without that kind of investment—it is essential to delivering the economic benefits my hon. Friend described.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
While we are on the subject of HS2 and HS3, and while the Minister is in his place, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that HS3 goes ahead at the same time to ensure that we get the station locations right in each city centre? That argument is going on in South Yorkshire as well.
Andy Burnham
I agree, because there are benefits from linking HS2 and HS3. I would like a parkway station in my constituency—Leigh would be the place where the preferred HS3 route crosses HS2. The benefits in terms of taking traffic off the M6 and the East Lancs are enormous. That is why they should be planned as a single scheme. I drive a lot around Greater Manchester and the north of England. Congestion is getting worse. Anybody travelling on the M62 today between Manchester and west Yorkshire, or between Manchester and Liverpool, or over to Sheffield, which is even worse, will know that the congestion is not sustainable. We are trying to attract people to invest in the northern powerhouse, but congestion could be the factor that deters them. The Government need to give us certainty about northern powerhouse rail so that we can begin to reassure people that the north will move, and that it will be the powerhouse that the Government have spoken about.
Graham Stringer
My right hon. Friend makes profound good sense about linking HS2 and HS3. Does he agree that the critical decision in getting both HS2 phase 2 and HS3 is the schedule in Parliament for the hybrid Bill? If the hybrid Bill for Crossrail 2 gets in front of that, we will not finish HS2 in most of our political lifetimes, and we will certainly will not integrate it with HS3.
Andy Burnham
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Government need to be honest about their intentions. It would be a gross unfairness if they put Crossrail 2 ahead of HS3 or northern powerhouse rail, or even HS2, in the legislative or Treasury queue. I cannot see how that could possibly be allowed to happen. If they commit now to HS3, the investment potential that would be unlocked immediately would be enormous. I hope the Government listen carefully to that argument—I see the Minister nod. I am speaking not only for businesses in Greater Manchester, but for businesses across the north of England, which see the poor quality of transport as the biggest threat to our future economic prosperity.
If elected in two months’ time, I intend to use the powers provided by the Bill to bring fares down in Greater Manchester, particularly for young people, as I have said. I intend to use the powers in the Bill to improve the quality and coverage of services, and to ensure that those isolated areas and more deprived parts of Greater Manchester have a reliable and regular service. I want to improve the travelling environment for all the public, but particularly for disabled people and visually impaired people. I want to do all of those things.
For the last 30 years, the public in Greater Manchester have had to put up with buses run in the private interest rather than the public interest. It is time to take our buses back and put people before profits.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow such excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), whom I was proud to serve as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Labour Government. I hope that he will be elected as Mayor of Manchester in May.
When I was shadow Transport Secretary, I found that there was a great deal of media attention if I said something about the railways but that very few people were interested in buses, yet in cities such as Wakefield, twice as many people travel by bus as travel by train. I believe that everybody should have the right to get on a cheap, clean bus, no matter where they live, their age or if they have a disability. I am therefore pleased that buses are finally getting the attention they deserve and that Labour is supporting the Bill.
This is also a day for reflection on the Transport Act 1985, which has dominated the bus travelling lives of everyone in the House. It privatised and deregulated Britain’s bus services outside London, since when the number of bus journeys outside the capital has fallen by more than a third. I remember growing up in Coventry. The bus was my lifeline to school and in and out of work when I was a Saturday girl at British Home Stores—I do not think that I made any pension contributions, but I will be checking my wage slips when I get home. There was a time in the heyday of the early ’80s when children in Coventry travelled across the west midlands for 2p. That taught young people where the buses went, the routes, and the places they could go—we could go to the ice rink in Solihull; we did not have one in Coventry. That opened up all sorts of opportunities. If we do not get people travelling on buses when they are young, we will not persuade them to do so when they grow older.
Bus patronage in Yorkshire has halved since deregulation in 1985. The cut to services across Wakefield has left people on estates and in small towns and villages isolated. As colleagues have said about their own areas, it is cheaper in my city to get a taxi than to put yourself and three children on a bus—people in London forget that children outside London do not get free bus travel. The situation affects parental choices about where their children can go to school, because they have to think about whether they can afford the bus fares as well as school dinners and uniforms.
In London, which is the city whose Labour Mayor introduced the congestion charge, and which fought and won the battle against deregulation, bus passenger numbers have doubled. There we have it—numbers have halved in Yorkshire and doubled in London. When the Secretary of State talks about the number of bus journeys, we have to ask ourselves what it would have been without deregulation. The economy has grown, but in real terms bus patronage outside London has fallen.
There has been much waxing lyrical about investment from the private sector bus companies, but we forget—I have not heard this mentioned—that 41% of bus funding comes from the taxpayer. That has fallen from a figure of 46% when we left office in 2010. We, as democratically elected Members, and our local authority colleagues, as democratically elected local representatives, have a right to say how the money is spent and to see that buses are run as public services in the public interest, not as private services in the private interest.
At the last election, Labour promised more powers to regulate Britain’s bus services, and as the Bill goes some way to doing that, we support the Government’s U-turn. The fact that there are more bus journeys in London today than in the rest of country put together is an indictment of the past 30 years of bus policy under this and previous Conservative Governments, as well as the previous Labour Government. In the rest of the country, bus services are infrequent, run as monopolies and expensive. In London, as I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, open data are widely available, providing accurate and real-time information about buses. I use the Bus Checker app. It works in certain cities outside London, but not all of them. In most other parts of the country, bus travel information is held by bus companies and is not publicly available.
On funding concerns, there is no mention of money in the Bill. Buses are really important to the most vulnerable sections of our society—people on low incomes, the unemployed, the young, the disabled and the elderly. Blind people have a right to hear their stop called out; they should not have to rely on the kindness of other passengers. I have been on buses in London when, in a bit of a dream, perhaps thinking about some weighty matter before the House, I have found the audio-visual cues quite useful to rouse me from my reverie. Thanks to Labour’s free bus pass, one third of all bus journeys are taken by older and disabled people. While our planes, trains and roads are seen as economically important, buses are seen as a Cinderella service. Local transport authorities need more powers, but franchising, advanced quality partnerships and ticketing changes are only one part of the solution. The other essential tool that councils need—money—is missing from this Bill.
In 2010, the spending review slashed the bus service operators grant by 20%, and the 2015 local government settlement announced funding cuts to local government of 24% in real terms over this Parliament. It is a disgrace that a Government who have pledged to close the north-south gap have been found in a report published a couple of weeks ago by the Institute for Public Policy Research to be investing 10 times more funding per person for transport projects in London than in Yorkshire. Research by the Campaign for Better Transport shows that Government cuts have forced councils to slash bus subsidies by £78 million since 2010. What has that meant in the real world? Nearly half of councils have withdrawn bus services. The pressure on councils in all areas of the country to divert money away from bus services is huge.
Although I welcome the fact that the Bill finally gives authorities powers to create integrated transport and ticketing systems, the Government must extend these powers everywhere. They must be extended to Wakefield and Leeds in West Yorkshire, not just to areas with metro Mayors such as Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Middlesbrough and Bristol. Some of the best bus services in Britain are provided by municipal bus companies that are still owned at arm’s length by their councils, as we heard in the excellent speech made by my successor as shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).
Cities such as Nottingham and Reading boast some of best passenger satisfaction ratings in the country, but I am concerned that clause 21 of the original Bill would remove the rights of councils to set up municipal bus companies. Councils have a general power to promote economic and social development in their area, so I cannot understand why, if a council is giving planning permission for a new out-of-town shopping centre or a workplace such as a new build factory, it should be unable to provide the bus services that will be necessary to get people to and from those places. That should fall under the general economic powers of councils.
I hope that the Government will not seek to reintroduce clause 21, which is ideologically driven. We need a heavy dose of pragmatism and a lot less so-called competition-driven ideology when it comes to buses. In London’s regulated system, the big five bus companies have managed to make a profit, and a regulated system operates across Europe. There is no reason why companies cannot operate and make money in the rest of the country, including my city of Wakefield. I hope the Secretary of State and the Minister will commit to improving bus services for all areas, not just cities with directly elected mayors.
My second major point is the environmental obligations that we need to put on bus operators to invest in ultra-low emission vehicles, such as those being rolled out in London by Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan. We have an air pollution crisis in this country, and we know that buses can help to tackle pollution by being greener and by cutting congestion.
The Royal College of Physicians estimates that air pollution causes 40,000 early deaths in the UK each year. Some 38 of the Government’s 43 air quality management areas, including Wakefield, have illegally high levels of nitrogen oxides—pollutants that cause respiratory diseases. It is very difficult to tackle this. Wakefield is at the intersection of the M1 and the M62 motorways, but there is also significant congestion in the city centre at rush hour, which is adding to our problems. These pollutants have been linked to heart disease and low birth weight in babies, so our constituents are affected before they are even born.
The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, published its report “Sustainability in the Department for Transport” last September. I hope that the Minister has read it; perhaps I will test him on some of its findings when he makes his winding-up remarks. We found that progress on tackling air pollution was too slow. Critically, the Government are set to miss the Committee on Climate Change’s target for 9% of cars to be ultra-low emission by 2020. During our inquiry, we asked the Minister whether the 9% figure was reflected in his single departmental plan. We went to and fro over the issue. Eventually, in a letter from the civil servant responsible for this matter, we found out that the target was no longer 9%, but between 3% and 7%, with a mid-point of 5%. However, even that target is looking pretty unachievable because only 1.5% of England’s vehicles are currently ultra-low emission. We will not hit the 5% target, and we might be lucky to hit 3% over the next three years.
We need to be on the most cost-effective path to tackle transport emissions, and that means that we should be looking at a 9% target. We have no confidence that the UK will achieve a 60% market share for ultra-low emission vehicles by 2030. There is absolutely no strategy or policy in this area beyond 2020—[Interruption.] I can see the Ministers talking. I will be happy to take an intervention from them if they can put me right.
Last year, the High Court found that the Government’s plan to tackle air pollution was illegal. This Government have repeatedly delayed, postponed and pushed back the publication of their emissions reduction plan. This Bill is an opportunity to reverse that lack of ambition and incentivise the manufacture and uptake of zero-emission buses. Transport for London told my Committee that when the Government cut the 6p per kilometre payments for hybrid buses through the bus service operators grant, the costs of making its entire double-decker fleet zero-emission suddenly ran out of control. My Committee heard that the amount of funding available through the local sustainable transport fund and the clean bus technology fund is too small and not of the scale necessary to tackle this issue across our country.
The big bus operators in London are investing in green buses—as we have heard, London gets more bus grant—but its old buses are cascaded down to cities such as mine. Diesel pollution problems are transported out of London to cities that have exactly the same problems, but less money to sort them out. That is fundamentally unfair.
Labour Lords amended the Bill to require all new buses commissioned under partnership and franchising schemes to meet low-emission requirements. I urge the Government to keep that amendment. I will be grateful to the Minister if he addresses that point directly in his closing remarks.
Everybody should have access to a decent bus service. When I was shadow Environment Secretary, I got an email about a young man in Chichester. His parents told me that he had a place to study at Chichester college, but the council had just cut the bus service. They said, “We don’t have a car. What is he supposed to do?” I was really heartbroken. I thought to myself that that was the end for this young man. He was 16 years old and the thing that he wanted to do—to go to college so that he could get on in life—was being denied to him.
Physical mobility through the use of buses is key to social mobility in our lives. If a person cannot move out of their village, they will always stay where they are. We want people to get out of their villages so that they can access towns and cities, and the educational, leisure and shopping opportunities that exist in our neighbourhoods. That is really important for local shops, particularly in this internet age. The Government’s deregulation of buses has been disastrous for cities such as Wakefield. The Bill gives us an opportunity to tackle air pollution and congestion, but without a cross-departmental strategy involving the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government, its impact will be limited.
The Department for Transport’s own figures predict that, by 2040, numbers of bus journeys will have fallen faster than numbers of journeys using any other form of transport. We have to stop that decline. We have to tackle air pollution and carbon emissions. The Bus Services Bill is the first attempt to improve bus services in our country and to give people the opportunities that they deserve. I do hope that Ministers will listen to my Committee’s concerns about air pollution and ensure that we do not miss that opportunity.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I should like to thank Madam Deputy Speaker for allowing me to pop out for 15 minutes to lobby for more funds for my schools. Let us hope it was worth while. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and to get an angle on the environmental impacts of the Bill. It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and I wish him well with his forthcoming election campaign. I note that other candidates are available.
I do not wish to prolong the Manchester versus London debate, but it was noteworthy that we heard comparisons between London and Manchester during the Transport Committee evidence session on the Bill. I remember one of the partners from KPMG saying that there should not be a tendency to think that what works in London will work well in Manchester, and that there were differences between the two cities, not least the reduced subsidy in London and the lack of congestion charging in Manchester, which I believe Manchester will have to deal with. It was also pointed out that Manchester had a smaller market in that respect. That was an interesting debate, although I do not wish to encourage it to take place again here.
I want to talk about the three forms of organisation that deliver bus services to the country: partnerships, franchising and municipals. In so doing, I also want to welcome the Bill. I hope that it will shake up the system and deliver more innovation and more entrants into the bus market. It struck me and other members of the Committee that the big five bus operators deal with 70% of the market, and that when we asked them to give us examples of where they were competing with each other, as they had told us they did a great deal, they struggled to give any. Anything that shakes them through the system will be no bad thing.
I want to talk first about partnerships. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) spoke highly of the Nottingham municipal, and I certainly would not wish to take away the awards that that company has won, but I would like to put in a plug for the Brighton & Hove bus company, which provides the service near me. I spent two happy hours in its depot talking to the team. It is a partnership and a private operator, and it has delivered 5% passenger growth year on year since 2003. It has been remarkably successful, working in partnership with its local authority. It already has a ticketing system in which it reimburses a competitor in the region; it already has that shared system. When I talked to members of the team about the benefits of audio-visual provision, they seemed a bit surprised because they already have it on their entire fleet. Their fleet is also incredibly green. I should like to advance that company as a good example of a partnership operator working incredibly well. I therefore welcome the extension of local transport authority powers beyond infrastructure and towards allowing authorities to market bus services and provide information and ticketing concepts. I believe that that will be a good move.
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman is making a fair point. In my constituency, a smaller operator has been in operation since deregulation. Jim Stones Coaches is renowned for providing an excellent service to the community; it is a very community-focused company. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the big players have often not shown the same levels of responsiveness to their local community and the same levels of innovation, and that they now need to take a long, hard look at themselves and really start to deliver for the public?
Huw Merriman
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps for too long we have had the same players serving the same routes, and I think that the system needs shaking up. I believe that the Bill will do just that.
I was slightly concerned by attempts in the other place to make the powers that could be brought in through advanced quality partnerships a prescriptive matter. If we make it prescriptive, there is a danger that we will take the innovation out of local transport authorities. Indeed, if no further funds are going to those authorities, telling them how they should operate seems to be contrary to the kind of innovation that we are trying to put in place. Equally, while I welcome the consultation that will be required by local authorities for advanced quality partnerships, there is a danger that this requirement could place too heavy a burden on the authorities, resulting in nothing at all occurring. That certainly applies to consultation of a bus operator’s employees, which made no sense to me from a local authority perspective.
I also welcome the introduction of enhanced partnerships, which are a bit of a halfway house between advanced quality partnerships and franchising. They cover a wider geographic service area but have powers over timetabling and frequency and can set improvement objectives and analyse performance. The drawback in the Bill as it stands is that the introduction of an enhanced partnership requires a sufficient number of bus operators in the scheme not to object. Such a veto may mean that enhanced partnerships are unlikely to occur at all. Perhaps we need more checks and balances for bus operators, rather than giving them the power of veto. If I have misunderstood that, I would welcome a clarification.
Moving on to franchising, I was struck that the powers are limited to mayoral combined authorities, but it was noted somewhere in the policy documentation that they were deemed to be sufficiently democratically accountable. That may be a concern for my constituents in East Sussex, who are going to the polls in May and would hope that the council is democratically accountable. However, I take the point that our current system of county councils and district councils does not have the same clarity of power making and accountability as a mayoral combined authority.
Kevin Foster
Torbay has a unitary authority and responsibility for transport partly lies with Devon County Council and partly with Plymouth City Council. Does my hon. Friend agree that combined authorities normally bring together a main urban area with its rural surroundings in a democratically accountable body?
Huw Merriman
I agree. There is some power in the argument for more unitary authorities and for legislative incentives to encourage authorities to get together to form a unitary authority. In a way, the Bill may provide that incentive, because I note that Cornwall Council has automatic franchising powers should it wish to use them, but it does not have a directly elected mayor because it is a unitary authority. That may be an incentive for other local authorities to combine. In what is a bit of a sword of Damocles argument, Cornwall is not actually going to go down the franchising route, but we heard evidence from Cornwall Council and the feeling was that just having that power perhaps got the council a better deal through a partnership and that it is happy to persevere for the time being.
While the Bill would allow the Secretary of State to grant franchising powers to authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities, I note that four factors must be met before that can occur. Cornwall might say that it could meet them, but I can understand the concern that the power will go no further than authorities that have an elected mayor. The Lords sought to widen franchising to all authorities that want it, but I note that no quality contract schemes have been put in place since 2000. Some areas has attempted to do so but have struggled—Tyne and Wear is a recent example—but the very fact that none has made it leads me to suggest that we are in danger of asking for wider franchising powers for authorities that would not want to take them up. Franchising can also be high risk for local transport authorities due to negotiating powers and back-office requirements. I certainly hope that we do not end up with the bigger players taking advantage of better lawyers and accountants to give them better terms, with town halls suffering as a result.
Turning to municipals, I note that proposed new section 123O under clause 4 states that LTAs can be an operator of last resort when a service provider ceases to deliver a service for the remainder of its contract. In that sense, the direction of travel is to allow LTAs to step in, yet the Bill prohibits municipals at the same time. Part of me feels that, when we consider devolution and localism, a closer look at what municipals can do would be welcome. That said, I am conscious that local authorities should be enablers, rather than providers, and that municipals should perhaps be more of a last resort.
Andy Burnham
Can the hon. Gentleman see that, as a fall-back option, it would help a combined authority that is going through the process of franchising? Having an operator of last resort would focus the minds of those bidding for a tender, would it not? It would strengthen the negotiating hand of the public sector over the private sector. For that reason alone, does he see the benefit of that option? Without necessarily wanting to use it, the existence of the option would improve the negotiating position of the public sector.
Huw Merriman
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), will recall, my preference was for a hierarchy that starts with all authorities being required to go down the partnership route. If that route does not succeed, authorities would then move to bringing in franchising. If that does not succeed, municipals would be there as a last resort.
I have spoken about how Cornwall is delivering a good partnership and how its sword of Damocles is therefore not required. Having made that point, it would be difficult for me to contradict the right hon. Gentleman, even though I am sure his suggestion will not always find favour with Conservative Members. I am alive to the fact that, in the other place, Lord Ahmad talked about keeping the eight remaining municipal providers and wanting to see them continue to thrive. He said that it is perhaps an area for discussion and further debate, which is what we have just had.
Finally, I will address some of the Bill’s other provisions and some of the amendments made in the other place. As the Select Committee report mentions, new powers for partnerships to control moving traffic offences, as currently exist in London, are well worth considering. I also take the point about compulsory concessionary travel schemes for 16 to 19-year-olds. I am not sure where Opposition Front Benchers got to with their policy but, in all fairness, given that we require young people to stay at school or in some form of training to the age of 18 and that over-65s are able to get a free concessionary bus pass without means-testing, such a policy would support our young people, if funding were available. The Select Committee heard yesterday that young people facing crippling insurance costs are unable to drive and are therefore unable to get around.
I also warmly welcome the move to get open data into the system. Open data are vital for getting new entrants into the market, opening it beyond the big five. There has been talk of turning bus routes into assets of community value, in the same way that pubs can be. If open data are in place, with any bus company having the ability to apply for a route, perhaps there is no need to keep the notice period open for six months because the information will already be there. I also welcome the improved ticketing schemes. Having audio-visual media on all buses is hugely welcome and is a good example of how the Government have taken a lobbying proposal one stage further to deliver an enhanced deal.
Overall, I absolutely welcome the Bill, which will shake up the industry. I hope some of my suggestions will also be thrown into the mix. I wish the Bill well in its passage.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Second Reading provides a welcome opportunity to discuss the pressing need for changes to bus services in England. Not long after I was first elected in 2010, I met a group of local campaigners who were lobbying a bus company to think again about cuts to a route that would have made it difficult for their children to get to school. Many more changes have followed since, with many further cuts to services. I have championed the campaign and cause ever since those local people first raised it with me.
Change is desperately needed in England’s bus services. Deregulation has been an unmitigated disaster, particularly for people who live in constituencies such as mine where buses are the only option. It is now more than 30 years since the deregulation of the bus industry outside London, which came with the promise that competition would provide greater efficiency, lower fares and, above all, greater passenger numbers. On every one of those measures, deregulation has failed: bus services have become less competitive, less efficient, more expensive and less convenient for the people I represent. Instead of allowing operators the freedom to provide the services that customers want, deregulation has given operators the freedom to do whatever they think is necessary to maximise their profits. Instead of driving competition, as we were promised, it has allowed operators to carve up regions such as the north-east and run local networks as their own private monopolies—that is a strange form of competition indeed.
Across Wearside, deregulation has also enabled operators to cut or needlessly change routes deemed not profitable enough—it is not that they are not profitable, just that they are not making enough money—leaving whole areas without a service. Despite that, operators continue to receive significant taxpayer subsidy, with little to no accountability. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that bus patronage has declined everywhere but London over the past 30 years. The knock-on effect is one of ever-declining services and rising subsidies in a growing number of local communities. That has certainly been the experience in my constituency and many others across the north-east. I therefore welcome the Government’s recognition that we need to change the way buses are run in this country, but this Bill falls far short, and I fail to understand the Secretary of State’s rationale for rejecting the amendments made in the other place on the powers that could be given to local authorities.
As the only part of mainland Britain to be spared the disasters of deregulation in the 1980s, in London taxpayer subsidies are used to maintain and improve services in the public interest. Instead of having a network of cosy monopolies, as we have in the north-east, bus operators in London must enter a competitive tendering system that is kept under continuous review by Transport for London, which controls fares and plans the network. Companies that fail to provide a good service are replaced by others that can do a better job—that is as it should be. Thanks to that system of competitive franchising, Londoners today have access to an extensive bus network that can take them all across the capital. Although I of course recognise that as the capital city London provides different and unique opportunities to operators, there are lessons we can and should take for how we run our buses across the rest of the country, too. Bus services in London are fully integrated with the rest of the capital’s public transport network, and Oyster smart ticketing and contactless payments are a standard requirement. Thanks to the Mayor of London’s new hopper fare, Londoners can travel on a second bus for free within one hour of touching in on the first. I look on with envy at the kind of modest change we can make that would make a real difference to the people I represent—if only we were given the powers to make it possible.
The issue of value for money for the taxpayer is important, because buses in London achieve far better returns than buses in any other part of the country, with decreasing levels of subsidy and less subsidy than there is in many metropolitan areas. Let us compare that with the situation in which we find ourselves in the north-east, where we have zero integration of routes and fares; limited use of smart ticketing and new technology; confusing and extortionate pricing structures; ever-changing and inconvenient timetables; routes chopped and changed all the time; older people unable to get to hospital; and young people unable to get to college. I could go on and on with that list. That is why I supported efforts by Nexus and the North East Combined Authority to use existing legislation to re-regulate bus services through the introduction of a quality contract scheme in Tyne and Wear. Many Members have rightly talked about the experience we had in Tyne and Wear. It was a source of real disappointment that we were not able to make that change and that that scheme was rejected. That was a mistake, but none the less it was the decision that was taken. As others have said, that legislation was, unfortunately, flawed in some respects and it was overly complicated, but of course we do not yet know whether Ministers could set that right and allow the north-east the power to introduce that kind of scheme in future. I think we made the case during that process. The issues raised by the quality contract scheme board were not ones that denied the fact that the north-east faced big challenges and needed to address the bus market, and I hope that Ministers will now look carefully at the case the north-east can make for taking those powers back.
I welcome the fact that this Bill is a limited acknowledgment by the Government of what many of us have been arguing for years: that the current system of bus service provision in England is not fit for purpose. For reasons that are unclear to me, the Government intend to press ahead in overturning the amendments that would allow change in places such as the north-east. I appreciate that we have heard much about a two-step process and the need for a compelling case to be made, but I think the north-east can make that case. I would, however, appreciate greater clarity from the Minister as to where that bar will be set. Will it be set at such a level as to prevent that from happening, or can we be assured that there will be a genuine process to allow areas such as the north-east to demonstrate the potential benefits to the local economy and travelling public from taking on the franchising model again? I hope the Minister can say more about that when he responds, and I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the matter with him further when the Bill is in Committee.
The north-east has a strong case that franchising makes sense for the region and will benefit passengers. If the Government are really serious about creating a competitive market for local bus services throughout England and stimulating growth in areas such as the north-east, they have nothing to fear from granting franchising powers to areas such as mine. If the north-east is to fulfil its economic potential and to realise the potential of the great talent, businesses and people we have, we need a Government who will give us the powers to make that happen so that we can support businesses, jobs and growth. Transport is central to that. Transport connections in the north-east are poor and hold back our local economy and our businesses. The Bill provides us with a rare opportunity to reform a broken bus market and put the interests of passengers ahead of profits. I urge Ministers to consider the north-east’s strong case and give us the powers we need to grow our economy.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson); I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that we dressed identically today by accident—it was not so that we could fill in as each other’s body doubles. I intend to speak briefly to lay out my concerns, and to touch on an amendment that my colleagues and I hope to table at a later stage, which I hope the Minister will take into account in his response.
In Sheffield, as in many metropolitan areas, deregulation was supposed to herald competition, but instead, as we have heard, that competition resulted in false monopolies and provoked a disaster in bus services throughout the country. We have heard lots of Members reminisce about the difference in performance before deregulation; I am afraid I cannot join in as deregulation happened two years before I was born. Nevertheless, I hope to be able to benefit from the improvements that the Bill heralds.
The past 30 years have seen a decline in passenger numbers, a decline in routes that has affected some of the most hard-to-reach areas, and a rise in prices. In metropolitan areas, including Sheffield, prices have risen by 75% since 2005, which is unaffordable and unacceptable. Bus changes introduced in South Yorkshire last year have seriously blighted the lives of some of my most vulnerable constituents, cutting off an entire estate in Arbourthorne, an area with particularly low car-ownership levels; reducing services to areas with exceptionally high numbers of older people; scrapping entirely the route to the Northern general hospital; and cutting off the Chancet Wood and Abbey Brook areas from nearby Woodseats, where the nearest shops, dentists, doctors and other services are.
When the changes were made, the public consultation was woeful. It was conducted practically in secret over a few weeks in the summer, and the considerable evidence presented to demonstrate demand and needs has been all but dismissed by First and Stagecoach. Sheffield City Council has unfairly taken the blame: the changes cannot be separated from the unprecedented cuts to local authority funding, because the amount of money available for supported services has been shrinking.
Franchising is clearly desirable to ensure that all areas are adequately covered. That is preferable to the current situation, in which certain routes—that is, those from densely populated residential districts to central hubs and back—are well served at peak times, while rural and sparsely populated areas are left out. In short, my constituents have been ill served by deregulation. For Sheffield, where well over a third of the population does not own a car, that really matters.
The demand should be there, but it is being stifled by a strategy that could be said to be managed decline, with the creaming off of the profitable routes and abandonment of the rest. We have heard time and again that in London, which avoided deregulation, patronage has doubled, mileage has increased, and fares have risen at a lower rate than in the city regions. The Lords amendments to overturn the nonsensical, ideological decision to bar metropolitan authorities from forming new municipal bus companies were very welcome. I repeat the calls made by many Members today for the Government to keep those changes.
Sheffield’s fractured bus service needs a workable, region-wide and comprehensive approach, not more dogma, which was wrong in the ’80s and is wrong now. I very much welcome the proposals in the Bill, but would like to see them rolled out to everywhere in the UK, not just those places that will benefit from metropolitan mayors.
I wholeheartedly support the provisions to increase transparency by making use of open data. The Bill includes powers to make regulations on the release and format of open data on routes, timetables, punctuality and fares. The other place scrutinised this in detail, and its Members were concerned about the burden it could impose on transport companies. However, wherever open data has been introduced, it has been demonstrated to reduce the burden on authorities and, crucially, to empower passengers and passenger groups to hold bus companies to account—something that has been sorely lacking in recent times.
Open data as infrastructure was conspicuous by its absence in the Government’s digital strategy today. The format of that open data is crucial. I urge the Minister to look at Ofcom’s work on broadband speeds to find a perfect example of how complex data can be distilled and presented in a way that enables passengers to hold operators to account. That can only work if the format is easily understandable and presentable. I would welcome a clear indication from the Minister on that.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport released its digital strategy today. Regrettably, it is a document that is short on ambition for our digital infrastructure, leaving 400,000 small and medium-sized businesses without superfast broadband, and vast swathes of our rural communities ill connected. However, the ambition of ensuring access to digital infrastructure for all can be served in unusual ways, including through the provisions of the Bill, so I intend to table an amendment that I hope will improve passenger experiences and the public’s access to free wi-fi. The benefits of public internet access are abundantly clear. Today, we access mobile data on a scale not seen before. Since 4G came into public use, mobile data traffic has increased by 600% to well over 70 million gigabytes. We are using data on the go to access our emails, to stream TV and radio, and to conduct video conferences. By the end of the month, many have to top up their data and spend yet more money on what should be considered a fourth utility.
Today’s digital strategy states:
“The UK’s digital infrastructure must be able to support this rapid increase in traffic, providing coverage with sufficient capacity to ensure data can flow at the volume, speed and reliability required to meet the demands of modern life.”
But those words are simply meaningless if we do not deliver proper access everywhere.
I urge the Minister to include in franchising agreements as they come up for renewal a commitment by the operators to deliver free wi-fi on buses. It is already in place on trains, and there is no reason that commuters within cities should not share the same benefits as those between cities. I hope the Minister will seriously consider that as the Bill, which will deliver vastly improved services to passengers across the country, passes through the House.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
At last, at last—finally, the Bus Services Bill has arrived. We rejoice at its arrival and want to ensure that it does not disappoint. It is a bit like the experience that I expect many of us have had as bus passengers. We wait for a long time at the bus stop, finally spying a bus on the distant horizon, only for our hearts to sink as it approaches and we see the destination sign, because, after all that waiting, the Bus Services Bill is marked, “Franchising for mayors and combined authorities only.” For most of the country, it will be a long wait for better buses if the Government get their way and carry out their threat to reverse the improvements made to the Bill before it arrived here. We will revisit this argument in Committee, but I urge the Minister to consider leaving the Bill in its improved state so that everyone gains.
We have heard excellent contributions from both sides of the House. It is rare that we discuss buses, but we have done the subject justice today. As it happens, we have heard from a glittering array of former shadow Secretaries of State for Transport, with some very fine contributions. I am deeply conscious that almost everyone who has spoken is more experienced in the House than I am, so I listened to their wise counsel and have learned a lot.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who chairs the Transport Committee, rightly pointed out that it was disappointing that the Bill was not published alongside the vital guidance and secondary legislation. I should say in passing that I pay tribute to the officials who have worked very hard on the Bill. Obviously, an 18-month wait gives more scope for more work, so we have some sympathy, but the lengthy draft guidance did come rather late, which has made it harder for everyone to scrutinise it sufficiently closely.
My hon. Friend and her Committee also noted that the language used in the draft guidance is rather vague in a number of areas. We have heard the phrase “compelling case” mentioned a number of times today, but it is too vague. There should be no room for ambiguity or subjectivity in such important guidance, which is supposed to outline how the powers in the Bill will be put into practice. I hope the Minister, in his response, can give some clarification on those points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) gave us an important historical account of how the Bill came about. He rightly reminded us that, although there was no golden age, things were very different 30 or 40 years ago, and people could actually get around. He was also the first to rightly query the barrier the Government are setting in terms of those offered franchising.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), in a very witty—almost Cantona-esque—contribution, queried the opportunities the Bill provides to improve the environmental friendliness of buses, and he made a good offer to the Government on behalf of Greater Manchester, expressing its willingness to prove that the model can actually work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), in a powerful and passionate contribution, which absolutely showcased her detailed knowledge of the subject, sang the praises of her city. She persuaded us, as if we needed any persuading, that buses can be glamorous. She also explained how success had been achieved in her city through well-trained staff, good leadership and partnerships that work. She pointed out that that is slightly at odds with what some of us would see as the Secretary of State’s approach, which seems to be more concerned with not co-operating with Labour authorities than with putting passengers’ best interests first.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and a number of others pointed out the very high cost of bus travel at the moment. He did find it within himself to praise the London system, which must have been hard. He also pointed out that many other European cities operate such a system and that it can be very successful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), with his customary gusto, reminded us that his city is much visited and that Manchester airport is in his constituency, as if anyone needed reminding. He, too, explained the very high costs faced in constituencies and warned that the guidance must not make this process unworkable. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) rightly pointed out that bus passengers must not be used as a bargaining chip in devolution discussions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) reminded us of where all this came from: the ideological experiment that, in his words, has been inflicted on the public, and he is absolutely right to call time on it. He also raised important air quality issues, calling for a clean air zone. He, too, urged the Government to provide clarity on the term “compelling case”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) rightly reminded us of the cost for families, which has been a recurring theme in the debate. People in London would do well to remember that the relatively low cost of services enjoyed here is quite unlike the costs elsewhere, particularly for families. The examples that have been given of it being cheaper to get a cab are very telling. My hon. Friend, too, spoke strongly about the environmental issues. She also said that the funding issues have not been addressed by the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) stressed that it is the London model that is competitive at the moment, not the model elsewhere. She rightly praised colleagues in the north-east for their worthy and doughty attempts to get a quality contract. She also rightly concluded that, given that all that work has been done, the logic would be to continue and conclude it.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) made important points about open data. I note her comments about free wi-fi, and we will be pursuing that.
We are in the perhaps unusual but happy position of rather agreeing with the Government on much of this Bill, which was, in our view, much improved by the changes made during its passage through the other place. It now offers a step back from the problems created 30 years ago, offering an extension of the system that has worked well in London since then. However, for anyone concerned that competition is being taken out of the system, let us be very clear that it is not: it is being moved from on the road to off the road. The London system is highly competitive, ironically, unlike many other areas that have lapsed into near-monopoly status, with powerful operators able to see off competition from new entrants. We support the changes because they are a step forward and provide the opportunity of improving services for passengers, but we also know the risks of competition, and so we will be demanding strong safeguards, particularly in protecting workers from suffering a race to the bottom.
The Bill offers new forms of partnership, which we also support, because, put simply, one cannot run a bus service without the road space to do so, and we know how controversial that can be in many places. It is therefore vital that there is a constructive relationship between those who run the services and those who plan and maintain the road network and supporting infrastructure. We also know that in different places different kinds of relationships have grown up. We want to respect those differences and acknowledge where they are successful, so a range of different types of partnership makes sense. However, it is not clear that the Department has always had a good grasp of what is happening on the ground—a point rather admitted in recent answers to written questions—and better analysis would provide more confidence, because there is a danger of a plethora of poorly understood arrangements emerging. The one model that makes the most obvious sense—allowing elected local authorities to take a holistic approach and run the services themselves—is of course being deliberately ruled out by the Government. We believe they are wrong to do that.
We are pleased that the Bill now includes provisions on audio-visual announcements, environmental protection and passenger representation, but there are still certain aspects that we hope to amend, and I look forward to visiting those issues in Committee. We do not, for example, believe that the employment protection provisions are strong enough, and we would like to see something concrete on bus safety reporting and disability awareness training for bus drivers, not just reassurances from Ministers that those issues will be dealt with at a later date.
We welcome the data provisions in the Bill. Opening up data should lead to greater transparency and opportunities for innovation around transport apps, as we have heard from a number of hon. Members. It is particularly welcome for fares, the data on which are currently siloed, incomplete, and inconclusive. It is astonishing that in the 21st century any provider of a service should think so little of their passengers that they do not even tell them the price before the start of the journey. Just stepping back and thinking about this for a moment tells us all we need to know about the privatised bus market. It is a 30-year experiment that failed: 30 years in which operators could have pursued innovation and delivered the promises made by the Conservatives when they tore the national system apart, but in reality 30 years when services have declined, fares have risen, and passengers have been taken for granted rather than cherished. Passengers deserve much better, including better information. They deserve to know more, and we will press for more information on issues such as the publication of data on bus accidents.
We already have a roads investment strategy, a rail investment strategy, and, although we are still waiting for it, a cycling and walking investment strategy, so is it too much to ask that we see a proper, national conversation about, and a long-term plan for, bus investment? The Government say that the bus industry is a private industry and thus does not require an investment strategy, but, as we have heard, there is significant public funding going into it—about 40% of the revenue comes from the public purse. We need to have a proper think about how best to utilise that money to ensure that while bus operators have strong businesses, they also provide the best value for money for all bus passengers.
While we hear what the Secretary of State has said about this, I hope that he reconsiders his ambition to revisit several of the amendments made to this Bill in the other place. We have already removed an ideological clause banning local authorities from forming their own bus companies, because that not only seems antithetical to a Bill that has been repeatedly described as an enabling Bill intended to allow local authorities to pick a system of governance best suited to their local needs, but feels bolted on. Indeed, it was not mentioned at all in the original bus reform workshop documents. As others have pointed out, why on earth limit a model that works so well? Some of the best operators in the country, as we have heard, are municipals. That being the case, let us have more of them—let us have more success. That is the Labour way, and that is the route we will be pursuing in future.
Local authorities all over the country need and deserve greater control over their bus services, whether in rural areas, conurbations, or in between. It is positive that the Government have agreed as a condition of their city deals to give combined mayoral authorities London-style powers over their bus networks, and they must honour that promise, but what about the rest?
I fear that this patchwork approach will lead to inconsistency and leave many areas with no route to improvement at all. The partnership options in the Bill look promising, but in many areas bus operators with a monopoly of the local market might not be minded to enter a partnership agreement.
Andy Burnham
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I have a great deal of sympathy with his points. I remind him that the Bill was a result of requests from Labour local government in Greater Manchester—I would say that it is a Labour Bill for that reason—and was part of the devolution deal that was demanded. Although we may have frustrations with the Government’s intentions to reverse some amendments, will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that no one on the Labour Benches will seek to prevent any of the legislation getting on to the statute books so that the powers can be used by metro mayors as soon as possible?
Daniel Zeichner
I quite understand my right hon. Friend’s point and I can assure him that we support the Bill, but we just want to make it better, and better for everybody. We think that local authorities need a full range of options on the table.
Bus reform is back on the agenda—better late than never—and there is clearly cross-party support for this measure. We all want to get the best deal for bus passengers, wherever they live. Anything less would do a disservice to all those people relying on bus services every day. As has been pointed out, more public transport journeys are taken by bus every day than by any other mode of public transport. Buses deserve more attention, bus passengers deserve more attention, and I hope that the passage of this Bill will start to correct the damage done more than 30 years ago and lay the foundations for the modern transport systems our country needs and deserves.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
It is with great pleasure that I close this Second Reading debate. We have had a very good debate about a very good Bill, and it has been fantastic to hear such enthusiasm for buses on both sides of the Chamber. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their keen participation and engagement. It is clear that we all want buses to thrive because of their impact on our local communities.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, the aim of the Bill is to increase bus passenger numbers and to improve services by creating new options and opportunities. It also delivers on our devolution deals so that local authorities and bus operators can work together on a bus strategy that works locally. That is how local authorities can work to cut congestion, support businesses and improve air quality, and it is how operators can increase their patronage. The Bill will build on good practice to make sure that we have an industry that is open and accessible to all.
Many Members—particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West (Chris Green) and for Bath (Ben Howlett), and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown)—welcomed the introduction of a requirement to provide on-board information throughout Great Britain, which will mean that all passengers, particularly disabled passengers, will be able to board a bus with confidence. Many colleagues have said how everybody benefits from that—I completely agree.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Although, of course, we support this initiative, will the Minister confirm that small rural operators that are struggling to keep costs down and vital lifeline services alive might be exempted from the initial provision of the audio-visual services?
Andrew Jones
We will work through the phasing of the introduction of the requirement, but we do not want to hold back from it. There is a slight cost implication for operators, but we think that that will be more than offset by the extra patronage they will secure if people are more able to use the buses. This is a business-generating approach, but we will treat the issues for the smaller operators with great sensitivity. We have taken a very deliberate approach, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will appreciate that it focuses on the information to be provided, not on any particular technology. We hope to consult on how to take this forward later in the year.
Many colleagues have welcomed the provisions on open data, and the Bill will ensure that passengers know how much their fares will cost and at what time to catch their bus. That important aspect of the Bill will benefit passengers right across England, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), among others, rightly recognised. Personally, I think that it is one of the most exciting parts of the Bill.
By introducing new advanced ticketing schemes, the Bill ensures that new and existing developments in technology can be accommodated. That will enable multi-operator ticketing schemes to be introduced so that passengers can purchase tickets that will be accepted by different operators across scheme areas, and across different transport modes, such as rail or tram. Many colleagues have highlighted how complex catching buses can be—if multiple tickets need to be bought, for example—and we hope that the ticketing provisions will get rid of that problem.
One of the key proposals in the Bill is the new enhanced partnership. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) recognised, some partnerships are already working very effectively right across our country. That is true—we all know that—but more can be done. Providing the opportunity for improved co-operation between local authorities and bus operators will mean a more integrated transport network for urban and rural communities. Passengers, local communities, local businesses and the environment will benefit from improvements in bus services—from improvements in emission standards through to clearer ticketing options—while operators will be left with their commercial freedoms.
There has been a lot of discussion about bus franchising today. It is clear that there is a variety of views in the House, but I think that there is clear agreement that the existing powers under the quality contract scheme have not worked effectively. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, our intention is that the Bill will give mayoral combined authorities the automatic choice to use new powers to franchise bus services in their areas. I assure the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside, for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) that areas with directly elected Mayors can decide for themselves whether to take up the franchising powers in the Bill. There is no need for further reference to the Secretary of State.
Jonathan Reynolds
As the Minister acknowledges, there is consensus in the House about making sure, as the Bill proceeds, that the powers are workable and effective. One important point is how pension liabilities will be affected if the franchise changes from one operator to another. Will the Minister, either on Report or in writing to interested Members, provide clarification about that?
Andrew Jones
I would be very happy to provide clarification. Throughout the development of the policies, we have been looking to protect workers who transfer in that way. We have put that right at the heart of our discussions in policy development, and I am happy to share that information with the hon. Gentleman and any other interested colleague.
Several hon. Members asked about this, so let me confirm once more that the decision about whether a case to proceed with franchising is compelling is entirely for the Mayor. We should perhaps thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for sharing the news that he is a mayoral candidate—I do not think anybody knew that until today.
Hon. Members have talked about the guidance for consultations. Some guidance for mayoral combined authorities on establishing a case for franchising has been published, but let me be clear that it is still the Mayor who will take the decision. Our guidance merely aims to assist mayoral combined authorities in establishing a well-evidenced case—that is an important point.
Several colleagues asked what such a case might comprise, so let me add a little detail. We have a number of criteria that we would expect authorities that may be able to apply for franchising powers to demonstrate: that the authority has a clear plan to make bus services better for passengers; that the authority covers an area that is sufficiently wide to make franchising work in practice; that the authority has the powers to make franchising a success, which might mean control over parking or planning policy; that the authority has sufficiently strong governance arrangements in place; and that the authority has the resources and funding to deliver franchising successfully. Those are some of the criteria we will consider when looking, case by case, at which authorities will be able to apply for and secure franchising.
Mrs Ellman
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Ministers will look on such applications in a positive light, rather than looking at the case made with a view to rejecting it?
Andrew Jones
I can confirm that. Our approach will be one of glass half full rather than glass half empty. We are not trying to get in the way of authorities or others that wish to improve their bus services. The whole point of the Bill is to provide a suite of enabling powers so that authorities can do what is right for their area to put more passengers on buses and provide better networks. We will certainly view all conversations positively.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, benefits for passengers will need to be at the heart of any authority’s application for franchising powers. Governance, geography and evidence will be critical if authorities are to apply successfully for franchising status. I do not agree with colleagues, including the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who believe that bus franchising powers should be available to all authorities throughout England automatically.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) recognised the very real risks to investment by bus operators that will be created if franchising powers are made automatically available to all local authorities, and the chilling effect that that might have on operators and bus manufacturers such as Wrightbus. I am aware of the quality of that business’s products. My right hon. Friend made her point clearly, drawing on her experience. I agree with the concerns highlighted, which is one reason why we will seek to reverse the changes made in the other place.
I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West recognised, the Bill requires franchising authorities to consider how, in conducting their procurement process for franchising contracts, they will facilitate the involvement of small and medium-sized operators. We—and, I hope, every directly elected Mayor—want to ensure that such operators thrive if franchising is implemented. We have made that clear in the Bill.
I have been interested to hear the range of views about municipal bus companies. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham South and others who highlighted that those that have survived deliver great services to their passengers. I believe that there are seven municipal bus companies in England, and I saw one for myself yesterday on a visit to Reading. However, on the whole, private sector bus operators have delivered our local bus services for the past 30 years. We want to ensure that we strike the right balance, with commercial operators continuing to innovate and deliver good services for passengers.
The Bill provides local authorities with substantially more opportunities to influence the provision of local bus services in their area, whether through partnerships or franchising, and we are therefore still of the view that commissioning and the provision of services should be kept separate.
Many colleagues asked about rural services. Through franchising and partnership, the Bill will work for every area of the country—urban and rural. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), who is a great champion of rural bus services, that the Bill’s partnership powers allow local authorities to work with operators to improve the co-ordination of services, for example to link bus and rail services more closely. A good example of that is under way in Cornwall, which is already working in partnership with operators to ensure that rural areas have bus links to key shopping or employment centres at the right times of day. That is a positive development, which already uses the powers in the Bill. The local operator has invested in its fleet and increased its profitability and patronage in the area.
Several authorities are also planning bus services alongside community transport services and other types of transport, such as home-to-school or patient transport, so that rural connectivity is maximised. That is the sort of innovation that we need across the country and that we are encouraging through our Total Transport pilot scheme, to which the hon. Member for Nottingham South referred. The Government are a strong supporter of community transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) was right to highlight clause 19. When routes are withdrawn, such as the 116 that my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire mentioned, we want local authorities to have the information they need to decide whether and how to provide replacement services. That is exactly what clause 19 aims to achieve.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside that bus routes should be designated as assets of community value. As the Government explained in our response to the Select Committee report, that would force operators to continue to operate a service for six months, potentially at huge cost, which could act as a disincentive for operators improving or maintaining services, especially in rural areas.
I should like to challenge the myth, which has been perpetrated in the debate by some colleagues, that bus services were flourishing before deregulation in the 1980s and that the decrease in bus passengers started at deregulation. I have gone back and looked at the data. In the 30 years between 1955 and 1985—30 years prior to deregulation—the number of passenger journeys on local bus services in Great Britain fell on average by 2% a year. Since deregulation, the fall has gradually reduced, at an average of just 0.2% a year. The number of passenger journeys fell from 15.5 billion in 1955 to 5.5 billion in 1985. One thing has been clear in the debate: all hon. Members want that trend reversed and for passenger numbers to increase.
Many colleagues mentioned buses and air quality. I have absolutely no doubt that buses can be a critical ingredient to improving an area’s air quality. As parts of a partnership or franchising area, authorities will be able to specify the emission standards of vehicles. In fact, the Government introduced amendments in the other place to make that clearer. We have supported and will continue to support bus companies with grants to encourage the take-up of low-emission vehicles. Low- emission buses are critical to putting in place good integrated transport systems with low emissions.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned the Traffic Management Act 2004. I agree that congestion is a problem that has an adverse impact on local bus services. However, the Government and I remain to be convinced about the case for giving all authorities the powers to install a raft of new cameras on yellow box junctions or elsewhere. In the past few days, I received a letter from a councillor who said that doing that would be a great idea because it would help with council revenue collection, which was exactly what we did not want to hear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath asked about tourist buses. As far as I am aware, any arrangements that are already in place can continue unchanged, but I will check that and write to him to confirm it.
We have covered many issues, but I am sure that my speech from the Dispatch Box and hon. Members’ comments have touched on only some of the issues that we will cover in Committee, which I look forward to. The Bill enables improvements where they are needed. It has also been clear from the speeches made by colleagues on both sides of the House that they have been thinking about how the new powers in the Bill will be used to improve services in their areas, which is great and exactly what we want.
The bus industry has made huge strides in making the experience of bus travel more attractive. Many buses have free wi-fi, as well as CCTV and USB charging points. The vast majority of buses are now accessible.
Last year, more than 4.65 billion bus passenger journeys were taken in this country, which was three times as many journeys as on the entire rail network. Buses are as relevant now as they have ever been. I see them playing a very important part in all our transport futures. All good public transport systems will have buses at their heart. There is no shortage of energy, effort and investment in the sector to support a growing bus industry. The purpose of the Bill is to continue that great work to the benefit of bus passengers, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
BUS SERVICES BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Bus Services Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 21 March 2017.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
BUS SERVICES BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bus Services Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
Business of the House (7 March)
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 7 March, the following shall apply to proceedings on the motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority and on the motion in the name of Mr David Lidington relating to Standing Orders (Public Business)—
(1) proceedings on each motion may be entered upon at any hour and may continue, though opposed, for one hour;
(2) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of each motion not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on that motion;
(3) such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and
(4) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Michael Ellis.)
Use of Welsh Language in Parliamentary Proceedings
Resolved,
That this House—
(1) notes the Fourth Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 816, on Use of the Welsh language in the Welsh Grand Committee at Westminster, which builds on more than twenty years of use of the Welsh language in parliamentary proceedings in Wales and at Westminster;
(2) resolves that:—
(a) whilst English is and should remain the language of this House, the use of Welsh be permitted in parliamentary proceedings of Select Committees and of the Welsh Grand Committee held in Wales and at Westminster;
(b) reasonable notice, as determined by the Chair of the relevant committee, shall be given in advance of any proposed use of the Welsh language so as to allow the necessary arrangements to be made;
(c) the Chair shall have power to insist that points of order are made in English; and
(d) the Official Report shall record contributions made in the Welsh language together with their English translation; and
(3) accordingly rescinds the Resolution of 5 June 1996 (Language of Parliamentary Proceedings).—(Michael Ellis.)
Walk-in Services at the Merlyn Vaz Health and Social Care Centre, Leicester
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I wish to present a petition signed by 1,587 local residents of Leicester East. It was collected by Councillors Luis Fonseca, Jean Khote, Abdul Osman and Sue Hunter, as well as many others. I declare an interest as the centre was named after my late mother, Merlyn Vaz, who was a local councillor in Leicester and widely regarded as a pensioners’ champion. The Merlyn Vaz health and social care centre is not closing, but a proposal exists to close the walk-in facilities that operate from it. I am afraid that if these proposals are enacted, it will turn our walk-in centre into a drive-by centre. The walk-in centre was opened in 2009. Since then, 156,089 patients have walked through its doors, including 22,179 in 2015-16. Our hospitals are already overstretched, and the closure of our much-needed walk-in centre will only push them to the brink of collapse.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Leicester East,
Declares that Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group plans to remove the existing Walk-in element of the service from Merlyn Vaz Health and Social Care Centre which would have a detrimental effect on the local community and other members of the public who use the "out of hours" facility, especially on the elderly and vulnerable people who do not have easy access to transport but are able to walk to the Merlyn Vaz Health and Social Care Centre.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group to reconsider their decision to remove the existing Walk-in element of the service from the Merlyn Vaz Health and Social Care Centre.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002021]
Equality and Human Rights Commission
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I wish to raise the issue of the funding of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I thank the Minister for agreeing that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) can also address the House. He has valuable experience not only in the trade union arena but in this arena, having served on the board of a predecessor body.
It is pertinent that we discuss this issue today. Not only is it Ash Wednesday and the day when we celebrate the patron saint of the great nation of Wales, but as my good friend Ryan McMullan, a former colleague on Glasgow City Council, told me, it is also Disabled Access Day. Perhaps we can touch on those issues later.
I have been pursuing a debate on this urgent issue, but I am profoundly disappointed at the actions that have created the need for one. As a result of cuts to the funding of the commission, workplace relations have suffered and individual employees have been unfairly treated. This morning I visited the picket line of PCS and Unite members in London who are on their sixth day of industrial action.
That a Government-sponsored, Government-funded body with a remit set by this Parliament with the specific mandate to
“challenge discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and to protect and promote human rights”
should on 9 February 2017 callously sack 10 PCS and Unite members by email while they were on strike and give them less than one day’s notice to clear their desks is unheard of in the public sector.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
I am attending tonight’s debate after I was made aware of this very serious situation. Is the hon. Gentleman really telling the House that the body established by the Government to look after, safeguard and monitor the rights of the citizens of this country is acting in such a scandalous way? If it is, does he not think that this is a clear road map of where this Government are taking the trade union movement and its rights in this country?
Chris Stephens
Yes, I do have concerns about how the Government are conducting industrial relations across the board and about their attacks on the trade union movement, as we saw during the passage of the Trade Union Bill.
The treatment of the workers concerned is not only harsh, but I would argue potentially discriminatory and contrary to everything the organisation is tasked by this House with delivering. By imposing pay in lieu of notice and terminating the employees’ contracts, those employees can no longer actively search for redeployment within their existing organisation or within the civil service where they would get priority access to vacancies.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that this will also be expensive for the public purse? For six months, we will be paying these people to stay at home while, as I understand it, the EHRC will be plugging staffing gaps with expensive consultants.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Lady serves with me on the European Scrutiny Committee, and she is quite correct in her analysis.
Continuous service has been broken, so if the employee were to secure a job in the civil service, the break would have a directly negative impact on their pension and any future severance pay. I note that two directors were also served notice, but pay in lieu of notice was not imposed and they remain on the payroll. To date, the commission has not offered any of those at risk of compulsory redundancy alternative employment, which is a statutory requirement. I hope that the Minister will confirm today whether he will intervene on this matter and ensure that all those employees, now numbering 12, will be reinstated.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The organisation was set up in the first place through pressure from the trade union and labour movement on human rights and workers’ rights. We have seen two good examples of where the Government are going with Brexit. We have had the Trade Union Bill, which had to be modified through pressure from the Opposition. What do we now expect when the Government come back with their Brexit package and we pull out of Europe? What is going to happen to workers’ rights then, bearing in mind that the Government have done away with legal aid in certain instances?
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is correct that concessions were given to the Opposition, but I think the Government are backtracking on them, as we saw in a Delegated Legislation Committee, with trade unions now being forced to have additional conferences to meet requirements in the new legislation.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Will he confirm that another thing on which the Government are backtracking is the funding for this organisation? During a year in which hate crime has doubled in this country, we have seen the funding and staffing of the commission cut by 25%. Does he agree that it is extraordinary that the body that is supposed to be the watchdog on behalf of the Government in respect of disabled people’s rights—it is one of this country’s most important watchdogs—is sacking disabled workers at a day’s notice?
Chris Stephens
I agree wholeheartedly, and I shall come back to these points in detail later. If the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene again then, I would be more than happy to give way.
I invite Members to look closely at who was chosen for compulsory redundancy and who was then sacked by email, as highlighted in early-day motion 944. Of the 10 sacked members, seven are black or minority ethnic, four are Muslim and six are disabled. I hope that no one will challenge the arithmetic on that, as it is possible to have overlapping identities.
As I understand the situation, one of the dismissed staff members was an Army veteran whose motorised wheelchair was taken away the day after he received his redundancy notice. Three of the sacked members held elected roles on their union’s branch executive committee and one was a trade union negotiator who was leading talks to protect employees from compulsory redundancy.
This issue raises concerns about blacklisting and trade union victimisation throughout the ongoing restructuring process. It is also not difficult to conclude that certain types of employees have been targeted and potentially discriminated against. Not only is that utterly wrong in and of itself, but astonishing that it should come from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Chris Stephens
There seems to be a choice. I give way to my fellow member of the European Scrutiny Committee.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman is making a really powerful case. Will he comment on the impact that this is likely to have on other employers’ behaviour when they see the body charged with upholding the highest of standards getting away with this kind of conduct?
Chris Stephens
That is an excellent point. When the commission is seen to be conducting itself in this way, it sends out a very dangerous message to rogue employers.
Owen Smith
Will the hon. Gentleman also comment on the impact of these sackings on the Government’s stated aim of halving the disability employment gap in this country, given that five of the sacked people are disabled?
Chris Stephens
It shows that the Government say one thing in public and do another thing in private. That is the only message that we can take from this.
This is in the realms of “you really couldn’t make it up.” The Government cannot absolve themselves of any responsibility for this surreal situation. Increasingly, ministerial responses on this issue are becoming a little tetchy, and along the lines of, “This isn’t really anything to do with us.” As I have said before, something that is Government sponsored and Government funded is publicly accountable. That is what we are doing today—giving parliamentary scrutiny to an organisation that is not acting in the spirit of its own ethos and stated aims.
The strike was called because people were at risk of compulsory redundancy, even though more than 30 commission vacancies remain unfilled. A restructuring process has been driven by severe budget pressures: a 25% cut over the next four years comes on top of a 70% cut in real terms since 2010. That was confirmed by House of Commons Library research, which was commissioned by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). The Equality and Human Rights Commission has been described as facing collapse.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, with 25% cuts, there is a risk that human rights legislation will, in all honesty, exist only on paper and that, in fact, human rights will effectively be hollowed out? Will he be pressing the Government to give evidence on that?
Chris Stephens
I agree with the hon. Lady. It comes back to the point of whether legislation can be enforced. Looking at this in context, we can see a rise in hate crimes and a dramatic reduction in the number of people taking cases to employment tribunals. There has also been a 71% drop in the number of cases challenging sex discrimination, a 58% drop in race discrimination cases, and a 54% drop in disability discrimination cases. Surely that all adds up to a mismatch between workload and resource. When the commission is only employing three caseworkers to provide advice and representation to the victims of discrimination and human rights abuses in England, Scotland and Wales, it calls into question the ability of the organisation to tackle discrimination and enforce the law.
Although the stated strategic aims and objectives of the commission are sound—I particularly agree with the aim of improving capability through investing in its people—there is a huge question mark over organisational capacity, particularly in the light of confirmation of the funding picture for the future. On 24 February, the Government Equalities Office confirmed funding for the remainder of the spending review period until 2019-20. It confirmed that the cuts are to continue and that year-on-year funding is to decline from £20.4 million in 2016-17 to £17.4 million in 2019-20. As the need for support for individuals experiencing discrimination in all its poisonous forms grows, this Government have cut deeper into an already challenged organisation.
I was curious to test the Government’s support for ensuring a sustainable future for the commission, so I tabled a written question last December as to how and whether the Government are publicising the existence of the organisation. The ministerial response was:
“My Department promotes the EHRC’s functions where appropriate in the normal course of its own activities but since 2010 has not spent anything on advertising its services.”
A more suspicious person than myself might suspect the Government of seeking to suppress demand for the commission’s services, making the case for further funding cuts. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will now advertise the commission’s services publicly?
In response to the publicity and scrutiny given as a result of poor handling of its workforce and trade union relationships, it is interesting to note that the commission in its briefing note to Members has stated:
“It would enhance the Commission’s independence if we were able to table reports directly in Parliament”,
and that
“we consider that Parliament should be afforded a greater role in setting the Commission’s budget, as is the case for other independent bodies such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Electoral Commission.”
I welcome the news that the organisation is open to being held to account for its use of public money by a parliamentary Committee and am interested to hear what the Minister thinks of that proposal. This could provide a way forward, and if the Government were also to take responsibility for resolving the hasty and unorthodox manner in which hard-working, dedicated public servants have been treated, a more positive outcome for the organisation and the individuals concerned could be achieved.
It will be disappointing if the “arm’s length” rationale is deployed again today. It is often used by another organisation I am very familiar with, Glasgow City Council, where all too often the administration’s councillors claim that poor industrial relations and resolving disputes are somehow outwith their control. Budget decisions and damaged employee relations as a result of poor consultation, communication and negotiation are ultimately the responsibility of elected members, whether local or national. Claiming that these issues are decided on and actioned by forces that cannot be held to account, or directed by those of us who are elected by the people, is an exceptionally weak argument.
Fundamentally, what is at stake here is whether equalities and human rights issues are at the heart of the Government’s ethos or not. Actions at the moment are at variance with stated aims and objectives, and many more people in this country stand to be affected if the commission’s capacity to deliver is being run down, whether by accident or design. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this debate. Like him, for me, combating discrimination and inequality has been a lifelong cause, in my case dating back to my boyhood, when I discovered, to my shock, from my Irish father that when he first arrived in this country seeking lodging houses in Kilburn and Cricklewood, iniquitous signs were put up saying, “No dogs, no Irish.”
For me, this is a cause that I fought in the world of work, taking on bad employers who were discriminating against people, but also challenging practices within the trade union movement. I remember being involved in a battle back in the 1980s against one particular branch of refuse collectors in London who would not allow any black refuse collectors to be employed. We said, “You’re not on,” we took it on, and we changed it.
Likewise, there was the battle within our own ranks to change the image and agenda of the trade union movement on equalities for women. I used to be described in the old T&G as an “honorary sister.” Like the hon. Gentleman, this is a cause that I am passionate about.
In parallel to the big changes that have been won over the last 30 years, there has been the transformation of the image and agenda of politics, and, indeed, the make-up of this place. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) regularly reminds me, when she was first elected to this House its membership was 97% men.
I actively worked with all the predecessor bodies: the Equal Opportunities Commission, challenging those employers denying people equal pay; the Commission for Racial Equality, challenging those employers who were discriminating in employment; and the old Disability Rights Commission, challenging employers who treated disabled workers shamefully, and those who—this happened often—refused to employ disabled workers despite requirements on them, and who failed to adapt workplaces so that disabled workers could fulfil their potential.
Then the Equality and Human Rights Commission was established. I could give numerous examples of its work, but I will give just one. When I was deputy general secretary of the union, we had a big focus on the red and white meat industry, which had 40,000 employees. The main customers were the supermarkets, which were abusing their market power to drive down costs along the supply chain. In factory after factory, that led to a two-tier labour market. There were more and more agency workers—overwhelmingly migrant workers—on poorer conditions of employment, and the number of full-time, directly employed workers on better conditions of employment was falling. That often led to toxic conditions and damaged the social cohesion in workplace after workplace and community after community.
I persuaded the then chair of the commission, Trevor Phillips, to launch an inquiry into that discriminatory pattern in the meat industry. It produced a powerful report, and I will never forget being at the summit that was then convened by the EHRC, at which the commission told the supermarkets that if they did not change their procurement practices and end the shameful discrimination in their supply chain, it would take enforcement proceedings against them. The supermarkets are not all that they should be—that is for absolute certain—but some welcome changes were made. They could not wash their hands of responsibility for what they had created.
My experience of the predecessor bodies and the commission has been that they did not always get it right, did not always do everything I would have liked them to do, and did not always bind others in quite the way I would have liked, but they were powerful, effective champions of equality with a dedicated staff fighting that most noble cause of tackling discrimination.
The position that we have now reached is nothing short of scandalous, just when hate is on the march. It is on the march against black, Asian and ethnic minority people, against the disabled and against women. The signs of what is happening in our country are profoundly disturbing. We have never needed a strong Equality and Human Rights Commission more, but it is now being reduced to a rump of its once great self. It is quite extraordinary that its budget has been reduced from £70 million in 2007 to £17 million now. Likewise, the number of staff is also being reduced to a rump, rendering the commission increasingly ineffective. The staff are being treated shamefully. I know some of the staff in the Birmingham office, including my good friend Zahid Nawaz. He has done outstanding work for the predecessor bodies and the commission for 17 years, but he and others were treated shamefully when they were sacked in circumstances that I would not expect from a bad employer, let alone the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The commission has acted badly and shamefully, and it must think again. It should suspend the dismissal notices issued to the individuals concerned. It should also do something that it has as yet failed to do, which is talk to all the stakeholders with whom it operates about the kind of commission they want for the future. I know, having spoken to some of them, that there is an overwhelming sense of deep concern about what is happening. Fairness and the cause of tackling discrimination demand nothing less.
I turn now to the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who is a reasonable man. I am not sure that I would say that about every Minister. The Government cannot wash their hands of responsibility for what is happening to the Equality and Human Rights Commission because the enormous cuts that are being made are at the heart of all this. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said, the Government cannot talk about their commitment to the principle of equality while at the same time cutting the EHRC, making it more difficult for people to go to employment tribunals and robbing citizens of their ability to have their rights enforced and of the protection of the EHRC, which is needed now more than ever. The commission has a responsibility and it must act, but above all, the Government have the key responsibility and they too should act.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I begin with an apology on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), who is unable to respond to this debate due to other business. However, I am here and happy to respond on her behalf. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this important debate. It is timely as it allows me the opportunity to confirm the budget agreed with the EHRC for the remainder of this spending review period, something which has been of interest to many hon. Members.
Before I move on to provide greater detail, I want to take a moment to remind ourselves of the wider context of Government fiscal controls. At the beginning of the last Parliament, as hon. Members will remember, the Government inherited the largest deficit in the post-war period. The EHRC’s position needs to be seen against that background and against the significant spending reductions that apply to central Government, including making over £20 billion of savings by 2019-20. I can confirm that the EHRC’s settlement for this spending review period amounts to a total budget of £20.4 million for 2016-17, £19.3 million for 2017-18, £18.3 million for 2018-19, and £17.4 million for 2019-20, equating to a 25% reduction across the spending review period since 2015-16. Obviously, and as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West made clear, reductions in the EHRC’s budget stretch across a longer timescale than just this spending review. With its settlement now confirmed, the EHRC will have had an approximate budget reduction of 68% between 2010-11 and 2019-20.
Joseph Johnson
If hon. Members give me some time, I will supply some context for the reduction, most of which we did not hear from the hon. Gentleman.
Owen Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the context of a current budget deficit of around £68 billion, is he seriously telling the House that cutting the EHRC’s budget by 68% down to £17 million is really necessary or relevant?
Joseph Johnson
The context that I am about to provide will help hon. Members understand in more detail why cuts of that magnitude were appropriate. If the hon. Member for Glasgow South West bears with me, I am sure that I will answer the question that he was about to ask.
First, when the EHRC was set up in 2007, it had an extraordinarily high budget to facilitate the merger of three previous bodies—the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality, and the Disability Rights Commission—into a new body. The budget was simply not right for the organisation during its infancy. In 2007, the EHRC had a budget of £70 million, which was an astonishing £20 million more than the combined budgets of the three previous commissions. The EHRC never managed to spend more than £62 million in any year. Indeed it often struggled to spend its allocation, reporting significant and repeated underspends. In June 2010 for instance, the EHRC budget was reduced in-year from £62 million to £55 million. However, the EHRC’s actual expenditure in 2010-11 was £48 million, of which £16.3 million, or 35% of its budget, was spent on its corporate costs.
Secondly, those with longer memories will acknowledge that the organisation was poorly managed at the time and had poor spending controls, as a result of which its first three sets of accounts were all qualified. That inevitably called into question its financial controls and the amount of funding that it should be given.
Thirdly, Members should be aware that the EHRC’s budget reductions have simply reflected changes to its range of functions. A number of significant functions have been repealed, or are no longer funded, to help it concentrate on its core remit. Most notably, the EHRC has stopped its large grants programmes, which had been mismanaged and cost several million pounds. The EHRC also lost its helpline, which cost £2.5 million a year, and its conciliation role in service provision. Those functions ceased in 2012-13 and were costed at £10.1 million or 21% of the EHRC’s budget at the time.
Those changes were considered in the review of public bodies conducted by the Government in 2010, and it was decided that the EHRC should be “retained but substantially reformed”. In March 2011, the coalition Government accordingly set out plans to reform the EHRC in the consultation document “Building a Fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”
The current Prime Minister, who at the time was Minister for Women and Equalities along with her Liberal Democrat coalition partner Lynne Featherstone, set out proposals
“to transform the Equality and Human Rights Commission into a valued and respected national institution.”
A comprehensive budget review was set up in 2012 to identify the minimum level of funding needed for the commission to discharge its statutory functions effectively, in accordance with the provisions of the Equality Act 2006. The review concluded that steady state funding of £17.1 million would be adequate for the commission to continue to fulfil its statutory functions.
Chris Stephens
The Minister seems to be suggesting that the £17.4 million budget for 2019-20 is only to support the commission’s core statutory functions, which I understand is the direction of travel. Will he confirm that, in previous years, the commission received up to £7.8 million of funding to support its wider functions?
Joseph Johnson
The EHRC is receiving money in excess, although modestly so, of the minimum amount regarded as necessary to support its statutory functions. The hon. Gentleman is correct.
Kate Green
I understand the Minister’s point about focusing the commission on its statutory and strategic functions, but how can he be confident that it has the resources to do that well when we know that many local authorities are failing to comply with the public sector equality duty and that the Government are the subject of a number of significant criticisms from UN bodies for failing to comply with our obligations under socioeconomic and other rights treaties?
Joseph Johnson
Work was undertaken in the last Parliament to assess the minimum level of adequate funding necessary to ensure that the commission is in a position to discharge its statutory functions. As I said earlier, the review concluded that steady state funding of £17.1 million would be adequate.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned staffing reductions, which I recognise is also a concern of other hon. Members. As an independent body, it is for the EHRC to determine the level and structure of its staffing, which includes defining the appropriate grading and staff numbers. The commission has had to make difficult decisions in order to deliver value for money in its use of public funds while also ensuring that it is furnished with the right complement of skills and experience. Once the commission has concluded its restructuring under the target operating model, the total number of posts will be 179.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) asked about the impact of the EHRC’s restructuring on the Government’s goal of halving the disability employment gap. In terms of actual redundancies, the restructuring affects six disabled staff members. More widely, the EHRC retains good links with disabled groups, is continuing its work on disability issues and is working with disabled groups specifically to improve its enforcement work on disability discrimination cases.
The Government are also working generally to combat hate crime. Other hon. Members asked about the impact of the restructuring on the commission’s ability to deal with instances of hate crime. The Government are working generally with the police to provide a breakdown of data on religion-based hate crime to help them target resources and increase understanding. We recently published the hate crime action plan, in July 2016, and are now delivering locally based projects to tackle hate crime. We have announced additional funding for communities to increase reporting, with £2.4 million to protect places of worship and £900,000 to support community projects. We are engaging with groups to ensure we understand the public’s experience of hate crime and make it easier for victims to come forward.
Let me turn specifically to points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). Although the EHRC needs to have due regard to fostering good relations, it is not a criminal enforcement agency, as he knows, and it has no role in prosecuting offenders or ensuring compliance with the law in this area. Therefore there will be no impact on the Government’s ability to tackle hate crime.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is saying that the commission does not have duties in terms of dealing with criminal behaviour, but he has yet to comment on how staff were treated. They were dismissed with one day’s notice and told to clear their desks. Does he believe that that is appropriate?
Joseph Johnson
I will take another intervention on the same point and then I will deal with one from the hon. Member for Pontypridd.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want to add to what my hon. Friend said. The Minister seemed to be alluding to a strategic review of what the commission needs to do to carry out its core work, so how does sacking people by email and sending them home comply with the strategic review? There is no way that can be a skills-based assessment.
Joseph Johnson
Turning to the points about restructuring, hon. Members will know that the EHRC has followed a multi-staged process, to mitigate the impact of job losses on all staff, including consideration of those with protected characteristics. The commission is confident that the processes undertaken to date have been fair, evidence-based and transparent. Trade unions have been extensively consulted to offer every alternative to compulsory redundancy, where possible. Despite that, they have called five strikes in recent months.
Happily, the EHRC is no longer the focus for the tabloids’ wrath. Its accounts have not been qualified for five years. It has provided respected policy interventions on stop and search; the treatment of religion in the workplace; and pregnancy and maternity discrimination. It has intervened successfully to help enforce the Equality Act and human rights at the European Court of Human Rights.
Joseph Johnson
I will give way, but this has to be quick as we are running out of time.
Owen Smith
I am grateful to the Minister, who is being very generous in taking interventions and is trying to answer our questions. However, in so doing he is making our case for us, because he has just admitted that six of the people who are being sacked are disabled, which will clearly add to the disability employment gap. In conceding that we are seeing a rising tide of hate crime, despite the fact that we have this commission, he is surely making the point that the £17 million it currently has to support its work is inadequate.
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman needs to look at the EHRC’s restructuring in the context of its ability to carry out its broader work to support people with disabilities and to ensure that their rights are not affected by their disabilities in terms of their ability to access opportunities in the workplace.
As the National Audit Office notes, the EHRC
“has responded to its budget reductions in a number of ways”,
and it is increasingly working in partnership with other organisations and being more selective in the legal cases it takes on, taking on cases with the potential for the most impact and thereby enhancing its overall effectiveness. We are working with the EHRC to increase its effectiveness further. We share the view that members of the Women and Equalities Committee expressed in January: the EHRC should play to its unique strengths and powers, as provided in its legislative framework, by making more selective legal interventions and leaving the research to other bodies that can already fulfil that function.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. He must appreciate the anger felt by Opposition Members about how staff were treated—they were effectively sacked by email. Will he confirm that the commission will be given some human resources and personnel advice and expertise by Government Departments? Is he going to intervene regarding the concerns we have about those staff who have been sacked?
Joseph Johnson
We are satisfied that the EHRC has conducted its restructuring in an appropriate manner. It has consulted all the relevant partner bodies, as required.
I understand that the EHRC chair, David Isaac, shares the objective of the commission sticking to its legislative framework—
Joseph Johnson
I was just in the process of delivering my concluding sentence. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities look forward to working constructively with the chair, David Isaac, and his board in the years to come, to the overall benefit of equalities and human rights in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
The House divided: - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Landward Areas) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Landward Areas) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016, No. 1029).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We have before us a statutory instrument purporting finally to put in place protection against surface drilling for hydraulic fracturing in national parks, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty and similar areas. It might be worth casting our minds back and considering how we got to a position in which this SI is being presented to us today. During the passage of the Infrastructure Act 2015, the then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), assured us that
“we have agreed an outright ban on fracking in national parks, sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 586.]
That was assumed to be the outcome of the Infrastructure Bill discussions, but it turned out, at the end of consideration of that Bill, that a separate SI needed to be introduced to give effect to the outright ban. That secondary legislation was laid before us in autumn 2015, but it turned out that it was not an outright ban on fracking in national parks, sites of special scientific interest and so on, because it separated hydraulic fracking underground from drilling on the surface in national parks. Although it indicated that hydraulic fracking would be restricted as far as sub-surface activity was concerned, it appeared to many of us at the time that that was something of an absurdity, inasmuch as a common-sense interpretation of fracking is that it does involve drilling a hole in the ground, and then fracking that hole, so separating the two in the way the SI did might be regarded as somewhat Jesuitical.
When that SI was laid before Parliament, the then Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), reassured those who had made that point that
“the Government have separately committed to ensure that hydraulic fracturing cannot be conducted from wells that are drilled at the surface of national parks and other protected areas. Members can be reassured that that remains the Government’s position.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 27 October 2015; c. 7-8.]
That is why we have this statutory instrument today; it is a third go. It deals at last with surface drilling in national parks and sites of special scientific interest.
One would therefore expect these regulations finally to lay that trail to rest, so that we could say that yes, there is to be an outright ban on fracking in national parks and sites of special scientific interest, which I believe all hon. Members present would want. Elementary research—I will not go into names or places—shows that a number of Members present have those areas in their constituency. What the Minister says about a ban today may give them some succour in discussions in their constituency with people who are concerned about fracking in their area. Hon. Members might have welcomed the regulations as finally indicating that their wishes had come true, and that there actually was to be a ban, and might have thought that we could leave the room this morning safe in thinking that that was what we had voted for. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that that is what will happen if we vote for the regulations.
In the 2015 Act, there is a definition not just of fracking—surface drilling—but of “associated hydraulic fracturing”, which is fracking that involves
“more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage, or expected stage, of the hydraulic fracturing, or…more than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid in total.”
That fluid is the water associated with the fracking process. It is injected into a well, comes back up again, and then has to be dealt with as waste once the fracking has been completed. If a well produces less fluid than that, it is not deemed associated hydraulic fracturing under the Act, although common sense would suggest that it is fracking.
Proposed new clause 22A(2)(c) slightly redefines “associated hydraulic fracturing” as “Relevant Hydraulic Fracturing”, although that has exactly the same definition as “associated hydraulic fracturing” does in the 2015 Act. The regulations define relevant hydraulic fracturing as
“hydraulic fracturing of shale or strata encased in shale which is carried out in connection with the use of a Well to search or bore for or get petroleum, and involves, or is expected to involve, the injection of—
more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at any stage, or expected stage, of the hydraulic fracturing, or
more than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid in total.”
Proposed new clause 22A(1) states:
“The Licensee shall not carry out Relevant Hydraulic Fracturing from a Well if the well pad is in a Protected Area in England or Wales.”
There is a clear link between the definition of relevant hydraulic fracturing and whether a licensee can carry out that fracking in a protected area. That is a problem, because if, in legislation to protect such areas, we place a limit below which fracking is not fracking, then evidently, straightforwardly and logically there is a point below which that area is not protected. It is not protected if someone is fracking in it but not producing 10,000 cubic metres of fluid. That is what appears in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies these regulations:
“The purpose of this instrument is to amend the model clauses for onshore petroleum exploration and development licences in order to ensure that licensees do not carry out high volume hydraulic fracturing from a well if the well pad is located in a protected area”.
I emphasise “high volume”, because that is the reality of what is in front of us today. We are talking not about fracking, but about high-volume fracking, and those are two very different things.
I mention this problem because we have expert testimony on what happened with hydraulic fracking in the United States; I am sorry to call on the wisdom of experts, because I know there is some dispute about whether we should listen to experts. In the United States, the amount of water used for fracking in any well is notified to the Environmental Protection Agency. There is still an EPA in the United States, which is good; it monitors how much water is used in each well and publishes the numbers once the fracking is completed. Work by Professor Stuart Haszeldine at the University of Edinburgh looking at more than 17,000 wells fracked in the United States between 2000 and 2010 shows that 43% of wells fracked through gas fracking, hydraulic fracking, and machinery and surface drilling—the whole lot—would not be defined as fracking under UK rules simply because the amount of water they used did not reach the American equivalent of that 10,000 cubic metres overall definition.
In case we do not agree with experts, I—a non-expert—have looked at the EPA’s more recent data from 2011 to 2013 on wells that have been fracked, and not only do they show a very similar picture, but in the majority of states in which wells have been fracked, all the wells are below the 10,000 cubic metre water level. That suggests that to some extent this is an issue of variability in geology, the difficulty of fracking a particular well and so on. In some states in the United States, most of the wells use more than 10,000 cubic metres of water in the fracking process, and in other states, most do not.
Of course, we simply do not know whether the UK is likely to be an Arkansas, a New Mexico or even a Texas as far as fracking is concerned because we have the evidence of only two wells. It may be that all the wells across the UK will have to use more than 10,000 cubic metres of water, or it may turn out that none or not many will. The problem with the statutory instrument is that the outcome is pre-empted and predicted by it stating that protection from fracking in protected areas will be based on a prescribed definition of what it is to frack a well, and what amount of water is involved.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
As everyone on the Committee knows, many people campaign against fracking, particularly in places where it is to take place. How does my hon. Friend think people who campaign because they fear the damage from fracking will react to politicians who have told them that protected areas will not be fracked, if they see wells in those areas because the fracking will involve less than the specified volume of water?
Dr Whitehead
I cannot imagine anything other than that those people will feel betrayed, let down and effectively duped when they find that what they thought was the protection of those areas turns out to be nothing of the sort.
Perhaps the Minister can assist me; under the SI, what will be the process for deciding to frack in a particular area? What process will have to be carried out in relation to the 10,000 cubic metre outcome? The SI is pretty silent on that. Taking the provisions at face value, I can imagine that a company wanting to frack in a national park—and, indeed, surface-drill, so that things will be worse than under previous statutory instruments—will merely have to say, “We are confident that this well will not produce 10,000 cubic metres of water, so it is not relevant hydraulic fracking—so we can go ahead, can’t we?”.
It may be suggested that there are other means by which that outcome could be prevented, such as through planning arrangements or ministerial intervention. Ministerial intervention has already overturned a planning decision, in an early fracking case, in Preston, but that is not the real point. The point is that the SI was supposed to be the definitive measure finally establishing protection—on the surface and under the surface—in national parks: protection for national parks with no ifs, no buts and no quibbles. I suggest that the SI simply does not do that. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood mentioned, it opens the door to a possible series of national confusions; what people thought was the case may turn out not to be, and we, collectively, will find that we are responsible for that.
There are two possible explanations for the SI taking the form it does. Either the Government consider that all wells drilled in this country will use more than 10,000 cubic metres of water, in which case it would be a good idea to have some evidence on the table to demonstrate that. Alternatively, they do not want proper protection for national parks, despite previous statements, and have produced the SI in accordance with that. I cannot believe that such mendaciousness is involved, however; I prefer to think that either the Government erroneously believe that all wells will have 10,000 cubic metres of water associated with them, or they believe that other mechanisms can protect the national parks, despite what the SI says. If that is the case, I hope that the Minister will be able to explain.
In the absence of all those explanations, I suggest that the right thing for hon. Members to do—this is not a party issue; it is a matter of doing what we collectively said we would do on fracking—is, as we say in our conferences, refer this back. We should not vote for the motion, but should ask the Government to go away and come back with a statutory instrument that produces the result that we all want.
It is unfortunate that statutory instruments cannot be amended, because the easiest thing to do would be simply to delete proposed new clause 22A(2)(c) and let the rest of the SI stand. The rest of it—the protections for national parks—is perfectly okay. It is just the introduction of the concept of relevant fracking that fatally overturns the intention behind the regulations. Unless we receive a bolted-on, cast-iron explanation of why the world is not as we see it, I am afraid we will not support these regulations, and we will seek a Division.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate hon. Members of all parties on coming along this morning at this early hour to take part in this debate.
I start by restating the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the UK has secure energy supplies that remain reliable, affordable and clean. Shale gas has the potential to be a domestic energy source that can contribute to our security of supply, help to achieve climate change objectives, and create jobs and economic growth.
Gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels and still meets a third of our energy demand. We will need it for many years to come. Members of the public are understandably worried about a process that has not been used onshore much before now. I want to use this opportunity to reassure them and provide a clear explanation of why this new industry is in the national interest and will be safely carried out.
First, let me assure the hon. Member for Southampton, Test that the Government are clear that shale development must be safe and environmentally sound. The UK has more than 50 years of experience of safely regulated oil and gas exploration, and we have world-class independent regulators who will not allow operations to go ahead if they are dangerous to the environment or to local communities. We are confident that we have a robust regulatory regime in place. To reinforce those regulations, the Infrastructure Act 2015 introduced a range of requirements that must be met before an operator can carry out hydraulic fracturing, and ensure that they do so in a responsible, sustainable and safe way. They include the exclusion of hydraulic fracturing in protected areas.
The Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2016 ensure that the process of hydraulic fracturing cannot take place at depths above 1,200 metres in national parks, the broads, areas of outstanding national beauty, world heritage sites and areas that are the most vulnerable to groundwater pollution. When those regulations were passed, we recognised that concerns had been expressed about fracking from wells drilled at the surface of some protected areas. The Government at the time therefore decided that safeguards should also be applied to surface activities in protected areas. As a result, further regulations were laid before Parliament on 31 October last year and delivered through the petroleum licensing regime.
These landward areas regulations, which were prayed against, serve to strengthen further the protections already in place for protected areas. They should, I hope, assure the hon. Member for Southampton, Test that special protection will be accorded to sensitive areas. The surface restrictions in the landward areas regulations apply to the same areas detailed in the protected areas regulations, as well as to sites of special scientific interest.
Maria Eagle
It is excellent to hear the Minister read a speech written before he heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Will he address some of the specific points made by my hon. Friend about the volume and definition of relevant hydraulic fracturing?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for anticipating the point in my speech at which I will address the questions. Let me finish, if I may, the process of not merely introducing the importance of shale gas but touching on the way in which the regulations have been structured and why that is so.
As I said, the regulations serve to strengthen the protections already in place for protected areas and to extend special protection to sensitive areas. The surface restrictions apply to the same areas detailed in the protected areas regulations as well as sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar and Natura 2000 sites. That is further evidence of the Government’s recognition of the importance of protecting key areas around the country. I stress that even outside those areas—the hon. Member for Southampton, Test recognised this point—a company looking to develop shale gas will still need to obtain all the necessary permissions, including planning and environmental permits, before hydraulic fracturing can be carried out. That is in addition to the requirements of the regulations. As part of the licence, permission and permit procedures, the environmental impact of operations and any risks associated with them are assessed by regulators and through the planning system on a case-by-case basis.
All oil and gas sites need permits under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 as well as planning permission from the relevant planning authority. The national planning policy framework and supporting practice guidance clearly state that, in respect of minerals such as shale oil and gas, new development should be appropriate for its location. If the risks of a proposed shale activity are deemed unacceptable, the environmental regulators will simply not allow that activity to go ahead, irrespective of the area involved.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and please accept my apologies, Mr Gray, for having come in a few minutes late. I am listening carefully to the Minister’s considered speech. I am trying to get to the nub of the issue for my constituents. Does the promise made that there would be categorically no fracking in the Lake District national park still stand?
Jesse Norman
The Government’s position remains unchanged that there should be no surface fracturing within those protected areas. That is the question raised at present. Of course it is possible to fracture from outside national parks beneath them, 1,200 metres below the earth, which is 800 metres below the normal lowest levels of any water sites. That is at least 1,200 metres below the surface of the national park. That is the form of the protection.
Maria Eagle
I wish to press the Minister on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test about the definition of relevant hydraulic fracturing in proposed new section 22A(2)(c). It clearly sets out the minimum number of cubic metres of fluid to be used at any instance or stage, or that a total of 10,000 cubic metres is used. That suggests that if the total is less than 10,000 cubic metres and 1,000 cubic metres of fluid are not used at any stage, that activity will not meet the definition of relevant hydraulic fracturing. Therefore, the regulations do not prevent such activity from taking place in protected areas and even in national parks. Am I correct about that?
Jesse Norman
Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Lady. The point of the regulations is precisely to ensure that smaller scale operations meet an equivalent range of safeguards to those set out in the Petroleum Act 1998. In some cases there may be local activities that are subject to all of the usual procedures and, if they are not hydraulic fracturing, they are captured by separate rules. However, hydraulic fracturing in national parks has been banned. That is the Government’s position.
I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that even at the sub-surface level, protections are in place to ensure not merely that hydraulic fracturing using more than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid cannot be done, but that hydraulic fracturing using more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at any one stage cannot be done either. That is a comprehensive response to the question.
Dr Whitehead
The problem is that proposed new clause 22A(1) states:
“The Licensee shall not carry out Relevant Hydraulic Fracturing from a Well if the well pad is in a Protected Area in England or Wales.”
The Minister has simply not answered the question of whether a well cannot be drilled at all in a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty, or whether it can be drilled from the surface within a national park if the well uses less than 10,000 cubic metres of water overall. If he cannot assure me about that, does he accept that the assurance he has just given is not correct?
Jesse Norman
No. The position is that “well pad”, as the hon. Gentleman knows, describes the location in which a well is drilled. That term was defined in paragraph 3.33 of the Government’s response to the landwards regulations consultation. Further consideration may be needed of whether a more explicit definition is required elsewhere, but what is in the response is clear. To give him comfort, let me reiterate that a well pad counts as being in a protected area if any part of it is in that area. There should be no ambiguity about that; it is what the response to the consultation says. I take his point, but it has already been addressed.
If I may continue with what I was saying, I should emphasise that the shale gas resources beneath this country have enormous potential, which we as a country should not underrate. We have a very secure regime in place.
Jesse Norman
I have already taken two interventions from the hon. Lady—perhaps she will allow me to complete what I was saying. We have a thoroughly effective set of permitting permissions and governing legislation in place. This country therefore cannot be compared in any fair way to other countries in which fracking may have taken place under different regimes. We have an excellent track record—one of the best in the world—when it comes to protecting the environment. I am confident that the commitment to restrict surface activities, which is being implemented through landward areas regulations and the policy statement, will complement the protected areas regulations and further strengthen the protections that are afforded to these sensitive areas.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I have listened carefully to this morning’s exchanges. Fracking has been proposed within the half of my constituency that is covered by the South Downs national park, which is a very sensitive landscape, and I take at face value the Government’s assurance that they intend to ban fracking in the national park. That is what many of us heard and I believe that it is what the Minister and the Government intend.
When we had this debate a while ago, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test reminded us, despite the fact that the Government were clear that fracking was to be banned at the surface of national parks, a great campaign was got up, suggesting that because wells could be drilled laterally at enormous depths from outside the national park, that was somehow a breach of the Government’s undertaking and that fracking would be allowed in the national park. A lot of members of the public were stirred up to express their opposition. When it was actually explained to them that that was not the case and that these wells were going to be at enormous depths far below the level of aquifers, most were reassured and some considered themselves misled by the campaign that had been whipped up.
Similarly, I wonder whether the concerns raised this morning about the effect of these regulations are real. Just outside my constituency, in the South Downs national park, there is conventional drilling for oil. It is a completely unremarkable and uncontroversial activity. The wellhead is hidden behind some trees, on a very small footprint and sensibly located so that access is from a main road and lorry movements do not inconvenience members of the local community. I am unaware of any opposition to the activity at all. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think it has been the Government’s intention that conventional drilling of that kind should suddenly be outlawed in protected areas. The Government’s intention was clear—to outlaw fracking at the surface—and this is the final piece of the necessary legislation to ensure that that is the case.
The hon. Gentleman’s case seems to rest on the idea that some kind of mini-fracking can take place with smaller quantities of water, and that it therefore creates some great lacuna in the legislation that will allow fracking to take place. What he has not successfully done, as far as I am concerned, is explain whether such mini-fracking activity is usual—whether it is normally carried on using much smaller quantities of water. I simply invite the Minister to repeat what he said before: the Government’s intention is to ensure that all fracking activity—with emphasis on the word “all”—is prohibited within the protected areas, which includes national parks, and that that is the effect of these regulations as well as the intention behind them. I do not accept that there is some lacuna in the law, because I have seen too many campaigns of this kind suggest that fracking will somehow take place when it has clearly been the Government’s intention that it should not. If the Minister could confirm that that is the precise intention and effect of the legislation, I, for one, would be reassured.
The Chair
I apologise to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood; I should have called her earlier, and I do so now.
Maria Eagle
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I had not intended to participate; this is not an area in which I am a great expert, and I approach it as somebody who has an ordinary interest in the positives and downsides of the issue. However, I am afraid that in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, the Minister was not sufficiently clear, to my satisfaction, about the potential impact of these regulations—if we vote for them—in order to make me happy about voting for them today. I am going to give him one more chance—if I can explain what concerns me, he might be able to satisfy those of us on this side of the Committee sufficiently in his closing remarks so that we do not feel we have to oppose these regulations.
My hon. Friend set out some of the experiences in America. Of course, the USA has had a great deal of fracking. I do not remember the precise percentage that he used but he set out the fact that much of the fracking in the USA is done at below the volumes in the regulations and would not, therefore, count as relevant hydraulic fracturing under them. To my mind he was saying that it is possible in this industry to frack—as most ordinary people would understand the phrase—at volumes that would not meet the threshold the regulations set out. That would, in effect, still be fracking—an ordinary intelligent person looking at what was going on around them would still think of it as fracking—but the regulations would not define it as relevant hydraulic fracturing. That is the point.
As my hon. Friend said, owing to geological issues—there has been only a bit of test drilling; the industry is at a very early stage—we do not yet know what percentage of wells dug will be below the threshold for relevant hydraulic fracturing. It could be anywhere between a few and almost all for all we know, but it is certainly in the realms of possibility that there will be a lot of what an ordinary person would think of as fracking taking place below the threshold for relevant hydraulic fracturing, as defined in the regulations, and therefore below the threshold for the protection that the Minister and the Government seek to implement and the previous Government said they would implement when the original primary legislation went through.
In addition to answering the straightforward question from the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, which ought to have a straightforward answer, will the Minister explain what he will do to reassure people that the definition in the regulations will stop all fracking in sites of special scientific interest and national parks? I can tell the Minister now that if this protection results in wells operating below the defined volume in areas that are supposed to be protected, he will inflame campaigners’ concerns, whether those concerns are scientifically based and accurate or not. He will look shifty. He will look like he has been pretending to provide protections for those areas when in fact he is not.
I am sure that the Minister does not want to look like that, and I am sure that the Government do not want to be seen as cynical and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people who live in those areas and have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. The best way for the Minister to address such concerns is to be as open and transparent as possible, and to be clear when setting out what this instrument will and will not achieve. I invite him, when he makes his closing remarks, to be a little clearer than he has been so far.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, I take the Minister’s words at face value, but as about 80% of my constituency is in an AONB, I would like one or two points of clarification. As I understand it, there could be wells or operations that use more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid and up to a total of 10,000 cubic metres. Does that apply to individual wells, or to groups of wells? The definition does not seem totally clear on that subject. In other words, there could be one well in an AONB that was under the threshold, but could there be a series of wells that, together, were over the threshold?
This is a complicated subject. My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs asked for clarification; I would be grateful if the Minister could give further clarification, because I can see that this will hit my local paper, particular given that I am on this Committee. We need absolutely crystal clear clarification on this matter. None of us is an expert on fracking—it is an emerging technology—but the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, the Opposition spokesman, referred to 46% of operations in the United States being below these levels. Potentially, therefore, there is a concern. The Minister would do himself and all of us a great favour if he clarified these matters.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak. This has been a very informative debate. The main problem before us is that the SI is yesterday’s solution to tomorrow’s problem. A huge amount of nonsense—on both sides of the argument—has contributed to the public’s perception of fracking. Public opinion was possibly initially shaped by a short piece of film of a sink catching fire, shown universally many times. We now know that that was nothing to do with fracking; that had to do with naturally occurring methane gas. The film was everywhere and is mentioned by people as an example of the dangers of fracking, but that is false; it is not true. The other influence is the earthquakes that took place during test drilling; they were of such a minor nature, but people are naturally alarmed about the prospect of an earthquake.
I am intrigued by the concept of a lovable mini-fracking that is house-trained, family-friendly and benign to all concerned. I do not understand that, but I am baffled by the fact that our objections are limited to national parks. The national parks of the South Downs and the Lake District have a geography in which one would think it was impossible to frack. As one travels across the United States from the Rockies to the Atlantic, one notices the hills, but a huge area is flat. That is reproduced in the geology deep underground, with layers that are suitable for fracking because they are even. Below our country—in particular, below the national parks—the layers are fractured and go in different ways. That is why the hills stand higher than the plain. Our geography in the United Kingdom is therefore not friendly towards fracking, but there is a great deal of fuss and excitement about the issue.
Fracking results in a carbon-producing source of energy, which we should be turning our backs on. Although it is not as damaging to the environment as other forms of carbon-producing energy, we should remember that we have an environmental vandal in charge of the United States who is likely to add to our problems of global warming, and the best reason for opposing this SI is that it will increase the dangers to our children and grandchildren. We should concentrate on those forms of energy production that are carbon-free. The one that is by far the most promising, according to a recent Government report by a former Minister, which warned that we should turn our backs on carbon-producing energy sources, is tidal power. There is immense power in the tides, which wash up and down my constituency—
Paul Flynn
They still have to do with the SI, because its whole purpose is to increase our carbon load, but the best way to proceed is via sources of power that are carbon-neutral. The case for tidal power is that it is eternal, predictable, clean, British and immense in its wasted energy. It has long been neglected. By opposing the SI and putting obstacles in the way of fracking, we will accelerate support for tidal power.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to colleagues in all parts of the Committee for their interventions and speeches, and I am happy to respond to them. Let me pick up a couple of points of information that were raised. First, I welcome what sounded like an endorsement from the hon. Member for Newport West of our strategy towards a low-carbon future. I would also like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds that the regulations apply to single wells in each case.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
That is a concern. If the regulations apply to single wells, it would be quite possible to have multiple wells that, together, would breach the 10,000 cubic metre limit. Perhaps I have misunderstood the situation and my hon. Friend could clarify it.
Jesse Norman
The intention and the regulations are clear: hydraulic fracturing consent should be obtained for any operations that use more than 1,000 cubic metres at any single stage.
Jesse Norman
Any well, so it is a tighter restriction than my hon. Friend perhaps recognises.
On the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, and the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, my right hon. Friend eloquently described the importance of drawing a distinction between conventional drilling and hydraulic fracturing. It is important that we do not get caught up in nomenclature. The Government’s intention is clear: to prohibit what we would describe as hydraulic fracking. There may be conventional, low-scale operations; they are not covered by the regulations. The purpose of the regulations is not to cover those, because there are other protections in the system that configure themselves to local circumstances, including protections in planning permission. It is important not to rule out those things that may have very beneficial local and community effects. The Government’s overall intention is clear. In particular, it is clear that small-scale operations should meet an equivalent range of safeguards to those set out in section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1998.
Let me close by saying that I am grateful to all hon. Members for their comments. Restricting hydraulic fracturing from sites at the surface of protected areas has been welcomed by many interested parties across the political spectrum. It demonstrates our commitment to protecting our most precious landscapes. The regulations will ensure that our excellent record of protecting the environment and maintaining safety for the general public will continue while we take advantage of the promising benefits that a shale gas industry will provide. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Nick Herbert
I am grateful. Could I invite my hon. Friend one last time to clarify the position? It is the contention of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, that something under half of fracking activity in the United States takes place with these smaller quantities of water and so would not apparently be covered by the regulations. Is it the case that such fracking activity could be permitted in protected areas under the regulations, because of the threshold set for the use of water? If it is, it seems to me that, contrary to what I suggested earlier, there is a lacuna. If the Minister can assure us that all fracking activity will be prevented in protected areas, we will accept his assurance.
Jesse Norman
I think I have been perfectly clear about the regulations and what the rules suggest. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test, brought a set of suggestions, or what he regards as facts or other evidence. I am more than happy for my officials to review that information, and to write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs to clarify the matter. I cannot comment on it now because it has just been presented to the Committee, but I am content and comfortable with writing to my right hon. Friend to give him the necessary reassurance after the debate.
Dr Whitehead
I think it is evident from our exchanges this morning that the central question about drilling from wells and fracking from the ground underneath them is this: can that take place using less than 10,000 cubic metres of water? As I have set out for the Committee—not as my contention, but in a series of facts—yes, it can. It happens in the United States, not just occasionally, but to a very substantial extent—indeed, in just under half of all fracking operations. Everybody in the United States regards those as real fracking operations, with real wells drilled and real volumes of water involved.
We are not talking about whether fracking is safe or a boon to the economy. We are talking about the fact that Ministers have given apparently cast-iron assurances that fracking will not take place in areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks or sites of special scientific interest, but the Minister has not given any assurances to that effect today, and it is quite evident, not just from external sources but from the wording of the SI, that there is no such protection in legislation. The Minister said that we should not get too hung up on nomenclature, but we absolutely should, because legislation is all about getting it right. It is about getting assurances in writing, so that people know that what Ministers say is backed up by legislation from this House.
John Woodcock
My hon. Friend has made a compelling case today, which has clearly raised new questions for Government Members. I credit the Minister for being honest with hon. Members about not having the answers, and for saying that he is prepared to write to the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. However, does the shadow Minister agree that, in the circumstances, the sensible thing would be to pause this process and resume it when we have the right assurances and the proper facts to enable us to decide whether to proceed?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Writing to the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs and to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds after we have voted on this legislation today will have no weight at all and will provide no assurances whatever. Either the legislation protects national parks and areas of outstanding national beauty from fracking and drilling on the surface—not lateral drilling, but wells in pads drilled within the curtilage of the parks—or it does not. If it does not, no amount of writing to hon. Members to assure them that it does will alter that.
A strong case has been made this morning. I make the caveat that we do not know for certain whether every well drilled in the United Kingdom will use more than 10,000 cubic metres of water; we can merely refer to the evidence from the United States, which is that a lot do and a lot do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West points out that the UK’s geology is very different from that of the United States. It may be that, just as there are different circumstances—I pointed those out in my evidence to the Committee, as it were—in different states of the US, different amounts of water are used in different geological circumstances. Given the difficult geology in the UK, it may be that quite a lot of water would be used. It may be that Bowland shale and Wealden shale need different amounts of water for fracking.
It will be extremely difficult—the Minister fell on this difficulty—to walk out of this room assured that there will be no fracking in national parks and sites of special scientific interest as a result of the regulations. If that is what we believe, we should not allow the SI to proceed. That is not to say that the Minister is not sincere and clear in his contention that there is no intention to enable fracking to take place in national parks and SSSIs, but evidently there is a dissonance between what the Minister says and what the legislation says.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
On a point of order, Mr Gray. Could you advise the Committee on what the procedure would be for taking the SI away, looking at it carefully, and bringing it back when answers have been given to the queries raised in this Committee?
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The position is that the statutory instrument has been laid before Parliament, made and come into force already. All we are considering today is whether the Committee has considered the statutory instrument. Those who believe that the Committee has considered it properly will vote aye; those who believe that the Committee has not considered it properly will vote no. In either case, there will not be a change to the status of the SI, which is already in force.
Dr Whitehead
My understanding is that because this SI was under the negative procedure, was prayed against and was brought to this Committee, it is indeed in operation at the moment, but if we do not vote for it, that brings into question whether it should continue in operation without some form of amendment that would meet the intentions behind the SI. As for what should be done for the future, it is not possible to amend statutory instruments, as I said, but the wishes of Members and the discussion that we have had will be on the record,. If we in this House do not indicate that we wish the SI to proceed in its present form, it will, in my view, be incumbent on the Government to bring forward an SI that fulfils its purpose, which perhaps we could support.
The Chair
Order. For the sake of clarity, I point out that if there were a feeling in the Committee that there was something wrong with the statutory instrument, it would be perfectly open to the Opposition or anybody else to engineer a vote on the matter on the Floor of the House of Commons, using one of a variety of instruments, including, but not limited to, the Backbench Business Committee. This Committee is merely considering whether the statutory instrument has been considered.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you for that clarification, Mr Gray. Were the SI not accorded a positive vote, there would be a deferred Division, as I understand it, on the Floor of the House next week, and we would have to vote on it. If, however, there is a yes vote on the SI this morning, that Division would not take place; we therefore could not seek any further clarity on the SI. I have made clear what, to my mind, the safe course of action would be. I take the points made, and I commend the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, for seeking the clarification that I think is essential on the SI. It appears that we should not give the SI our positive commendation today, but should refer it for consideration on the Floor of the House. Between now and next week, we may get the further clarification that we did not get this morning.
In any event, the right course of action, which I urge upon the Government, is to bring forward a further SI that establishes that the things that have been said about national parks and sites of special scientific interest are really the case, with no ifs or buts. We would all be able to stand behind that. Anything less would need us to take another look at it.
Question put.
Petitions
Greater Manchester Spatial Framework
Boat Moorings on the River Avon
Closure of Anniesland Jobcentre
Closure of Bridgeton Jobcentre
Closure of Cambuslang Jobcentre
Closure of Castlemilk and Langside Jobcentres
Closure of Jobcentres in Parkhead and Easterhouse
Closure of Maryhill Jobcentre
Crown Tenancies Bill
Wednesday 1st March 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Crown Tenancies Bill 2016-17 View all Crown Tenancies Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
The Chair
Welcome to the Public Bill Committee on the Crown Tenancies Bill, and happy St David’s day.
I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch all electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, although water obviously is.
We begin with consideration of clause 1, but no amendments to the Bill have been tabled, so I suggest, for the convenience of the Committee, that we have one debate on the contents of the Bill. If the Committee is content with that suggestion, once we have completed consideration of clause 1, I will put the questions that clauses 2 to 8 stand part of the Bill formally, on the basis that those clauses will have already been debated. Is that approach agreeable to Members?
The Chair
Thank you.
Clause 1
Most Crown tenancies may be assured tenancies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, especially on St David’s day. I am conscious that other members of the Committee represent Welsh constituencies, and I am sure that we all share in the Welsh celebration. Wales is also covered in the Bill, as the Committee will have noted.
I thank hon. Friends and hon. Members for attending this sitting, because we have had a flurry of private Members’ Bills getting through, fortunately, into the system and reaching Committee stage, and I understand the pressure that that puts on Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and Members, who are all keen to see us make progress. In that spirit, I hope that I may continue to count on the support of Members as the Bill proceeds on its passage through the House.
For historical reasons, people known as Crown tenants who rent public properties have few legal protections. Most people who rent from a private landlord are given an assured shorthold tenancy. During the initial six months they have security of tenure, which means the landlord may evict the tenant only if he or she has done something wrong, such as failing to pay their rent or committing antisocial behaviour. After that the landlord may obtain possession on so-called no fault grounds, but only after giving 60 days’ notice. Crown tenants are specifically excluded from the assured tenancy regime, which means that the only statutory protection enjoyed by them is that provided by the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. That allows the landlord to get possession at any time without having to give reasons after giving the tenant just 28 days’ notice. Surely it cannot be right that some tenants get less protection than others simply because they rent from a Government Department. It is time to remove the anomaly in the interest of fairness and that, fundamentally, is what the Bill is designed to do.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on this very important Bill to give Crown tenants the same protection as private tenants enjoy. How many Crown tenants are there, and will she give us a practical example?
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He championed this Bill in the Session last year, so I am pleased he is in Committee today. He makes an interesting point with his question about how many Crown tenancies there are. It has been estimated that about 500 Crown tenants fall into this category. Most Departments have a number of Crown tenants—examples include the Forestry Commission, the Department for Transport and of course the Ministry of Defence, which I will come on to later because its accommodation is slightly different.
At the moment Crown tenancies probably number in the hundreds. Members of the armed forces who live in service accommodation are not Crown tenants; they get a licence agreement, not a tenancy. However, the Ministry of Defence has plans from 2018 to grant tenancies to service personnel and their families who occupy service family accommodation, which means that some 45,000 service personnel in England and Wales will become Crown tenants and will benefit from the provisions in the Bill.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
To be clear in my own mind and for the benefit of the Committee, the MOD is looking to alter its licence agreements to tenancies anyway, so service personnel will become Crown tenants and then benefit from this change, which will give them added protection. Is that how it works?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is right. It is useful to clarify that. I understand that he has a particular interest in the MOD. For a number of years, I was a forces wife, and although we did not live on married patch, I understand the importance of the Bill. When the MOD makes that change, military families will get the extra protections.
I believe that the assured tenancy regime gives Government Departments ample flexibility to carry out their business. It works for private landlords and I see no reason why it should not work for public ones too. Of course, there will be exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to get possession of a property quickly, and it is important that we provide for those circumstances.
The Bill contains five key measures. First, it brings most Crown tenants within the assured tenancy regime and gives them the same level of protection as tenants of private landlords. Secondly, it retains a specific exemption for properties that have been compulsorily purchased by the Department for Transport in order to build the high-speed rail scheme between London and the west midlands.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Bill mentions the high-speed route from London to the west midlands. Phase 2b, which is the second phase from the west midlands to Leeds, goes through Long Eaton in my constituency. How does the Bill apply to phase 2a or 2b of the high-speed rail scheme?
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that relevant point. I appreciate that the planned phase 2 of HS2 goes either through or very close to her constituency.
Only properties located within the Act limits for the purposes of High Speed 2, between London and the west midlands, will be covered by the Crown tenancy exemption in the Bill. The exemption does not currently apply to properties acquired in connection with phase 2 of the HS2 scheme, to which my hon. Friend referred, because Act limits for phase 2 have not yet been determined and the Bill has not been deposited. However, I believe the proposed legislation will allow for the list of tenancies to which the exemptions apply to be amended. The Minister may wish to expand on that. In broad terms, people can continue to live in these properties and provide rental income for the Government, but at the same time the Department will be able to get possession at short notice where that is necessary to meet construction deadlines.
Thirdly, the Bill allows for other specific exemptions to be created in future and, as importantly, to be removed if they are no longer needed. That will ensure they are considered by Parliament on a case-by-case basis, which is a very sensible approach. Fourthly, the Bill recognises that it is not always easy to identify at the start of a tenancy whether the property is one that may need to be recovered quickly, so it creates two new grounds for possession. One enables the Ministry of Defence to obtain possession of properties where that is necessary for military operational reasons. The other enables Welsh Ministers to obtain possession of properties that have been let as a short-term management measure—for example, for road schemes or redevelopment. Finally, the Bill will ensure that the Ministry of Defence can continue with its current rent charging arrangements so that they apply uniformly across all service accommodation.
I hope I have made clear that this is not about making it more difficult for Government to carry on their business. The Bill aims to promote fairness by rectifying an anomalous situation that deprives Crown tenants, simply because they rent from a public landlord, of the rights that most private tenants currently enjoy. Although this is a private Member’s Bill, it contains important provisions that the Government feel strongly about and I am pleased that the UK Government and the Welsh Government offer their support to the Bill.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I welcome the Bill. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills says, the Bill rectifies an anomaly that tenants of Crown property have suffered under. To date, they have had a less secure form of tenancy; in particular, military families have had only licences. The Bill comes at an appropriate time and ensures that military families will have the same security of tenure and rights available to all assured and private tenants.
We appreciate the reasons for the exemptions, which seem entirely appropriate. There is some family accommodation at the barracks in Hounslow, near my constituency. It will be a relief for those families to get much better terms than are offered by a licence, which is clearly insecure and offers few rights. There are bigger concerns, though perhaps not for exploring in this Committee, about military families’ experience regarding the quality of the management of their accommodation. That is for a different debate.
I have one question that I hope the Minister will answer. As I understand it, most military family accommodation is managed by another agency or agencies. I assume that the Bill would apply to all of the occupants of the family housing that is managed by those private companies. If that were not the case, it would cause further difficulty for those families that are already facing management issues. I am happy to endorse the Bill.
The Chair
I know that St David’s day is a very exciting time in Croydon Central, so I invite the Minister to excite us.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, I think for the first time. I wish you a happy St David’s day. Some hon. Members may not be aware of your familiarity with Croydon Central as the former Member for my constituency, and how St David’s day is celebrated there,.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills on promoting this important and welcome Bill and her skill in steering it successfully thus far. Several members of the Committee can testify that private Member’s Bills are not always easy to chart through. Those of us who have tried it wish we had had the success on Second Reading that this one enjoyed.
I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, he sought previously to bring the Bill forward and it is good to see him on the Committee where it is making progress today.
It is my responsibility to welcome and support the Bill on behalf of the Government. It sits well within the wider sense of Government housing policy. We recently published a housing White Paper in which we made it clear that trying to improve the conditions that people experience right now in the private rented sector is an important objective for the Government. The Bill fits neatly into that wider ambition set out in the White Paper.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills pointed out, the Bill is about promoting fairness and ensuring that tenants of Government Departments have similar protections to people in the private rented sector. The Government do not think that Crown tenants should have less protection than that available to private tenants, just because they happen to be tenants of public bodies.
The assured shorthold tenancy has been the default type of tenancy since 1997. It gives landlords significant flexibility and control to manage their tenancies, so there is no longer any risk that bringing Crown tenancies within the assured tenancy regime could compromise in any way Government Departments’ flexibility and control in managing the properties they own. However, the Bill provides exemptions for some Crown tenancies from the assured shorthold tenancy in specified circumstances as an additional safeguard, to which my hon. Friend referred. We should seize this opportunity to get rid of an outdated anomaly and put Crown tenants on a similar footing to the majority of tenants in the private rented sector.
As my hon. Friend said, while the number of Crown tenants is currently small, the MOD’s plans to move its service family accommodation from licences to tenancies in April 2018, when we seek to commence this legislation, will mean that up to 45,000 more Crown tenants will benefit from the statutory protection provided in the Bill. That is a significant number of people who will benefit.
To answer the question from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, my understanding is that we are talking about service family accommodation properties. Who manages those properties is not the issue. It is not all of the MOD’s accommodation; it is about 45,000 service family accommodation properties. Service personnel who are occupying single living accommodation and certain types of accommodation that are provided for specific roles will continue to be granted licences. We are talking here about service family accommodation. I hope that that is helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay and clarifies the position.
The Bill will contribute to the Government’s commitment under the armed forces covenant to ensure that members of the service community do not experience any disadvantage as a result of their service to this country.
Mark Pawsey
Will the Minister clarify the point about single living accommodation? Clearly, we would not want the MOD to be restricted in its flexibility when service personnel are sent overseas on exercises and so on. Will he clarify that this is for family accommodation and will not affect accommodation for the large number of single service personnel?
Gavin Barwell
I am happy to provide my hon. Friend with that clarification. The reason for that difference is exactly the one he alluded to. We want to put those in family accommodation on a similar footing to those in the private rented sector, but single living accommodation and accommodation provided to people because they hold a specific post will remain on licences. That will ensure the MOD is able to mobilise the personnel it needs at relatively short notice and so maintain the operational effectiveness upon which all of us rely, in terms of the professionalism of our armed forces.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, we need to recognise that there will always be some circumstances—we have just heard one example—where it is necessary to get properties back quickly or move people quickly for departmental operational effectiveness. The Bill makes specific provisions for such circumstances. She invited me to respond further to our hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, who asked about HS2. My understanding is that legislation has passed through this House that sets limits for phase 1 of the HS2 scheme up to the west midlands, but we have not yet had primary legislation in relation to the next phase. We are not therefore in a position to incorporate that, but there is a possibility that the exemption in this Bill could be updated using the regulating powers we have here to include land within the phase 2 limits, once we know what those are. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
This Bill gets the balance right between providing greater protection for tenants of Government Departments while continuing to give Departments flexibility to carry out their vital role in delivering public services. That is why, on behalf of the Government, I am delighted to support the Bill and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills on securing support, as I hope she will, from across the House for this much needed reform. I wish her continued success with the remaining stages. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), who is due to introduce the debate, has made communication with the authorities to inform us that he is a victim of disruption on the Northern line. At the time of his phone call, he was seeking alternative means of transport—a taxi—and I do not know whether he will appear here before 9.31 am. Unfortunately, unless he does, we will not be able to proceed with the debate and I will have to suspend the sitting, because the right to initiate a debate is individually balloted and not transferrable. If he is not present, I have no alternative but to suspend the sitting until the start of the next debate at 11 o’clock. In his absence, I do indeed—
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Chope. I can testify to the problems with the transportation system; I was stuck on the tube for 20 minutes myself. The Northern line is in a state of chaos. Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) is significantly delayed, I ask hon. Members to listen to this point of order for a few moments. We are gathered in great numbers to debate a significant and timely issue, particularly as we approach the celebration of Nowruz, when there will be pleas from many for clemency for prisoners of conscience. It is important that we recognise, while we await my hon. Friend, that this is a very important time. I do not know whether any colleagues want to add to that point of order.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Further to that point of order, Mr Chope. We seek your guidance. Would it be in order for there to be another 15 points of order, each elaborating in different ways on the importance of our holding this debate, to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) extra time to arrive, or would that be out of order?
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
It would be out of order. The Minister puts a straight question, and the answer is a straight one: it would be out of order to try to abuse the process. The rules are quite clear. If the hon. Member for Hendon, who was due to be here at the beginning of the debate at 9.30 am, is not here, I have no alternative but to suspend the sitting.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I will take one more point of order, from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick).
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Chope. I am grateful for the opportunity to make an additional point of order. You explained your interpretation of the rules in response to the Minister, and you are obviously in sole charge. You said that it would be an abuse for other colleagues to raise points of order, but the fact that the Speaker’s Office allowed a 90-minute debate indicates quite clearly that this matter is not of interest to just a single Member. Other colleagues bid for a similar subject to be debated. For the Speaker’s Office to determine that this issue is exclusively an interest of the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), because he was the lucky one who was drawn in the ballot and secured time for the debate, seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the rules, in that—
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I will interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he seems to be challenging my interpretation of the rules. If he wishes to have the rules changed, I suggest that he refers the matter to the Procedure Committee. The rules are quite clear. There have been occasions on which a Member has arrived a minute or two late and I have suspended the sitting. The rules are quite clear, and it would be wrong to try to rewrite them. If we were going to rewrite the rules, I would be tempted to allow an emergency debate on the state of the Northern line, but I will not do that. The sitting is suspended until 11 am.
Suicide and Self-harm in Prison (England)
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rates of suicide and self-harm in prisons in England.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Chope. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the record levels of suicide and self-harm in our prisons in this timely debate.
Yesterday, it was announced that prison officers planned to strike today. The reasons they cited were:
“More and more members…being assaulted every day”
and
“the increase in self-inflicted deaths and daily security breaches…as a result of staff shortfalls and budget cuts.”
The industrial action has been blocked by the Secretary of State for Justice, who won an injunction in the High Court, but the serious concerns raised by the Prison Officers Association cannot be ignored. Yesterday, a report from the Institute for Government declared that spending decisions have pushed prisons “beyond breaking point”.
Our criminal justice system rests on the idea that a person who has committed a crime should be punished if necessary and, as a last resort, by the removal of their liberty. By removing a criminal’s freedom, we seek to protect the public from the criminal’s activities for the duration of their time in prison. We also aspire to provide meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation so that on release, the prisoner can rejoin society as a law-abiding citizen.
What we do not do in the United Kingdom, and have not done since 1964, is use the removal of a criminal’s life as a punishment, yet within our modern-day prison system an all-time record number of prisoners are paying for their crimes with their lives. Official data published by the Ministry of Justice on 26 January showed that 119 prisoners died by suicide during 2016—the highest number in a calendar year since current recording practices began in 1978.
Inquest, a charity that monitors deaths in prisons, has reported that already there have been eight recorded self-inflicted deaths in 2017, with a further seven deaths awaiting classification. On average, a prisoner dies by suicide every three days, and 12 women lost their lives through suicide in 2016. The Minister might be tempted to say that the increase in deaths by suicide is a reflection of the increase in the prison population as a whole, but that argument does not stack up when we look at the figures. The number of deaths by suicide has doubled in just five years, yet the size of the prison population, currently standing at a little over 85,000, has plainly not doubled since 2010.
The Minister might be further tempted to suggest that a prisoner who takes their own life in prison might have done the same on the outside, but a self-inflicted death is 8.6 times more likely in prison than in the general population, according to the Howard League for Penal Reform.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She has made some excellent points, to which I hope to hear the reply later. Does she agree that a suicide in a hospital would be a very serious issue and that a suicide in prison should be taken no less seriously? Urgent action is needed to reduce suicides that take place on prison premises.
Luciana Berger
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his commitment to the issue of mental health. Deaths in prison should be treated no differently from those in any other setting. Issues such as ligature points are contended with very differently in inpatient settings and in prisons. We could point to many things that should be treated in the same way as in any other element of life outside prison.
The number of self-harm incidents has also reached a record high of 37,784, which is up nearly 7,000 on the previous year.
One group that has been uniquely failed by the prison system is transgendered prisoners. There have been four deaths by suicide of transgendered people while in prison over a mere matter of months. That is from an estimated prison population of just 85.
We know that the prevalence of mental health conditions is much higher among the prison population. Prisoners are over three times more likely to suffer from depression, 12 times more likely to suffer from a personality disorder and 16 times more likely to suffer from psychosis.
For prisoners who need to be treated in a mental health inpatient unit, departmental guidance states that transfers under the Mental Health Act 1983 should take place within 14 days. I was appalled to learn from the answer to my written parliamentary question that in 2015-16, 1,141 prisoners—three in four—waited longer than that two-week window. Such ubiquitous failure would never be tolerated in the outside world.
With regard to data on mental health in prisons, it feels like a minefield trying to get hold of figures that give a true representation of the scale of the problems. I cannot help but feel that the Minister and his Department are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. When I resubmitted my question to get the most up-to-date figures, I was told that, in the space of just a few months, the data are now
“not held in the requested format”,
despite the wording of my question being identical. I hope the Minister will tell me why the collection of the data has changed.
When I finished drafting my speech shortly before we began this morning, the Department’s answers to four of my named-day questions were long overdue. The answers would have played a key part in my contribution, but, regretfully, I cannot hold the Government to account fully for them today. Just one example is a question I asked about what proportion of people who died by suicide in prisons were not on the assessment, care in custody and teamwork pathway for people who have been identified as being at risk. In 2015, only 35 of 89 people who died by suicide were on the ACCT pathway, suggesting that too many vulnerable inmates are not being identified early enough. I asked the question again on 31 January—over a month ago—and the Minister’s Department has still not come back to me with that vital information.
Prison should offer a unique opportunity to provide mental health treatment in a secure environment, but the Government are betraying the vulnerable people our criminal justice system is supposed to protect. I met representatives of the Prison Officers Association who told me that, despite having worked in the Prison Service for decades, they had never received any mental health training. A recent Royal College of Psychiatrists forensic faculty survey found that service cuts mean most prison psychiatrists do not feel able to deliver a basic level of care. It is clear that the mental health services in our prisons are buckling. On a recent visit to a local prison, I saw at first hand the lack of care and services available to inmates. A recent consultation by the Centre for Mental Health found that a decrease in prison staff meant inmates often missed psychiatric appointments because there was no one available to escort them, and consequently they could not get the treatment they needed.
This is the stark reality that has been created by decimating staffing levels in prisons. There are 7,000 fewer prison officers than when the coalition Government came to power in 2010. The impacts of such drastic cuts are not trivial. Our prison services are out of control. Assaults in prisons rose by a third in the 12 months to September 2016 and are the highest on record. There was a wave of prison riots in the final weeks of last year, including at Birmingham, Bedford, Swaleside and Lewes. The inconvenient truth for the Minister is that, as things stand, he cannot guarantee the security of anyone who sets foot in our prisons.
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons has found that an increasing number of prisoners report feeling unsafe in prison. Yesterday, we heard the conclusions drawn from an unannounced inspection of HMP Featherstone. We heard that some prisoners felt so unsafe in the prison that they resorted to self-isolation, asking to be locked up for nearly 24 hours a day. In some instances, this had lasted for months.
Nationally, there has been a significant increase in the ratio of prisoners to prison staff. It is not only prisoners who do not feel safe, but hard-working staff who brave the frontline every day, aware that there might simply not be anyone there to back them up if an incident becomes unmanageable.
A couple of weeks ago, BBC’s “Panorama” aired an undercover investigation that was filmed inside HMP Northumberland. I am sure anyone who watched it was, like me, appalled to see the truth about prison life laid bare: pervasive violence; widespread drug use; security systems not fit for purpose—put simply, chaos.
During this debate, it is important to remember that part of the reason this dire situation has arisen is that far too many people have been inappropriately put in prison, when they should be receiving mental health treatment in a secure inpatient unit. There is a need to address how the courts treat people with mental health problems, particularly in respect of community sentences and the inclusion of mental health treatment requirements within those.
I have been raising questions about suicide and self-harm in our prisons for many years, but I was compelled to request this debate because of one particular case, the tragic case of Dean Saunders. He was just 25 years old when he died by his own hand at Chelmsford prison in Essex last year. I had the privilege of meeting Dean’s parents, Mark and Donna, to hear about this tragic case in their own words. Dean was suffering from severe mental illness and had harmed himself and his brother and father as they tried to help him during a paranoid episode. He was charged with attempted murder and sent to prison. His family were told that there he would be safe.
The inquest jury unanimously concluded that Care UK, the private company that ran healthcare at the prison, treated “financial considerations” as a significant reason behind the decision to downgrade him from constant watch to half-hourly observations, despite several warnings that he might harm himself. It said that there were “multiple failings”, including a “complacent” approach to Dean’s mental health. The jury found an assessment of his mental health needs was “not adequately conducted” and concluded that the cause of death was “contributed to by neglect”.
The system failed because of financial cuts in the prison budget, and Mr Saunders paid for it with his life. Despite that damning verdict, Care UK continues to provide healthcare, including mental health services, to more than 22,000 prisoners in many prisons across the UK.
I note that the Justice Secretary has met Mr Saunders’ family, and I welcome that, but Mr Saunders presented a high risk of suicide—he should never have been in a prison in the first place. He needed specialist treatment in a secure mental health facility to protect him, but none was made available.
Dr Poulter
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems may well be that people are siloed into being under either the care of forensic psychiatry or that of the prison system? There is very little and very poor interaction between the general mental health system and what goes on in prison, particularly in terms of helping people to receive the adequate care in the community that they need when they leave prison on discharge.
Luciana Berger
There have been many reports, inquiries and recommendations that highlight the very point the hon. Gentleman made—reports dating back to 10 years ago. I hope the Minister will reflect in his response on the reports, inquiries and recommendations that have already been put forward and outline what he will do to ensure that that current separation is adequately addressed to prevent situations like this case. What are Ministers going to do to ensure that similar situations to what happened to Dean never happen again?
The shocking and shameful rise in suicide and self-harm is happening on this Government’s watch and the Minister must outline his plan of action today. These are not statistics; they are real human beings—somebody’s father, somebody’s mother, somebody’s daughter or somebody’s son. The Government cannot get away with sweeping this issue under the carpet for a second longer. I note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is also conducting an inquiry on this issue and I hope that today’s debate might be a precursor to the outcomes of that inquiry.
Last month, in Justice questions, I raised Mr Saunders’ case. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) told me that he was
“seeking the details of all those cases to see whether there is a pattern in why they are happening. I hope to come forward later in the year with suggestions for policy change relating to mental health assessments in prisons.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 156.]
An assessment is not, in and of itself, enough. However, when I sought more details in a written parliamentary question, the Secretary of State’s answer exposed a U-turn on any plans for such an investigation. Although another exploration of data would have been wholly inadequate, it would at least have been something. Now it seems that the Government have no plans in place to confront this crisis.
If the Minister thinks that a further review of the evidence is needed, I am here to disabuse him. If he thinks we need more consultation, I am afraid he is mistaken. Countless inquiries and reports have been conducted, which have a plethora of very practical recommendations to their name. There was the review carried out by Baroness Corston on women and, significantly, the Harris review on self-inflicted deaths of young people, which was the most comprehensive review of suicide in prison and heard directly from bereaved families. Many important recommendations on learning and accountability were put forward, which so far have been rejected.
Families tell us time and again that what they want after a tragedy like this is for no one else to go through a similar experience and for concrete changes to be made. Ultimately, we are seeing the same failings repeated time and again in this pattern of preventable deaths. There is currently a significant accountability gap. Deeds, not words, are what are needed now; a concrete plan of action is necessary, not yet another ministerial speech. I say that in memory of all those who have died by suicide in our prisons. It is unacceptable. We abolished the death penalty half a century ago for very good reason. Now we must ensure that in 2017, no prisoner pays the penalty of their life because of the failure in our prison system. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on securing today’s debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) for his insightful interventions.
I extend my particular thanks and welcome to Mark Saunders, the father of Dean Saunders, who tragically died by his own hand in Chelmsford prison, for joining us for the debate. I reiterate the point that the Secretary of State and I made to him when we met: I very much look forward to working with him to bring in some real solutions to the challenge of suicides in our prisons.
Like the hon. Lady, I am concerned that the rates of suicide and self-harm in our prisons are too high. It is an issue that transcends political parties, despite our obviously different perspectives on the reforms needed in our prisons. My priority as prisons Minister is to provide leadership and to drive improvement across the system to bring those rates down.
As hon. Members will recognise, some of the problems in our prisons have long roots. It will take time to refocus the system on rehabilitation and reform but, as the last set of statistics for levels of suicide and self-harm reaffirm, we must also take urgent and decisive action to make prisons places of safety for those prisoners who are at risk.
The challenge of record levels of suicide and self-harm in prisons is a complex one and there is no simple solution. We know that prisoners are a high-risk population and that many of them come into the prison system with drug or alcohol problems, isolation, social disadvantage, experience of sexual or physical abuse, or mental health problems. All those factors increase the risk of self-harm or suicide among prisoners. We acknowledge that the nature of a custodial experience can further increase those risks, but that should not serve as an excuse.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I am encouraged by the Minister’s comments. Is he aware of figures from De Montfort University that show that 46% of women in custody have previously attempted suicide and that women in the criminal justice system on average die 16 years younger than their counterparts? Will he acknowledge that that issue should be part of the ongoing dialogue that is needed between the mental health and the criminal justice systems?
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I did say to the hon. Lady earlier that interventions from Opposition spokespersons are not allowed in a short Westminster Hall debate. I have re-confirmed that that is the ruling, so I am not going to allow the Minister to respond to that intervention. I apologise to the mover of the debate for the interruption.
Mr Gyimah
Any loss of life, whether male or female, is tragic. I would hope that my comments will address the issues in female as well as male prisons.
Deaths in the early days and weeks of custody are highest after reception, sentencing, transfer or recall. There are also significant numbers of deaths among lifers and other prisoners late into long sentences. We are developing a package of reforms as part of the prison safety and reform programme, and we will consult with a range of external stakeholders to seek their views on the action that will be taken to address the complex issue of suicide and self-harm in prisons.
In a written question, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree asked about the internal review. I assure her that there is an inquiry under way to look at all deaths in custody in the past year and to further our understanding of why those events are happening. She will know what the results of that inquiry are as soon as they are available.
The early days and weeks in custody are particularly critical, and we are taking steps to ensure that when somebody enters a prison they are given the support they need at that important time. We are rolling out new training courses across the estate to help our staff to identify risks and triggers of suicide and self-harm and to understand what they can do to support prisoners at risk. That involves awareness training for prison staff on supporting prisoners with mental health issues. The new package consists of six sections that can be delivered to both new and existing staff either in succession or in a modular form.
Dr Poulter
I thank the Minister for his answers. To clarify, will that training for prison officers be compulsory or voluntary, and will it be carried out according to the amount of funding available?
Mr Gyimah
We are making the training available to all prisons, and we expect prison governors to ensure that as many of their staff as possible can take it—particularly those who are operating on wings and have direct contact with prisoners. The full training package takes about 1.5 days to complete.
Mr Gyimah
I would like to make some progress and develop these points. I will perhaps take an intervention later.
We are also making improvements to the assessment, care in custody and teamwork process—the case management process in place in our prisons to support and manage prisoners at risk—and identifying opportunities to make it more effective. That includes changes to relevant training and developing a new self-harm diagnostic tool for use by prison governors and staff, which brings together information for each prison about numbers and types of incident, and where and when in the prison they are happening.
We are also improving infrastructure and partnerships. To support governors and prison staff across the estate, we have put in place specialist roles—regional safer custody leads—in every region to provide advice to prisons and to spread good practice on identifying and supporting prisoners at risk. We are also committed to developing partnerships with others who can help us. In addition to the funding already provided to support the prisoner listener scheme, we will be providing extra funding for the Samaritans to provide targeted support for prison staff and to prisoners directly, including by piloting emotional resilience training for new prisoners, delivered by released ex-listeners.
In the immediate term, a national learning day will be held on 14 March for prison staff on suicide and self-harm. We also strive to continue to learn from others and from completed and ongoing reviews. It is critical that we respond to the independent advisory panel’s ongoing review of women’s self-inflicted deaths. We continue to benefit from individual reviews into deaths in custody by the prisons and probation ombudsman. As hon. Members will have seen, we have introduced the Prisons and Courts Bill, which contains measures to put the ombudsman on to a statutory footing, with powers of entry and requirements on the Secretary of State to publish responses to the ombudsman’s reports. It will give those reports real teeth and will introduce an imperative in the system to follow through the recommendations and ensure that they are implemented. The Bill gives effect to long-standing commitments by successive Governments to give the ombudsman permanent status. I hope that hon. Members will welcome and support the Bill as it progresses through the House.
We will also redouble our efforts to support protective and environmental factors, which evidence tells us reduce risk. We know that strengthening family ties and peer support can support prisoners’ wellbeing and make custody safer. Governors will be held to account for the family services in their prison, and from autumn 2017 the family service budgets will be devolved to governors so that they have flexibility over how they resource family services to best meet the needs of their prisoners. We are also supporting digital developments in prisons, including the roll-out of in-cell telephony, to enable prisoners to call their families more easily and at cheaper rates. We will learn from Lord Farmer’s review to investigate how helping prisoners to engage with their families can support their rehabilitation and provide encouragement.
Luciana Berger
I thank the Minister for very kindly giving way. I can see he is about to conclude, and we still have a few minutes left in the debate. Can I bring him back to two points? First, on the training that may or may not be available to prison staff, I urge him to reflect on the fact that there are people who have served in our Prison Service for decades but have never received any mental health training. It is important that every single one of them receives such training. Secondly, is the Minister’s Department looking at how to reduce risk in prisons, in the same way as we reduce the risks from ligature points in mental health settings?
Mr Gyimah
On the hon. Lady’s second question, absolutely yes, we are reducing risk in prisons, in terms of the fabric in cells and so on. In addition to the training and opportunities for prison officers to become better skilled and better able to identify suicide risk and to deal with mental health issues, last week, as she will be aware, we announced a promotion for all band 3 officers—they can get promoted to band 4 and get an additional salary at band 4 if they specialise in certain roles in prison. One of them is specifically to do with safer custody. Therefore, a prison officer today can choose to specialise as a safer custody officer and get paid more to do so. Some 2,000 prison officers across the country could benefit from that increase in pay and from the training that I have outlined.
In the light of the disproportionate number of self-harm incidents among female prisoners, we are exploring ways of improving family links, including overnight visits, family days, child-centred visits, homework clubs and the delivery of relationship and parenting programmes. We are also taking account of evidence that shows that prison environments have a direct impact on prisoners’ wellbeing and rehabilitation, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out. Our plans for estate transformation include ensuring that prison sites are configured to support prisoners’ access to fresh air, exercise and meaningful activity.
Fundamental to supporting that activity and improving the safety of all those living and working in our prisons will be the recruitment of the additional 2,500 frontline staff we are funding. Extra staff will enable prison officers to conduct new ways of working and transform the culture in our prisons, so that every prison officer is responsible for the supervision and support of about six prisoners. The 1:6 model is in part based on the work of Lord Toby Harris on self-inflicted deaths, which particularly focused on the youth estate. That is why we are introducing the important key worker role.
Luciana Berger
I thank the Minister for very kindly giving way again. Does he accept that those are not additional staff, but merely a replacement of the staff that have already been cut? We have lost more than 7,000 prison officers since 2010. We have only to look at the outcome of the inspection at Northumberland prison to see that there is a very significant issue of prisoners feeling so unsafe that they do not feel able to leave their cells.
Mr Gyimah
The 2,500 staff are additional to what we have, so at the end of 2018 we will have 2,500 additional officers. The baseline—the comparison with 2010—is not accurate because, although we lost 7,000 prison officers, we closed down 18 prisons. We are looking at a completely new baseline. However, the most important thing is the one-to-one support from a dedicated officer, which is at the heart of our prison reforms, ensuring that prisoners first and foremost are safe to benefit from the help they need to quit drugs, participate in education and skills programmes and acquire the skills to prepare for life after release.
The hon. Lady asked about the 75% of prisoners—she alleged—who face delays in being transferred to NHS hospitals beyond the 14-day deadline. That is obviously a serious concern, and I will work closely with Department of Health partners to look into it. Health partners are obviously important in supporting prisoners and meeting their physical and mental health needs. In 2015, just to put the statistic out there, there were 1,010 transfer admissions to secure hospitals from prison, but I admit that a lot more needs to be done.
I read the inquest report into the incredibly tragic death of Dean Saunders. Like the hon. Lady, I agree that we are a long way short of where we should be in terms of preventing such self-inflicted deaths. The points I have enumerated today show what we are doing now, and we will come forward with even more detail and further reforms to ensure that we bring down the number of these deaths as much as we possibly can. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady—I will be willing to discuss these issues in detail with her—and with the Saunders family and a number of other families who have lost loved ones in this way.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Liverpool City Region (Poverty)
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered poverty in the Liverpool city region.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I welcome right hon. and hon. Friends from across the city region to this important debate; we speak with one voice on poverty in our area.
Poverty is not an ephemeral concept. For far too many people in our city region, it is part of their daily grind. During the debate I will celebrate the fantastic achievements of charities, voluntary organisations and community groups that work tirelessly to tackle poverty in our area; highlight some of the challenges individuals and families face; and identify what we can do collectively to try to tackle the issue across the Liverpool city region.
During her coronation in July last year, the Prime Minister spoke on the steps of Downing Street of
“fighting against the burning injustice that, if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others.”
However, since her parody of Mrs Thatcher’s 1979 St Francis of Assisi speech, it has been hard to find one policy in which the Prime Minister provides solutions to address the issue.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the pattern is particularly stark in the Wirral? If a line is drawn down the M53, the difference in life expectancy between the west side and the poorest parts of the east side is 10 years.
Steve Rotheram
I absolutely accept that. If lines are drawn right across maps of the city region, there are similar disparities and instances in which life expectancy rates are completely at odds with the attempt to improve everybody’s life chances, as the Prime Minister said she would on the steps of Downing Street.
Will the Minister address the fact that the 55% of working families in poverty—a record high—need hope that things will improve? We need to ensure that there is aspiration for children caught in the cycle of deprivation, and innovation in Government thinking to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. I think we all remember how things turned out for our area last time there was a Conservative Government. By the time the Tories were ousted from power, our country was far more divided than when Thatcher came to power and promised to heal discord, so Government Members will forgive my cynicism about the veracity of the current Prime Minister’s words and her resolve to tackle poverty.
To get a better understanding of the current situation in the Liverpool city region, it is important to start by charting the economic vicissitudes we have seen in our recent history. Before the financial crash in 2008, the Liverpool city region experienced reasonable levels of economic improvement and was growing faster than the rest of the north-west economy. We benefited from European objective 1 funding and billions of pounds-worth of private sector investment that catalysed our area’s regeneration. The tangible manifestation of our renaissance was the changing cityscape, with projects such as the arena and convention centre and the Liverpool ONE shopping complex generating thousands of full and part-time jobs, helping to boost economic growth and raising visitor numbers. In 2008, we were able to showcase to the rest of the UK what we are capable of when given a fair crack at the whip.
The basic tenet of a decent society, on which I will focus my comments, is fairness. The last Labour Government had taken nearly 1 million children out of poverty by the time we left office in 2010. We helped to alleviate the suffering of many trapped in poverty through the creation of Sure Start centres, which gave our children the best start in life to break the cycle of dispossession. We also introduced tax credits, which helped to make work pay for many low-income families. However, despite improvements, there were still significant problems to tackle in some communities across the six districts.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend also recall that, for the first time in history, the last Labour Government removed the link that there had always been between older age and poverty, and took almost 1 million older people out of poverty?
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of our great achievements, removing that link was certainly important in taking huge swathes of older people out of the cycle of poverty.
The indicators and indices of multiple deprivation have gone backwards under the current Government. It is estimated that 91,000 children in the city region are growing up in poverty. Analysis by the Children’s Society estimates that, in the city of Liverpool area alone, 34% of children live in poverty, while 26,800 children live in 15,500 families in problem debt. Debt is a growing issue for many families simply trying to make ends meet. As StepChange highlights, problem debt costs the UK £8.3 billion a year through the damage it causes to family life, mental and physical health, productivity and employment prospects, and costs to the welfare state, the NHS, local government and other agencies.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. There have been many improvements in my constituency, particularly under the last Labour Government, but he has hit on an important point: working people are suffering poverty because they are on very low wages or can find only part-time jobs. One of the greatest challenges is surely how we ensure that people get a better income, because working people are suffering.
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that in-work poverty is increasing. That can be tackled by giving people a proper living wage. That is something that we have said a future Labour Government will do. According to the Office for National Statistics, 46% of individuals living in households in the lowest total wealth quintile are in financial debt, which is twice as high as households in the highest wealth quintile, on 23%.
At a G8 summit in 2011, David Cameron promised:
“Britain will not balance its books on the backs of the poorest.”
However, a recent report by the Resolution Foundation found that this Government’s tenure will be the worst for living standards for the poorest half of households since comparable records began in the mid-1960s. Compared with other developed countries, the UK now has the worst household income inequality in the world, and it is at its most iniquitous since the early years of Thatcherism.
Local authorities are often the first port of call for families suffering from poverty. Liverpool City Council is facing an enormous funding headache. The Government slashed its grant by 58%, yet somehow still believe that the city council should provide the same vital services it once did. I challenge the Minister, or any hon. Member, to have their income reduced by significantly more than half and to still be able to afford to do the same things they did before. That is what the Government expect councils across the city region to do. How can local authorities in the areas of greatest need be expected to help families suffering the effects of poverty with such scarce resources?
A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that child poverty costs the public sector between £12 billion and £22 billion a year, which evidences the need for a co-ordinated and collaborative approach to tackle the issue. However, there is a wide range of complex contributory factors that can leave people facing severe hardship. Unsurprisingly, despite the last Labour Government’s rhetoric about eradicating child poverty in the UK by 2020 with the Child Poverty Act 2010, the Tories are making life even tougher for families in our areas that have the highest levels of deprivation. Living costs have risen, welfare reductions are exacerbating child and family poverty, and pernicious policies have had devastating consequences.
The Prime Minister has extolled the vision of a “shared society” although, as with the mantra of the “long-term economic plan”, I have not heard her say much about it recently. Bewilderingly, she has tried to claim the crown of social justice for her party, but when was the last time she or her Government spoke about poverty? Under the Tories, life is increasingly difficult for the most vulnerable, and low levels of social mobility are magnified in areas outside London and the south-east.
Policy has included the bedroom tax, which penalises people for living in a property where the Government consider bedrooms are not being utilised. The problem in areas such as ours, however, is that those living in under-occupied homes had nowhere to go, due to the shortage of suitable properties for them to move into. The Government’s one-size-fits-all approach failed to solve the problem it was allegedly designed to tackle and instead forced people out of their family homes, exacerbating the breakdown of social cohesion in many of our communities. In Merseyside and Halton, we do not have the right housing mix to accommodate demand, which is creating problems in the private rented sector in particular. Increasingly, we have instances of rent poverty, with unscrupulous landlords charging rent rates that renters simply cannot afford. Direct payments have hindered and not helped, too.
People are having to make unenviable decisions about whether to heat, eat or pay rent, so it is no wonder that some get into arrears. In a number of cases, they end up being evicted and are forced on to the streets to sleep rough. Ministers have to take action to clamp down on that growing injustice, instead of spouting erroneous statistics to justify failing policies. I would be happy to accompany the Minister on any night he chooses to walk around any part of our wonderful city region to see the desperation of rough sleepers for himself and to speak to them to find out the reasons behind it.
Year after year, rip-off energy suppliers are racking up the cost of consumers’ gas and electricity bills. The latest hike in prices will cause particular concern to the 4 million UK households who live in fuel poverty. The suffering caused by cold-related ill health costs the national health service £1.36 billion a year, and for many the high cost of energy is exacerbated by substandard accommodation. During our time in government, we invested £18 billion into the decent homes standard. Only this week, the UK Green Building Council reported that 25 million homes would need refurbishing to the highest standard by 2050, at a rate of 1.4 homes every minute.
Ms Angela Eagle
In the Wirral, before the previous Labour Government took office, 65% of social housing was below the acceptable standard. Owing to the money that was invested under that Labour Government, when we left office less than 5% of the social stock was below the acceptable standard. Does my hon. Friend recognise how that helped to deal with the problems of poverty, and health related ones in particular? What can be done to take that process further if he is elected Mayor of the city region?
Steve Rotheram
I will concentrate on the first bit, rather than the second bit, if that is okay. On the progress made under the Labour Government to tackle what has to be described as the scourge of people living in substandard accommodation, we did an awful lot of good, and we were hoping to do even more. People have to understand that when they are heating a home without double glazing, for example, the heat is easily lost. Simple things such as double glazing or cavity wall insulation help to retain heat, and so reduce bills. That is what we did for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people throughout the country, and certainly our area benefited.
I hope that the Government will do something simple to tackle the problem of 1.4 homes per minute needing to be brought up to standard until 2050. My party has pledged to get to grips properly with the poor quality of homes. We have made that an infrastructure priority, which would allow us to combat the problem effectively and efficiently. Lamentably, the Government would not join us in the voting Lobby to ensure that homes were fit for human habitation.
Regrettably, my constituency has been ranked No. 1 in the whole country for disability and health deprivation. Life expectancy in Liverpool, Walton is many years shorter than for the residents of Walton-on-Thames, for example. As we heard during Prime Minister’s questions today, the Government have encouraged those with minor ailments to visit pharmacies, so as to alleviate the pressure on GP surgeries and on accident and emergency services. It is therefore outrageous that pharmacies in my constituency will not receive a single penny from the pharmacy access scheme, forcing on some the prospect of having to close. Out of the 394 chemists in the whole of Merseyside, only 18 will be funded, while the constituencies of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State for Health will each have seven funded. How does that address poverty of health, as the Prime Minister promised she would do? How does that prevent the knock-on effect for our NHS? How can people help themselves out of poverty when the Government do everything they can to make the basics of life even harder for them?
Recent statistics published by anti-poverty charity the Trussell Trust highlighted the worrying rise in the use of food banks in our area. Between April and September 2016 in my constituency, the North Liverpool food bank supplied 2,638 three-day emergency food parcels to families, of which nearly 1,000 were for children. It is a national disgrace that in the fifth richest economy in the world, almost 1.1 million people rely on food banks.
On this Government’s watch, however, things are getting even worse. Only recently I received a letter from the Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions informing me of two proposed jobcentre closures in my constituency. There are similar problems throughout the city region. The Government do not seem to understand that closing a jobcentre and relocating it miles away creates further barriers for local people trying their best to find work. Perhaps the Minister will explain when he sums up why the Government consistently put obstacles in the way of people who are trying their best to find work. As an alternative proposal, will the Minister agree to run a pilot scheme in the Liverpool city region in which we use our libraries, one-stop shops and community centres to provide a neighbourhood service to help people back into employment?
Education provides the essential building blocks to achieve the economic success that we so desperately need, and yet too many children in Merseyside and Halton are going to school hungry. That has a devastating effect on their educational prospects. Teachers and governors are doing all they can to help, such as with the provision of breakfast clubs for children. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) has been a great champion of free breakfast clubs, as research suggests that if children have a decent breakfast, they are more likely to concentrate better, learn more and achieve improved results at school.
The Government are devolving only limited powers to metro Mayors—this is where I should declare an interest—while at the same time fragmenting delivery and centralising accountability in the school system. The Liverpool devolution deal provides the metro Mayor with only limited powers over learning, such as on post-16 skills. Further devolution could present the opportunity for each part of the Liverpool city region to work better together to challenge poor educational performance and spread best practice, rather than for each local authority to operate in splendid isolation. We have the ludicrous circumstance of local education authorities continuing to have statutory responsibility for schools, under legislation such as the Education Act 1996, while being deprived of any levers to pull in order to fulfil those duties and influence outcomes.
When one college reports that 81% of students arrive with English and maths inadequate even to commence studying their courses, we need to address the issues, rather than perpetuate the existing fragmentation. It goes without saying that protecting per-pupil funding rather than proceeding with the Government’s 6.5% real-terms reduction in education spending is a priority for our areas. There is a poverty of aspiration among far too many young people across the city region, so if I am elected in May, I want to be able to convince the next generation that they can be the doctors, nurses or lawyers of the future and start to develop strategies to tackle the root causes of poverty, such as poor educational attainment. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government are so hesitant about further devolution of education powers.
I also want the Government to give metro Mayors the power to reallocate residual apprenticeship levy funding, which could be ring-fenced for innovative apprenticeship programmes. That would not cost the Government a penny, but would afford areas the opportunity to develop apprenticeship programmes to respond to local need. The Government signed up to local commissioning in the devolution agreement, but can the Minister explain why the Liverpool city region is not allocated its own contract package for the work and health programme? The current deal overlooks our local expertise, which we should harness to support people into employment, and would mean that Manchester could develop innovative approaches unilaterally but we could not. Will he address that? Such levers would enable metro Mayors to make a real difference, so I hope that the Minister will address those issues.
Before concluding, I must pay tribute to the voluntary and community sector and the fantastic charities in our city region that do so much to make the lives of others that much more bearable.
Derek Twigg
May I take my hon. Friend back to apprenticeships? Riverside College in my constituency, which he is due to visit, provides excellent opportunities for apprentices, but further education colleges have had massive cuts to their budgets. The Government need to address that if they want to expand apprenticeships and have good-quality apprenticeships that link in well with local businesses, because local colleges will be key in doing that. I wonder what my hon. Friend’s view is about that.
Steve Rotheram
Like many people here, I was at the debate about FE funding and the need to reduce the Government’s proposed cuts. We partially succeeded in doing that, but the proposed cuts to the budgets of FE institutions across the city region are still significant and will prevent them from doing some of the things that the Government want them to do.
The Government want 3 million apprenticeships in this Parliament. That will not happen if budgets are constantly slashed. I have suggested an alternative. Companies with a turnover of £3 million or more will have to pay a 0.5% apprenticeship levy. I do not believe that all that money will be used for apprenticeships—not all organisations will draw down their entitlement—so there will be a residual fund. With the Government’s help, we could develop an innovative programme so that that ring-fenced money could be used for apprenticeships and we could respond to what is coming down the pipeline and develop skills for the next three, four or five years. I hope that the Minister will address that.
The real issue is that we do not need meaningless slogans from the Prime Minister such as “shared society”. From pioneers such as Kitty Wilkinson, Eleanor Rathbone, Dr Duncan and Father Nugent to the organisations that may go unnoticed but will provide vital support today and tonight to people who are less fortunate, our area has been at the forefront of great social advances for many centuries. If the Government are serious about reducing inequality and devolving powers to start to tackle poverty in all its manifestations, the Minister must give proper consideration to my suggestions. I look forward to his response.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It seems somehow appropriate that we are here under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, given that you represent a constituency in the Liverpool city region.
Nothing defines poverty more starkly than someone being unable to feed themselves and their family because there is no food in the house and no money to buy it. In my experience, that is not a position that anyone wishes to be in. We still live in one of the richest countries in the world, but that kind of poverty is widespread and increasing. It is a key part of the worst of the poverty that I see increasingly in south Liverpool and Halewood.
Since the global financial crisis hit in 2007-08 and the Lib Dem-Tory coalition Government decided in 2010 that never-ending austerity and public spending cuts were the answer to it, there has been an explosion in the number of our citizens placed in the painful, invidious, unhealthy and humiliating position of having to go to a food bank to feed themselves and their families. Since the election of a Tory Government in 2015, we have also seen a doubling down on cuts in social security support. Scapegoating and a blame culture have become characteristic of the callous and sneering tenure of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and his successors in the DWP. It seems that we are to expect more of the same from our new Chancellor of the Exchequer in next week’s Budget as he desperately tries to offset the spiralling pressures and economic uncertainties caused by the extreme way in which his Government are intent on us leaving the EU.
The numbers on food bank use are stark. Some 2,894 people accessed a food bank in 2005-06, but just 10 years later, in 2015-16, 1.11 million people had to access Trussell Trust food banks alone. Figures for the first six months of this financial year up to September 2016 show that that number is on course to increase again. However, we do not know the true number of people affected, because the Government, disgracefully and callously, still refuse to collect the statistics. We know that the available figures understate the extent of the problem, because there are hundreds of food banks not included in the Trussell Trust scheme that do not use the vouchers on which its statistics are based, and many people cannot use food banks because they cannot eat the dried, tinned and processed food that is given out in food parcels, for medical, practical or cultural reasons. They sometimes cannot do so because their financial problems mean that they have no gas or electricity and cannot cook what they are given to eat. In my experience, that is an increasing problem.
In December 2014, the all-party parliamentary inquiry into hunger in the UK, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who is in his place, tried to fill the gap in statistics created by Government indifference. In its report, “Feeding Britain”, it stated that 4 million people were at risk of going hungry, 3.5 million adults could not afford to eat properly and half a million children were affected.
Thanks to the work of the “Share Your Lunch” campaign run by the social business Can Cook, which is based in my constituency, I can say that in Liverpool we calculate that our food bank and other food help outlets have had about 60,000 visits in the last year. Some of those will have been repeat visits, but “Share Your Lunch” thinks that the real number of people without food is double that. Indeed, visits to Bridge Chapel, the Trussell Trust food bank in my constituency, increased by 10% last year to 3,890 after a two-year plateau, with 43.5% of visitors coming from Speke-Garston. Some 10% of the households who access help at Bridge Chapel have at least one person in work. That indicates the extent of very low pay and zero-hours contracts that do not guarantee any minimum income. Under-employment is a real problem in our region.
According to “Share Your Lunch”, 45% of Liverpool families live below the poverty line and risk falling into food crisis. The number of children who start school under- weight has risen by 16% since 2012, up to one in five children in the UK arrive at school hungry, and one in three teachers surveyed by YouGov have brought in food for children in response to finding hunger in their classroom.
Why do we have this problem in Liverpool when we live in the sixth richest country in the world, and what can be done about it? The Trussell Trust says that the most common reasons for referrals are benefit delays, low income and benefit changes, which account for 27%, 25% and 16% of referrals respectively. That means that a full 43% of people who use food banks have to do so because of the DWP’s inadequacies and poor actions. No wonder the Government will not even collect statistics on why people are forced to go to food banks—they would be embarrassed by the findings.
Ms Angela Eagle
Does my hon. Friend realise that there is also a similar pattern in the Wirral? I suspect the numbers are not quite as high, but the reasons for the existence, running and use of food banks on the Wirral are similar. There are now seven food banks in Wallasey, and according to the Trussell Trust, benefit sanctions, the inadequacy of benefits and delays in paying benefits are why almost half of the people affected find they have to resort to a food bank to feed their families.
Maria Eagle
Indeed. In fact, “Feeding Britain”, the report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, had an even higher figure: it said in December 2014 that almost two thirds go to food banks because of benefit issues. That accords with my experience in my advice surgeries in Liverpool and Halewood, where I find that those who most need help have been let down completely by the social security benefit system and that, more often than not, the crisis precipitated by DWP behaviour has left them without money and without food.
Typical scenarios include illness leading to job loss; redundancy leading to an application for jobseeker’s allowance or other benefit, which is then delayed for months while the family has no income; or sudden Kafkaesque checks on entitlement at the behest of Government, like the recent behaviour of Concentrix in cancelling people’s tax credit on the basis of entirely groundless supposition. It was unavailable to be contacted and delayed putting things right for months. That company had been financially incentivised by the Government to cancel claims, and it did so unjustifiably and at random.
I had many constituents coming to my advice surgery who were in work and had suddenly had their tax credits stopped, which meant that they could not afford their childcare, which in turn meant that they could not go to work. All kinds of problems followed, often leading to visits to our local food banks. Even the current Government were forced to act, thanks to the pressure put on them by colleagues across the House, yet a number of my constituents have been left with no money and no food by that behaviour of Concentrix. Fortunately, some of them are now getting compensation —perhaps up to £100, but more usually £50—from the Government for what has been done to them.
Sometimes, benefit changes precipitate food crisis, such as when people move from JSA to employment and support allowance or from disability living allowance to personal independence payment. Believe me, such a change can, and often does, cause a cascade of catastrophe when things go wrong. People have to manage for months with no money before the system is put right and the backdated payments are made. That is how people end up with no money and no food.
I am seeing benefit sanctions happen increasingly—it is an accelerating problem. Sometimes—this is deplorable —the sanction is open-ended, and my constituents are not told about that. It is often unfairly applied to vulnerable people who have done nothing to deserve having all their money stopped indefinitely.
It is clear that the best way of making inroads into the cause of this problem and cutting food poverty is by turning the DWP back into what it should be—a provider of social security for those who need it—and by ending the punishment of poor and disabled citizens just because of the misfortune of their circumstances, which seems to be the DWP’s raison d’être these days. That, however, will require a Labour Government.
I want to say a little about what can be done and is being done about the problem. In my constituency, I have a range of organisations trying to help. They include the Trussell Trust, with its food bank in Bridge Chapel; non-Trussell Trust food banks and more ad hoc arrangements in a number of places in Halewood, Speke and Garston; a FareShare distribution centre in Speke; and Can Cook, a social business that helps run “Share Your Lunch”, an ambitious initiative that aims to eradicate food poverty and provide fresh, nutritious food for those who are hungry rather than food parcels of dried and tinned processed food. There is no shortage of people trying to help. I thank the volunteers and organisers who have been willing to step in to help their fellow citizens when the Government are abrogating their responsibility and are happy to leave people with nothing.
I also thank the public, who make donations. In Liverpool, we are particularly blessed by the solidarity and generosity that people show each other, in particular those less fortunate than themselves. That is true across the city region—it is a defining characteristic of Merseyside and Halton. That generosity is exemplified by the “Share Your Lunch” campaign, run by Can Cook in my constituency but well and ably supported by the Liverpool Echo, which I commend for the work it has done in highlighting this issue and tackling it in practical ways, and by many business supporters and other individual donors. It has raised £51,600, generating a total of 28,800 fresh, nutritious meals that it has supplied to people who need food. More than 19,000 kg of fresh vegetables and 18,000 kg of fresh meat have been provided through its efforts. Indeed, in the campaign’s first week it raised £35,000, all because of the generosity of our fellow citizens in the city region. I hope the Minister accepts that that shows people’s concern about the fact that their fellow citizens are having to suffer the humiliation of not being able to feed themselves and their families.
That huge response has been welcome. It has enabled “Share Your Lunch” to carry out initiatives such as providing everything for Christmas lunch for people who could not afford Christmas and helping families in food poverty get through the school holidays, which are a big problem. When no school dinners are available, it can be almost impossible for certain families to feed their children. The current food bank model is not perfect—it is not the last word—but it does give emergency help to thousands of families when they need it.
There are different ways of tackling this problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) set out the long history we have in the city region of charitable assistance and innovative social support, which long predates any of us being Members of this House. He was right to highlight that. That entrepreneurship is continuing in organisations such as Can Cook, with its “Share Your Lunch” campaign in my constituency.
In a typical food bank parcel for a family, there are 22 tins of processed food, all extremely high in salt and sugar. If the food does not go together to make a good meal, some of it may remain difficult for families and recipients to utilise. Food bank parcels do not cater for vegetarians, vegans or those with special dietary needs, so how do those people get help? Perhaps FareShare can help. It has a distribution centre in my constituency and does good work delivering surplus food from supermarkets, which would otherwise go to waste, to third sector organisations. Of course, food banks and other organisations do have to pay to be members and to receive the available food. They also have to take what is available; they cannot order what they would like or what is needed. I know anecdotally that much of what is passed on remains unused or ends up sent to landfill by the third sector organisations rather than by the supermarkets, because it cannot be used for one reason or another. Therefore, while the food bank model operated by the Trussell Trust and the work done by FareShare helps many people—it has been a lifeline for many—there is room for other approaches to be tried as well.
That is where Can Cook and its “Share Your Lunch” comes in. It believes that good fresh food is a human right and that everybody should have access to fresh food by choice, regardless of their circumstances. Given that many people who find themselves with no food and no money are in that positon not because of anything they have done but because of circumstances, I agree completely that those people ought to have choice if that is possible. That is an ideal worth pursuing. Why should those in food poverty have no choice but to eat dried and processed tinned food, full of sugar and fat, which is not healthy or nutritious and may not go together to make balanced meals? Why should they not have a choice of fresh, healthy, nutritious food?
“Share Your Lunch” has developed a good food model with the aim of using some of the profits from its catering operation—it is a social business providing good, fresh to schools and care homes—to generate free, fresh, nutritious meals for those who need them. It has partnerships across the city region—across Liverpool and Knowsley—with councils and with businesses. It aims to develop good food areas where it can feed hungry residents in a designated area with the free meals generated by its commercial activity. That model is interesting and has something to offer. It is a win-win if it works and will give residents an extra choice when they face a food crisis, so that they can access fresh and nutritious food if they prefer or if it suits them, rather than a food bank parcel.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how the problem is to be tackled across the whole UK. What does he have to say about “Share Your Lunch” and Can Cook’s model? I wish “Share Your Lunch”, the campaign, and Can Cook, the organisation, all the best in their endeavour. If they succeed, even the poorest of my constituents, at the worst time of their lives when they have no food and no money for food, will be able to eat healthily and properly should they choose to do so.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Howarth. It is fantastic to have you in the Chair for this timely debate. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), on securing this debate.
All of us here today see in our weekly constituency surgeries low pay, precarious work, zero-hours contracts, energy price rises and benefit delays leaving thousands of our constituents living on the edge of poverty, if not submerged by it. In such circumstances it takes only an unexpected bill, a family illness or an accident to leave people without the means to properly house, clothe or feed themselves and their families.
The number of such cases increased dramatically last year when the full impact of the Concentrix tax credits debacle became felt. We heard a moment ago how that impacted on the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) as well. The most extreme examples of hardship as a result of that fiasco were felt by people such as my constituent, Michelle, who faced repossession as her tax credits were stopped simply because a previous tenant’s mobile phone bill was still registered at her address.
In Liverpool, as in so many places around the country, such personal financial precariousness is compounded by the Government’s long assault on local community services and networks that have traditionally supported people to get back on their feet.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton alluded to in his remarks, we have seen from central Government a cut of 58% to our budget since 2010, and Liverpool City Council is faced with making a further £90 million of cuts over the next three years, bringing the total amount of central Government spending cuts since 2010 to a staggering £420 million. I will say more about the cumulative impact of the cuts in a moment. It is simply not possible—I am sure that no Minister in their heart of hearts really believes it to be possible—to make such deep cuts over such a sustained period of time without damaging the social fabric that protects people in need from the worst effects of poverty.
The all-party group on fuel poverty and energy efficiency has praised Liverpool City Council’s healthy homes programme, which brings together help and advice with practical support on keeping our constituents’ homes warmer to tackle fuel poverty. That is particularly relevant in this debate. According to the Government’s new definition of fuel poverty, my constituency is in the top five in the country to be affected by this issue. Liverpool is one of the few councils around the country that sees the value in this activity and it does its very best to continue funding a team of environmental health officers who can use enforcement powers to make unwilling landlords improve properties if there are health and safety risks to their tenants.
The healthy homes programme has supported about 46,000 initial assessments, resulting in 22,000 referrals for additional support over the past seven years. The programme estimates that it has saved our NHS about £55 million over a 10-year period, while the enforcement work has made private landlords invest an additional £5.5 million in their properties. It is proof that a relatively small investment in long-term support and preventive work, carried out by local councils in partnership with local agencies, can make a huge difference and actually save money in the long term, as well as improve the health and wellbeing of local people. As a local MP, I have referred many of my constituents to the service. They have gone on to see improvements in their homes and can now afford to heat them properly, particularly during the cold winter months.
However, Government cuts threaten our council’s ability to continue to deliver this vital service for our constituents. Of course, our council is doing all it can to protect the most vulnerable. For instance, in children’s services, money has been set aside to maintain our network of children’s centres for the next 12 months, because we see the value in providing that vital service, with the aim of devising a viable option for the future of the services. However, the council still has to find savings of £4.1 million, which it intends to make by reducing the cost of care placements and packages, and increasing the number of in-house foster carers.
There is a reason why the previous Labour Government invested in creating more than 3,000 children’s centres across our country and invested in the early years of a child’s life. It was to break a cycle that we know still persists in our country and is getting worse: where a child is born determines their life chances and outcomes. That is why children’s centres can and should be making a difference. The council cannot deal with the extent of child poverty in Liverpool with a Government in Westminster that are not interested in contending with this vital issue.
Under this Government, one in three children in my constituency—more than 6,000—are living in relative poverty, and almost half of them are in families where at least one parent is in work. The subject on the Order Paper today is poverty in the Liverpool city region, but of course our children are not alone in experiencing the pain of Tory policies. Across the country, we have seen an increase of 200,000 children living in poverty, up to 3.9 million, in a single year. That is the price children across our country are paying for the Tory Government’s failure to tackle inequality adequately.
In one ward in my constituency, Picton, more than half the children—52%—are living in poverty, after housing costs are taken into account. In Kensington and Fairfield ward it is 43%, in Old Swan it is 34%, and so it goes on, in ward after ward, right across our city region, year after year. Children’s life chances are being stymied because Government policies have created an economy built on casualised, low-paid, temporary and precarious work for their parents, and removed the safety net that previously ensured children were supported.
For comparison, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), 13% of children are, after housing costs, living in poverty. In the constituency of the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), the figure is 16%. Frankly, whether the percentage is 13%, 16% or, as in my constituency overall, 33%, children, after housing costs, are living in poverty. Those figures bring shame on the Government, and we must all recognise that poverty is not spread evenly around our country. Some parts, such as our Liverpool city region, carry a heavier burden.
I fear that too many Government Members carry with them a view of some places in the north, such as Liverpool city region, as home to people deserving not of a chance, but of contempt. I do not make that point lightly. I ask Members to ponder this single statistic produced by the Children’s Society: more than 3,000 of the children living in poverty in my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree are from families where at least one adult is in work. Such people are doing the right thing: heading out the door every morning, working hard and returning home, only to see their children still living in poverty.
Ms Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Will she attempt to explain what the Government’s thinking might be, given the disparity in poverty between certain areas that she has just explained? In the Wirral, we have lost 57% of local authority funding, Liverpool has lost 58%, and yet there are some areas, normally represented by Conservative MPs, that have seen nowhere near those levels of cuts, and the average is 37%.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important contribution. It is a point that I was going to make later in my speech. The coalition Government decided to remove the weighting for deprivation. Every Member who has contributed or is about to contribute has made that very point to Ministers sitting on the Government Benches. If we had had the average cut in Liverpool, we would have an additional £84 million a year, which would make a significant difference to the life chances and outcomes of the people we are elected to represent.
The Government talk a lot about increasing aspiration, but some people aspire every day to have enough money at the end of the week to put food on the table and clothes on their children’s backs and to secure a roof over their heads, and not to have to choose between those three at any moment.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said about the Government’s proposed jobcentre closure plans. Liverpool will be hit hardest of all England’s cities by the proposal, which will affect 40% of our jobcentres. I presented a petition last night, on behalf of hundreds of my constituents, against the two proposed jobcentre closures in our area. The issue is very significant, and if the Government are serious about dealing with inequality it does not make sense to treat Liverpool city region in that way.
We should not forget that in 2015, the Tory Government scrapped child poverty targets that were brought in by the previous Labour Government. Ministers no longer have a legal duty to tackle the number of children in poverty. They believe themselves to be essentially unaccountable for their policies, but we will hold them accountable because we meet our constituents and their children in our surgeries every week. We see the faces of people such as my constituent Frank, who, on obtaining custody of his child last year, faced months of delays and administrative errors in trying to have his child benefit and child tax credits paid. That left him financially unable to provide properly for the child placed in his care and plunged his newly reunited family into extreme and abject poverty.
Conservative Members may say, “Well, of course, the poverty target was measuring the wrong thing,” or “Poverty ain’t what it used to be in my day. Children going hungry—now that’s real poverty.” If that is what they say, I would reiterate the significant comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood.
I am conscious that another hon. Member wants to speak, so I shall reflect only briefly on the issue of food poverty, which affects too many people not only in the Liverpool city region but across the country. The Central Liverpool food bank, which unfortunately is one of many in my constituency, has fed a total of more than 43,000 people, including 15,000 children. The number of people having to use the service has increased, because of an increase in the number of people being sanctioned. Many are children. Many people not only are using the food bank in a crisis, but have become chronic users because they cannot put enough food on the table for a sustained period of time.
I have raised the issue of food poverty before. In fact, I obtained the first debate on food banks in this House, in 2012. I also made a film about it called “Breadline Britain”. At that time, only a few hundred thousand people had to obtain emergency food aid. It is worth reiterating the point made earlier: the fact that more than 1 million people have had to get emergency food aid in the past year, in the sixth richest nation in the world. That is a stain on the national consciousness and I am ashamed to live in a country where that is the case. I am frankly appalled and disappointed that the figures are getting larger every year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned that I have been a long-term supporter of organisations such as Magic Breakfast, which helps schools provide children with breakfast. There are too many reports from teachers—and the number is increasing —of children sitting in school not having had breakfast. If it were not for those breakfast clubs, they would not be able to concentrate and learn properly.
The cuts that have been made are significant. It is not just a question of how much is in the pot; it is also a question of how it is distributed. We have been disproportionately affected because of the removal of the weighting for deprivation. I believe that the Government have washed their hands of the tough choices and passed them on to councils, as in the case of our city region and its people. Our early intervention grant was cut by 44% between 2010-11 and 2015-16. It is worth reminding the House that that grant is intended to support children and those most in need. It is no surprise, given that it has been savaged in that way, that people are struggling to get by.
As I said, it takes only one unforeseen event to push people over the edge into debt. That is why, according to the Children’s Society, nearly 2,500 children in my constituency are living in families that have problem debt. About a third of families with problem debt say that they have cut back on food in the past month. A third have cut back on heating and a third on clothing. Those are the basics of a decent life, and that is what is happening in this country in 2017. The tough choices being made in Britain today are whether to choose food over heating or heating over clothes, or to run deeper into debt. Children in poverty are more likely to fall behind in school, less likely to secure a job and more likely to experience mental and physical illnesses.
It does not have to be like that. We have heard from other hon. Members about the incredible charitable and voluntary sector efforts being made in the city region, but on their own, those valiant efforts are not enough. On behalf of all my constituents, young and old, and the people of the Liverpool city region, I urge the Minister to consider the issue of poverty seriously, and to outline exactly what the Government and his Department will do to address it properly.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, it may be helpful if I point out that I shall call the first of the Front-Bench speakers at 3.35 pm.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I hope to finish long before then, Mr Howarth. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship—a sign of Merseyside’s ingenuity at keeping topics within the family. I am also immensely grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) managed to secure the debate.
I want to report two facts from the frontline of people in my constituency fighting against hunger, then I will address four brief questions to the Minister about actions that the Government could begin today to abate that hunger. If I had reported the things that I am about to say when I first joined the House in 1979, most people would have thought I was heralding the post-truth era of politics, but they are ordinary, plain, shocking facts.
Feeding Birkenhead is a wonderful coalition of organisations that feed children in the school holidays, as well as feeding many families. It gave me some information for the debate, including the example of a little girl who arrived at one of the school feeding projects, which was full up. The projects insist that just because children are poor it does not mean they should not have fun in their holidays, and be fed as well; the little girl said, “Could I come in if I miss the fun? But I want the food, because I am so hungry.”
The other example was, rather appropriately, from around Christmas. A mother was lowering her child into one of the waste bins of one of our great supermarkets, to scavenge for food and then be brought out. That mother is suffering from cancer. Feeding Birkenhead now feeds her, but the awful indictment is not only that a child was put in danger, risking all sorts of injury from pulling things around in the bottom of a waste bin; it is the fact that the mother now reports that the food she gets, which would otherwise have gone to waste, is providing her with the best diet she has ever had.
My four questions for the Minister are about ways in which we in Merseyside could immediately be helped to fight back against the extent of hunger, particularly among schoolchildren. First, given that the Digital Economy Bill is going through the House, will the Minister require the three Merseyside boroughs that do not use housing benefit data automatically to register children as eligible for free school meals, and therefore the pupil premium, to do so? That approach was pioneered by Liverpool and taken up by Wirral and Knowsley. In my constituency it resulted in £725,000 a year extra coming into Wirral both to feed the children who had not been getting free school dinners and in pupil premium.
Secondly, in what ways will the Government consider helping all six boroughs to run school holiday meal and fun programmes similar to those in your constituency, Mr Howarth, and in Birkenhead? Thirdly, will the Minister choose Merseyside to be one of the first pilot areas for the revolutionary new set of indicators measuring children’s school-readiness, devised by Wirral teachers and the University of Cambridge? We would like that to be part of the roll-out of the Government’s programme on increasing life chances. We would measure whether life chances were equalised before children came to school, during those crucial first years.
Lastly, will the Minister give us the small resources that we need so that all our six boroughs can follow the example of Greenwich, which has managed to set up job creation schemes—not training schemes—so that all families hit by the benefit cap can gain work and therefore get the cap lifted? That makes a huge difference to their income, their wellbeing and the incidence of children being hungry. Those would be four real advances for Merseyside.
I wanted to try to sit down by 3.30 pm, and I will do so now.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing this really important debate.
I would like to comment on how strong all the contributions have been this afternoon. My hon. Friend’s speech was wide ranging. He focused on fairness and the fact that we have had a strong economic renaissance in very recent years in the Liverpool city region, which he would like to see re-stimulated. He also focused on the bedroom tax and child poverty, which many Members picked up on, as well as the closure of jobcentres, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) made a good contribution on the impact of the cuts to FE colleges and what they mean for apprenticeships. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) made an excellent speech, looking in particular at the Government’s delivery of social security support and the failures in that regard. She gave a visceral description of what it means to so many of her constituents not to have food or money for food.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree also spoke powerfully about the impact of poverty, citing the shocking statistic that one in three children in her constituency live in poverty, and about the shame that we live in the sixth richest country in the world and yet last year saw an increase of 200,000 in the number of children living in poverty. She focused on the cuts to local authority spending, which have had a real impact on support services and the local economy as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) also spoke about the impact of those cuts to local authority spending and the 10-year disparity in life expectancy between the east and west of Wirral.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) made really strong points about the need to feed children. The example he gave of a mother with cancer lowering her child into a waste bin was Dickensian; we really do not expect to have to picture that kind of scene in this day and age. He also gave an example of a little girl asking for food, saying she could manage without fun but not without food. That has to shame us all. I hope the Minister will respond to the specific requests that my right hon. Friend made.
The Merseyside area, which equates to a large part of the Liverpool city region, has some of the most deprived communities in all of the UK. The latest statistics from the Church Urban Fund suggest that within its boundaries, Liverpool city region has three of the 10 most deprived parts of the UK: Anfield, Walton Breck and Everton. Five of the 20 most deprived constituencies in the country are in the Liverpool city region: Liverpool, Walton; Knowsley; Liverpool, West Derby; Birkenhead; and Bootle. It is clear that the Government’s obsession with austerity, their cuts to local authority spending—which have hit Liverpool and Wirral particularly hard, with cuts of 58% and 57%—and their failure to promote growth and opportunity, coupled with the impact of their social security changes since 2010, have hit the people of the region hard.
My hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood, for Liverpool, Wavertree and for Liverpool, Walton all spoke compellingly about the increase in food bank use. In Merseyside, the number of adults and children receiving help from food banks run by the Trussell Trust leapt from just over 56,000 in 2014 to nearly 61,000 the following year. The figure remained around the 60,000 mark for 2016.
There are many reasons that force a family to visit a food bank, such as delays in being paid, particularly when someone is in insecure work and does irregular hours or is on a zero-hours contract, which we sadly see only too frequently in the current working environment. According to the latest ONS figures for April to June 2016, the number of people employed on zero-hours contracts in their main job was more than 900,000—nearly 1 million people, or nearly 3% of all people in employment. That figure was 156,000 higher than for the same period in 2015.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s 2016 study of poverty and exclusion found that 46% of residents in poverty in the north-west belonged to households containing at least one person in work. The Government repeat as a mantra that work is the best route out of poverty. Yes, work should be a route out of poverty, but for many families it leaves them struggling to cope with basic bills. We have heard plenty of examples this afternoon to back that up. Will the Government take urgent action to ensure that work pays, by reversing the cuts to work allowances under universal credit, which was first rolled out in the north-west?
Some 31% of families in the north-west are private renters, and the reduction in the household benefit cap outside London to £20,000 from November last year means that for the first time, the cap is having a real impact outside London. In 2014, 12% of families on Merseyside were in fuel poverty, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree spoke about with real passion. With inflation expected to rise over the coming year, the number of families who are in poverty despite being in work looks likely to rise even further.
Delays in receiving universal credit or other forms of social security are causing many people real hardship. The Trussell Trust has stated that 44% of all referrals in 2016 were due to changes and delays in social security payments. Of course, that has been reflected in the testimonies of several Members this afternoon about the cases they see coming to their surgeries on a weekly basis. The 2014 independent review by Matthew Oakley of sanctions for JSA claimants on the Work programme recommended that the DWP should pilot the use of warnings and non-financial sanctions, as did the Work and Pensions Committee in 2015.
The last available DWP figures for sanctions, for 2014-15 to 2015-16, show a fall, but their use in particular areas such as Bootle and Liverpool, Riverside remains consistently higher than in other areas. I know those areas well, because I taught in Bootle and in Liverpool, Riverside, and had first-hand experience of the kind of hardship that people have to deal with. I understand that the DWP has not yet carried out a pilot of using warnings in place of sanctions for first sanctionable offences in England or Wales. Will the Government commit to extending the pilot to other areas outside Scotland?
It recently became clear how the delay of at least six weeks at the start of a claim for universal credit is leading to people falling into rent arrears or being forced to look to food banks for help. What will the Minister do to address that? Does he consider it right that families should be forced to turn to food banks for help or fall into rent arrears due to the basic design of the Government’s flagship social security policy, designed to lift people out of poverty?
I recently went to a cross-party event on the issue of poverty. There was a girl called Kelly there who spoke of what it felt like when her mum was not able to pay the rent and they had to move into a hostel. That little girl did not want to let people know how ashamed she felt and how upset she was, so she used to pinch herself to stop herself crying. That should not be happening in a country as rich as ours.
The first pledge the Prime Minister made was that she would lead a Government driven by the interests of families struggling to manage, not the interests of the “privileged few”. She referred to the
“burning injustice that if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others.”
Within the Liverpool city region, the difference in life expectancy is as much as 12 years for men and 14 for women, as several colleagues mentioned. Life expectancy is highest for men in parts of Childwall, at 83 years, and for women in Ainsdale, at 90. It is lowest for both sexes in Bootle, at 71 for men and 76 for women. Both Ainsdale and Childwall are a 20 to 30-minute drive away from Bootle, but the difference in people’s life chances is stark.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey remarked, at the other end of the age scale, the figures for child poverty are also sobering. Some 29% of children in the UK as a whole live in households on relative low income after housing costs—in other words, they live in poverty. The figure for Knowsley is 30% and for Liverpool it is nearly 34%. In the Picton and Princes Park wards of Liverpool, over 50% of children are growing up in poverty after the housing costs of their families are taken into account.
The Government have abandoned targets set in the Child Poverty Act 2010 to reduce child poverty based on household income. Are they still seriously committed to tackling child poverty? It is a concern when the goalposts are moved in such a manner. Perhaps the Government just do not want to see the figures for what they are.
In my own constituency of Wirral West, there is a great deal of hidden poverty, despite some areas being among the most affluent. For example, volunteers at the community shop in Royden Road, Upton, provide food parcels to families from right across Wirral, and they talk of things such as people being on statutory sick pay and not having enough money to make ends meet. Wirral Free Uniform for Secondary School distributes recycled school uniforms free of charge. It told me of one woman who had walked all the way from Birkenhead to Hoylake to pick up a uniform for her child. That is a distance of more than 8 miles, but she walked it because she did not have enough money to pay for a bus.
The Liverpool city region contains areas of deeply entrenched poverty, and the policies pursued by the coalition and the current Government have hit communities on Merseyside hard. Two of the early pioneers in identifying and combating poverty, Charles Booth and Eleanor Rathbone, were born in Liverpool. Eleanor Rathbone fought for the introduction of family allowances—the forerunner of child benefit—in the inter-war period. Charles Booth produced groundbreaking maps of London, based on poverty, to identify the areas of most need. I think that both would be really shocked and greatly disappointed to find that families in work, in the city of their birth, in the 21st century are still forced to turn to food banks for help. It is time the Government took action to alleviate the suffering of those experiencing poverty, not just in Liverpool but across the whole of the UK.
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing a debate on this most important issue, and congratulate everyone who has contributed to it. These are very serious matters. They are not new, I am sad to say. There have been income disparities and health inequalities in our country for a very long time. The alleviation of poverty and the spreading of opportunity are key aims that have brought hon. Members on both sides of the House into this line of work and into public policy. We may have different approaches to some of the issues, but they are no less important to Members, whichever political party they represent.
I particularly want to join the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton, for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) in commending the great work of the voluntary sector in this area. Again, that is not new. Over many decades—centuries, in the case of some organisations—great support has been given to the neediest people in our communities.
I want to set out, in the time that I have, some of what the Government are doing or seeking to do to make further progress, what has already been achieved and what more we believe can be. As a number of hon. Members said, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are committed to building a country that works for everyone, not just a privileged few. That includes building strong economies in every part of the country, ensuring that everyone can benefit from our strong record on the economy.
There is clear evidence that the best route out of poverty is through work. We know that because working-age adults in non-working families are almost four times more likely to be on a low income. According to the “Child poverty transitions” report published in June 2015, 74% of poor children in workless families who moved into full employment exited poverty. I would therefore like to draw hon. Members’ attention to our record on employment and set out what we are doing to help to get even more people into work.
The latest employment figures, as you will know, Mr Howarth, show that the employment rate is at the record high of 74.6%. The number of people in employment is also at a record high—31.84 million. Those trends are being seen broadly across our country. Since 2010, more than 60% of the rise in private sector employment has taken place outside London and the south-east. The employment rate for the Liverpool city region, at 67.7%, is 2.7 percentage points up on 2010. The unemployment rate in the region is now 5.4%, down from 10.4% in 2010.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton suggested that there were particular issues, with people being able to find only part-time work. Of course I acknowledge that there are people working part time who would prefer to be working full time. I am pleased that that number has come down and that less than 14% of part-time workers are now in that position and would prefer to be working more hours. In the last year, more than 70% of the growth in employment has been in full-time work.
Pay is also up, by 6.2% on the year. The people right at the bottom of the income scale—the bottom 5%—have just seen, according to the latest annual figures, the highest rise in their average income since that data series began, in 1997. Income inequality is down.
Our welfare reforms are at the heart of our approach to increasing employment.
Maria Eagle
Given the rosy picture that the Minister is painting of employment and opportunity, can he explain why the number of people having to resort to food banks in my constituency is going up?
Damian Hinds
I do not seek to put any tint or rosiness on the situation. I was merely going through the facts, both at national level and at the level of the Liverpool city region. It is the case that more people are in work and we are now seeing incomes rising. Of course there is more to do; I never dispute that. My colleagues in jobcentres are working night and day on exactly that, and of course the overall stewardship of the economy remains central to people’s prospects.
We are delivering a modern and effective welfare system that ensures that work, and progressing in work, will always pay. Alongside that, we are taking action against child poverty and disadvantage, addressing the complex barriers that face some families and hold them back. Of course, we continue to protect and support those for whom work is not and cannot be an option. We have had to make difficult decisions on welfare spending, but we have never lost sight of that mission. Universal credit lies at the heart of it, transforming the welfare system to ensure that it always pays to work and to progress. That is in contrast to the pre-2010 system, under which in-work poverty increased by 20% between 1998 and 2010, despite, as is well known and as was discussed, welfare spending on those in work increasing by £28 billion.
We are building a fairer system that will mirror the world of work, we are eradicating the complexities and disincentives of the old system, and it is working. There are 828,000 fewer workless families now than in 2010, putting the workless household rate at its lowest since records began. Unemployment is down 894,000 since 2010 as the economy has grown. The employment rate, as I mentioned, is at a record high. In the last year, we have seen nearly 300,000 more people with disabilities, over 200,000 more women and over 150,000 more people from ethnic minority communities moving into work. Almost 1 million households have made a claim for universal credit, and there are nearly half a million current claimants. We began rolling out the full universal credit service on Merseyside in July and will have completed the full service roll-out to all Jobcentre Plus offices on Merseyside by September 2017.
Maria Eagle
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous. Given that he is still painting a rosy picture and that the number of people who are hungry and having to resort to food banks and food assistance in my constituency is going up, will he undertake now to go back and persuade the Government to start collecting statistics about food bank use and why people use food banks, so that we can get a better picture, using official statistics, of what is causing that increasing and distressing problem?
Damian Hinds
The reasons that people use food banks are complex and overlapping, as the hon. Lady knows. Assistance provided by voluntary sector organisations can take a number of different forms. She will know that the Trussell Trust, an umbrella group for food banks, does in fact produce statistics on a regular basis.
Once universal credit is fully rolled out, we estimate that it will generate around £7 billion in economic benefit every year and boost employment by up to 300,000. We believe that making work pay and opening up opportunity for people to realise their potential are central to building an economy that works for all. By reducing the universal credit taper rate to 63%, we will further improve the incentive to progress in work, helping up to 3 million households to earn their way out of requiring welfare support.
Jobcentres across the city region were mentioned. Our jobcentres have an absolutely key role to play in supporting people out of poverty across the country, and I am proud of what our staff—our work coaches and others—do. Day in, day out, they help people to access both the financial and practical support they need to move into employment. As society has changed, so have our jobcentres; the offer in a jobcentre today is unrecognisable compared with what people would have seen in the 1970s. Reforms such as universal credit are revolutionising the relationship between our clients—our claimants—and work coaches, ensuring that the support we offer is more personalised and better suited to their needs. That includes enabling claimants to access our services in different ways that suit them.
It is right that the future of the estate reflects not only those fundamental changes, but the record levels in employment across the country, while always allowing a margin of flexibility for potentially unforeseen circumstances. In 2006, DWP employed 113,000 staff. Today that figure is 79,000, but on the same estate—because we have been locked into a 20-year private finance initiative contract that was signed in 1998. That means money is being spent on space that is not being fully utilised. That contract comes to its end, after 20 years, at the end of March 2018, which is an opportunity to review which offices we need in the future across the country, saving the taxpayer money while ensuring our customers are able to access the support they need.
Margaret Greenwood
On PFI contracts, and personal to my constituency, could the Minister look at the Hoylake jobcentre? I understand that there is a different arrangement there. This is not just about the ending of a PFI contract; I think there is something else going on here. Could he give us a picture as to what percentage of the jobcentres are about PFI and what are about something else?
Damian Hinds
I am happy to, although I also want to make sure I respond to points raised by colleagues. It is the fact of the end of the PFI contract, which covers most of the estate, that gives the opportunity and indeed creates the imperative to review the entire estate because we see the estate all as one. The Telereal Trillium contract does cover most buildings, but of course there is a knock-on effect both ways through buildings that are not covered by that contract.
In Liverpool, we currently use just 66% of the space that we are paying rent for. Even if we go ahead with the changes we propose, Liverpool will still have one of the highest concentrations of jobcentres relative to other conurbations. When considering this question, our overriding priority has been the future service that we will offer our claimants. In every case in Liverpool, as elsewhere, we have sought to minimise disruption, moving existing jobcentres into nearby sites and co-locating with other services wherever possible.
Luciana Berger
Does the Minister not accept the point I made about Liverpool being disproportionately hit compared with any other city in England, with 40% of our jobcentres now earmarked for closure according to his plan? A not insignificant number of people are affected. In my constituency alone, 3,000 people will have to go to a new centre at least every two weeks. Thousands more have to access those two jobcentres. At least 3,000 people will have to do that. On that basis, does he accept that there is a disproportionate impact on the people of Liverpool? People not only in my constituency, but in others will be affected, as Members have said in this debate.
Damian Hinds
There are, of course, public consultations being run for both Edge Hill and Wavertree. As I was saying, even with the effect of these changes, there will still be a significant concentration of jobcentres in Liverpool compared with other major cities.
Frank Field
Given that I sprung my questions on the Minister, might he write to us so that he does not have to turn so many pages over?
Damian Hinds
I will be delighted to write to the right hon. Gentleman.
Looking at our benefit reforms alone fails to appreciate the wider work on support for those on low incomes. I mentioned the increases that we have recently seen in pay. I do not have time to list all the other advances, but they include the national living wage, the changes in the personal tax allowance and the triple lock on pensions—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton brought up the link with pensions, but it was in 2010 that the triple lock came in. We have frozen fuel duty, helped to keep mortgage rates low and are cutting stamp duty—all of those are things to help people with their incomes.
Like many other areas, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Liverpool is benefiting from radical devolution. The city region devolution deal involves £900 million going to the city region, and that is just part of the picture. The regional growth deals involve £333 million from the local growth fund from 2015-21, bringing forward at least £249 million of additional investment from local partners and the private sector. We do think that devolution has an important role to play in helping to promote and push forward economic prosperity.
Since 2010, we have seen income inequality and the proportion of people on relative low-incomes falling to nearly their lowest levels since the 1980s. Official statistics show that, in Liverpool, the rate of relative low-income has fallen since 2010, and there has been a similar reduction nationally.
I want to turn quickly to some of the points raised in the debate. The rate of sanctions in Liverpool is down by 50% in the year to 2016. We are looking at the results from the Scottish pilot that the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) referred to. We have taken on the recommendations of the Oakley review and, indeed, a number of recommendations from the Work and Pensions Committee. Debt was mentioned a number of times. I am proud of this Government’s commitment to the credit union sector, the action that has been taken on payday loans, the introduction of the help to save programme and that budgeting support is at the heart of universal credit.
The hon. Gentleman asked, “Why not more devolution?” He talked about schools. I would argue that free schools and the academies programme are the ultimate in devolution, giving power and accountability right down to individual schools. In terms of all these matters, we are always open to further proposals. The Government will of course be keen to work with whoever is elected as Mayor of Liverpool on employability and other things. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about work in community locations. Edge Hill jobcentre—somewhere I visited recently—does exactly that, for example in its programme with refugees. Mr Howarth, I am out of time and I know that the hon. Gentleman would like to speak.
Steve Rotheram
I could simply use the time allocated—just over a minute—to enter into a stats war with the Minister. There are certainly more people on zero-hours contracts, more in insecure work and more working families in poverty. However, I will use the time to concentrate on some of the questions I asked. Obviously, there are different methodologies by which we collate statistics, but as local MPs we see the result of Government policies on a daily basis—we do not need stats to prove that.
We have a particular problem with the five constituencies in our city region being in the top 20 for child poverty, but this debate was about poverty in its widest context: poverty of opportunity, poverty of aspiration, poverty of esteem, fuel poverty, rent poverty, child poverty and older people poverty. I started by saying that it is about fairness—that is all we want. I have made a number of innovative suggestions to tackle some of those issues and I am happy to have further discussions with the Minister on health inequalities, decent homes, energy problems, rough sleeping, the apprenticeship levy, the work and health programme, school collaboration and jobcentres.
Just as a last comment, the Minister talked about there being £900 million for the Liverpool city region. I will be 85 years of age by the time we draw down our last instalment—I will be happy to meet the Minister to celebrate that.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Emily’s Code: Pleasure Vessel Safety
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Emily’s Code and safety on pleasure vessels.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and to debate Emily’s code. Today’s debate is the story of a personal and family tragedy and of how to turn something that knots together an extended family, school and other friends, and a community—a whole small world—into something positive that can reach a much wider world. It is about how the image of a young girl can make all recreational boating more responsible and maybe, just maybe, help to save lives.
This debate is particularly poignant given that Emily’s parents Clive and Debbie Gardner, her sister, Katie, her brother, Todd, and her grandparents are all in the Chamber with us today. The family scars are still raw, and emotions are never far from the surface. I hope you would agree, Mrs Main, that the sympathy of the whole House is with the Gardner family. Colleagues will be struck by the family’s determination—like that of other Gloucester families, such as the Gazzards, the Powells and the Evanses, who have recently been through the agony of a child’s death and then inquiries or even trials—that this will not overcome them and that they can do something both to honour the memory of a much-loved child and to make a difference.
Let me first explain what happened on Saturday 2 May 2015 and then what the family and the world of boating, with my support throughout, are doing with Emily’s code. Fourteen-year-old Emily Gardner went to Brixham harbour that day with friends to go out on a boat. The Gardners had been on boating and canoe trips before and Emily was not frightened either of boats or of the water. As the marine accident investigation branch stated in its report that was published in October 2015:
“At approximately 1142…an unnamed Fletcher speedboat with one adult and three teenage children on board capsized after encountering a large wave. Three of the occupants managed to swim clear of the upturned hull but one of the children”—
Emily—
“became trapped. Despite valiant attempts to free her, she was only recovered following attendance of the RNLI2 lifeboat 25 minutes later. Although medical treatment then started immediately, she never recovered consciousness.”
The investigation found that the strap of Emily’s buoyancy aid had become snagged on the speedboat’s cleat, which trapped her underneath it. Other potentially contributing factors to the accident were outlined. First, the speedboat capsized after it hit a large wave at approximately 11.42 am and a new propeller, which had recently been installed, generated more torque, causing the boat to twist to port in opposition to the propeller’s direction of rotation. It then capsized. The thrust of the boat had been exacerbated by the new propeller, by the fact that there was just a small amount of fuel in the engine and by the driver accelerating almost to full speed.
Secondly, despite some 25 years of experience and a water skiing qualification gained several years beforehand, the driver was unable to combat the contributing factors that led to the boat capsizing. Emily’s buoyancy aid was also too big, increasing the risk of it getting caught.
The report noted, thirdly, that it had been
“fortunate the accident was seen by members of the public ashore, who were able to raise the alarm. Had one of the drivers carried a waterproof VHF radio, which is recommended good practice,”
he could have contacted the coastguard directly with the most accurate information available. The report also stated:
“Even if embarking on a short trip, it is better to be fully prepared, as minor emergencies can quickly escalate.”
Fourthly, the speedboat driver had not been wearing the kill cord. Although that had not been needed in this incident, the report highlighted that it showed the need to continue raising awareness of the issue in the speedboat community.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is recounting a clearly tragic case. However, even in the absence of a wave, which appeared to trigger this accident, does he agree that when the sun is out and the waters are calm, there is a tendency for someone on a boat to be lulled into a false sense of security, and that there is therefore a case for making anyone who embarks on a boat go through a thorough process of safety procedures beforehand, rather as people who are on a plane have to? Passengers on a plane are encouraged to read a checklist; does he agree that something similar might help in cases such as this?
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, he brilliantly anticipates exactly what I will say about Emily’s code, and I am grateful to him.
Emily never regained consciousness, and it was determined that she died from drowning. I should mention one other point. The report pointed out that the speedboat was older than the recreational craft directive of 1996, which set out new guidelines for boats that could have helped the boat to float and not to sink by the stern, which was where Emily was trapped. The report concluded:
“Buyers should be cautious and aware of the potential shortcomings of leisure craft constructed before…1996, or those that might have been substantially modified.”
I cannot help wondering how many of us who have been on the sea in a recreational vessel are aware of that small but important difference in boat design, and whether all boat owners know how their boat will float in an extraordinary accident such as this.
Let me come on to the second part of this debate. When Emily’s family had absorbed the accident report, they led a call for something to be done. They started fundraising; they ran a relay from Brixham to Gloucester for Winston’s Wish and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; and they organised Emily’s diamond charity ball in October last year. They have raised an amazing £21,000—it may be more than that now, but that is the latest figure that I have—and they wanted to use those funds in the best possible way.
I met Clive and Debbie in Gloucester and heard their urge to do something to honour their daughter Emily. I then talked to the Royal Yachting Association and the chief executive of Her Majesty’s Coastguard, Sir Alan Massey, who was extremely helpful and sympathetic. After a subsequent meeting between the Gardners and the RYA, Emily’s code began to take shape and will now be launched in two days’ time, on Saturday, with the full support of the RYA at its Suzuki dinghy show. I have copies here of what Emily’s code will look like; they are available for any colleagues who would like them.
The RYA is recognised as the national body for all forms of recreational and competitive boating. It represents all the different elements involved, and it sets and maintains an international standard for recreational and small commercial boat training. Its ethos is one of proficiency and self-sufficiency, learned through its world-class training, and its purpose is to promote and protect safe, successful and rewarding British boating. It issues an annual advisory notice and safety notices throughout the year through the boating press, members’ newsletters and social media, yet inevitably there are some people it has not reached whose safety awareness could be stronger. I hope that the very human appeal behind Emily Gardner and the code named in her honour will help the messages of the code to reach more widely.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech. I hope that there will be something in Emily’s code about kill cords. He might be aware that in the Camel estuary a couple of years ago, there was a tragic incident when a kill cord was not used. I wonder whether there is any mention of kill cords in the code—for example, the mandatory use of them by people on the water.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I know that he has experience in his constituency of a death that received a lot of publicity at the time. It was a sad incident indeed, which I know he cared very much about. He is right, and I will come on to kill cords.
I hope that the very human appeal of Emily’s code will help its message to reach a wider audience. In this House, as hon. Members know, publicity can be a double-edged sword, but in this case I would be grateful if every newspaper, online forum and TV and radio station gave Emily’s code maximum coverage. I say to all members of the media that they, too, can help to make a difference.
The key, so far and in the future, is a spirit of partnership, bringing together designers, experts and parents, who know the real impact that safety notices have when they are put into practice well. The code has the support of all the major players—the coastguard, British Water Ski and Wakeboard, and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.
What is the code? Let me go through it in some detail. Each element of it contains a letter that spells “Emily’s code”. The first is:
“Wear a suitable lifejacket or buoyancy aid”.
The lifejacket should be a comfortably snug fit and should be fastened fully—are the straps tightened up, or is there too much room underneath? The second is “Service equipment”—is there fuel, and is the engine working? The third is “Get trained”—have I had any training courses? The RYA offers courses that can save lives. The fourth is “Make a plan”—where do I plan to go? Will I be inland, onshore or offshore? What will I do if the worst happens? Have I planned my passage? The fifth is “Know your limits”—have I ever been out on the sea before? What is a safe speed?
The sixth element is “Carry distress signals”—it is fine not to have those until suddenly it is not, and no one knows when that will be. Understanding the benefits of marine VHF—very high frequency—radios, and how to use them, is critical. The seventh is “Use the kill cord”—as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) mentioned, it should always, without fail, be attached both to the ignition and to the person’s body before they operate the engine. The eighth is “Know your boat”—there may have been upgrades to it recently. Do I know what they are and what the impact of them could be? Do I know whether it was made before ’96 and is therefore not built to the standard of the recreational craft directive? The ninth is “Have a radio”, which is so simple to do.
Last, but by no means least, is “Check the weather”, which is a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) made. People should check it the day before, again in the morning and again when they go out. We know how changeable weather can be. Most of us now have weather apps on our phones, and a simple tap can tell us what to expect. Thinking about the weather is crucial to the safety of a boating expedition.
The purpose of this debate is to highlight what happened to my constituents and what they have done to try to prevent it from happening again, but it also shows how Government agencies, the voluntary sector, a family and their MP can work together to try to make something good out of something ghastly. I am very grateful to all involved.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister cares deeply about young people and their opportunities; all the work he did on apprenticeships shows that clearly. I hope that he agrees that the cause of preventing fun days on the sea from turning into nightmares is a very good one, and that he will agree to support Emily’s code and the message that it sends about boating safety. We have to recognise that a voluntary code like this is only as good as its take-up, its publicity and its ability to make us all think more carefully.
Will the Minister also agree to look at the recreational craft directive, which is an EU directive? Will he see whether we can ensure that it is carried over into UK law and that if it is ever abolished, it is replaced by an equivalent UK minimum technical and safety standard for boats sold here, including requirements for stability, freeboard, buoyancy and flotation? In this case, the boat sunk by the stern, but the RCD harmonised standards for speedboats like this one made after 1996 direct that they should float horizontally when swamped—that sounds technical, but it is crucial. The directive has clearly improved boat user safety; we do not want to move backwards when EU laws are converted into British law.
Finally, let me address what Emily’s code is about and what it is not about. The code may have lessons for different activities that are equally fun, but that need careful supervision—not in order to stop, prevent or restrict them, but to make sure that risk management is a natural part of having fun. People setting off up mountains on beautiful days need a map, a compass, a mobile with battery, emergency rations, water and a waterproof, just as much as if they were going out on the sea.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I very much commend the hon. Gentleman and his constituents for the efforts that they have made. Looking beyond the leisure boating sector, does he agree that there is also an opportunity for lessons about planning, training and servicing equipment to be learned in the commercial sector? Fifty-four commercial fishermen were killed at sea between 2010 and 2014. Does not that show that the same lessons have a wider application?
Richard Graham
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I did not know that figure; it is surprising and shocking. All these tragedies, whether in Cornwall, Scotland or Devon, have implications for how we improve things.
The important thing is not to prevent people from having fun, but to make that fun more risk-aware. Emily’s code is for boating in the sea, but I wonder in whose honour other codes may be needed on the land one day, because we are always learning lessons from accidents.
I hope that this debate in honour of Emily Gardner and her family will be the warm-up act for the launch of Emily’s code on Saturday. It recognises all the help from the organisations that I listed and the input from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), whose constituency includes Brixham harbour. It salutes the determination of Debbie and Clive Gardner and the whole family, who have stuck together through this, as well as the generosity of those who have raised funds for them, with runs at Wall’s Club, bike rides, Debbie’s own runs and much more besides, to create this enduring legacy of love for a girl and awareness for everybody in the boating world.
After the launch on Saturday, emilyscode.org will also launch. I encourage everyone to look at the materials on offer, to get in touch with Clive and Debbie and ask them to come and speak in their constituency about safety, and to make sure that the next time a child goes out on a boat, they check their lifejacket, check the weather and check everything. Next time anyone goes out to sea in a boat, please will they stop and think first about Emily’s code?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
It is a pleasure to respond to this short debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing it and bringing these matters to the House’s attention.
I have been a Member of Parliament for 20 years, a Front-Bench spokesman for my party for 18 years and a Minister since 2010. Over that time, I have spoken in Parliament hundreds of times, sometimes about significant things, often about insignificant things and usually, I hope, with good humour, but I have rarely spoken on an occasion that combines solemnity and importance as much as this one. This is a sad occasion, but a hopeful one too.
It is important that I emphasise how valuable this debate is. It provides the opportunity for me not only to join my hon. Friend in offering personal condolences, and those of Her Majesty’s Government, to Emily’s family and friends—I note that her parents, Clive and Debbie, her sister Katie, her brother Todd and her grandparents are here today; I welcome them and offer those condolences to them—but to join him in my admiration for their campaign, their effort, their spirit and the difference that they are making.
I do not understand death—I barely understand life, actually—but what I do know is that each life has a purpose. That purpose is not entirely a matter of the span of a life; it is really about the fact that, throughout the time we spend here, each of us touches and affects many other people. Through the development of this work and this code, little Emily, who died in this tragedy, is not only touching the lives of those who were close to her, but the lives of hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of others. Her impact will be much greater than the span of her short life. It will change all those lives for the better. It is therefore a real pleasure for me not only to welcome, but to endorse Emily’s code. It will be a lasting legacy and memorial to the daughter who was so loved and to the sister and the granddaughter who is so missed by the family, who are here today.
We in politics are in this business because we want to make a difference. That is why we are what we are and why we do what we do. We try to make a difference for good, don’t we, but other people can make as much of a difference—perhaps more of a difference—than most of us do, however long we spend here and however much we succeed. What I am so impressed by is the seriousness and care that has been taken in the development of this code.
It is true, as John Masefield said in his poem, “Sea Fever”, that
“the call of the running tide”
is a feature of our lives and these islands. It has been for all the time that men and women have lived here. We cherish our seagoing heritage and all that it means. It can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, bring immense joy, excitement and thrills, but it also brings risk and danger, and that is precisely why it is important that we establish good practice and underpin it with regulation in the way that he suggested. An important principle at the heart of what he said today and what the code embodies is that learning through education and the establishment of what he described in his short speech as a set of rather simple, rather straightforward principles can make such a difference in guaranteeing the wellbeing of those who are called down to the running tide.
I have a long and detailed speech prepared for me by my excellent officials, but I will not give it, because I do not feel I should give it. Instead, I want to respond to this debate as a father of two young sons. I feel this, like everyone listening to this debate will, in that spirit. I looked at the code, and thought, “This is exactly as good as it could be. It is just perfect, isn’t it?” The code is in line with RNLI practice and has its support. The code is very much in the spirit of our wonderful Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which does such valuable work in providing the assurance of safety that I mentioned a moment or two ago. I met the MCA just today to discuss the code and this debate.
The code is in tune and chimes with the work we do through our regular inspections and through the intelligence provided about ships, the weather, our coast and the dangers that those circumstances can bring. More than that, through its straightforwardness, persuasiveness and its relationship with Emily, it will make an immense difference in changing people’s perceptions of the joy and the risks associated with the sea.
The code is, as I have said, straightforward. It states:
“Wear a suitable lifejacket or buoyancy aid
Service equipment
Get trained
Make a plan
Know your limits
Carry distress signals
Use the kill cord”—
that is a way of turning off the engine in a boat—
“Know your boat
Have a radio
Check the weather”.
Those may sound like rather routine things, but my goodness, if the code is applied with rigour and enthusiasm and people know how much it matters, it will make an immense difference. So many accidents and tragedies are associated with one or more of those straightforward, but timeless principles.
It is a delight to speak in this debate, but it is also a responsibility. It is critical that education, training and voluntary initiatives associated with the leisure sector emerge from the work that has been done by Emily’s family. With the guiding hand of the Royal Yachting Association, the pleasure boats sector has aspired to and achieved very good safety standards, and we need to say that Emily’s loss was an exception. It is not the rule; our seas are safe and they are well policed. All the agencies I have described do sterling work to ensure that that continues to be the case.
Having said all that—I have also been in contact with the RYA, and I know that its training is of the highest standards—it is still important that we know there will be those who, for one reason or another, get involved in boats and do not take for granted those straightforward, resonant messages. There will be those who will not necessarily know the sea as well as they might. There will be those who are therefore at risk. The Government’s commitment is such that not only do I give an assurance that we will do all that is necessary to make the code as widely established and as well-known as it can be, but we will formally launch the code at the Royal Yachting Association’s dinghy show at Alexandra Palace and we are sending a senior coastguard commander to do so. We will continue to promote the national drowning prevention strategy, which aims to halve the 400 or so accidental drownings in all forms of water by 2026. Even where accident levels are thankfully low, we must do more. It is our purpose, but more still, it is our mission.
I started by paying tribute to Emily’s family, and I do so again. The difference they are making is profound and appreciated. As I have said, the code will change many, many lives for the better. Marcel Proust said:
“Happiness is beneficial for the body, but it is grief that develops the powers of the mind.”
That is not an easy lesson to learn. When one is obliged to learn it by circumstance and then turn the power of the mind to a noble purpose, it deserves to be recognised in the way that my hon. Friend has allowed us to do today. I thank him for that and once again offer the thanks of the whole House of Commons and the Government to Emily’s family for the difference they are making.
Question put and agreed to.
Fathers in the Family
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Before I call Neil Gray to move the motion, I point out that eight hon. Members have put their names down to speak in this debate. We also have the wind-ups, which will start at 10 past five. Depending on how long Mr Gray chooses to speak—it is his debate—there will be a time limit on speeches. If people are here to make interventions, I ask that they are kept brief and that Members are mindful of colleagues who may wish to speak later in the debate. I call Neil Gray to move the motion.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of fathers in the family unit.
I am delighted to be leading this debate with you in the Chair, Mrs Main.
One of my proudest moments, not only as a father, but as a parliamentarian, was taking my young daughter and son through the voting Lobby with me on Friday to see the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) pass its final stages in the Commons. I hope that by ratifying the Istanbul convention on gender-based violence we are taking another step to eradicate domestic violence and violence against women and girls.
It is thanks to Nick Thorpe of Fathers Network Scotland and Frank Young from the Centre for Social Justice that I applied for this debate. I was involved in a very small way in helping to promote Scotland’s Year of the Dad in 2016, but at a relatively recent meeting with Nick, I agreed to do what I could to help promote reflection on last year and to encourage something similar elsewhere in the UK.
Dad, father, stand-in dad, daddy, step-dad, foster father, adoptive dad, daddies who have to be mummies too—there are so many ways to describe the male role in the family, but its meaning is slowly starting to change. In 2016, Scotland celebrated the Year of the Dad to help promote the contribution fathers or those in a fatherly role make to child development, families and society, and to provide greater understanding of the benefits reaped from organisations acknowledging the family roles of men.
The Year of the Dad was established by Fathers Network Scotland and supported by the Scottish Government because we are at a tipping point in our cultural evolution. The project’s review paper states:
“The old stereotypes of dad as breadwinner and mum as carer no longer serve us in an age of increasing diversity and gender equality at home, work and throughout society.”
Some 95 events reached nearly 15,000 people, more than half a million people were reached through media coverage, and there were tens of thousands of visits to the website, where more than 40 resource documents for families, services and employers were available. Some 5,800 individuals and 1,300 organisations signed up to the campaign in 2016, highlighting the positive message about fatherhood and the importance of dads in child development and parenting.
It should be obvious that recognising the role fathers play or should play does not in any way diminish the role mothers play—quite the opposite. I am clear, and the research shows, that society as a whole benefits from the positive involvement of fathers. As I see it, the increased wellbeing, confidence and educational attainment of children is the biggest benefit. So getting it right for fathers is about getting it right for every child.
The Scottish Government were clear that supporting the Year of the Dad was a central part of their gender equality policy. Male parental leave is key to narrowing the pay gap that disgracefully still exists for women. Clearly, it is all about having choices and giving parents the ability to choose what is best for them, but from a public policy perspective, we need to change societal norms to give parents a better opportunity to choose what is right for them. The current vicious circle of expensive childcare, low pay and societal pressures on women and men keeps many women in the primary caregiver role instead of allowing them to return to the workplace if that is what they want to do.
Last week, after patiently waiting almost a year for the UK Government to respond to its recommendations on tackling the gender pay gap, the Women and Equalities Committee set out its three priorities for the Government, including a more effective policy on shared parental leave. Unless the UK Government recognise the value of men and women sharing care responsibilities equally, and encourage men to take parental leave, we will not see any changes to current behaviour. Recent research from PwC found that, on current trends, it would take another 24 years to close the gender pay gap between men and women, which is clearly unacceptable.
If a woman faces discrimination when she returns to the workplace after having a child, such as not receiving a promotion in line with her male counterparts or being dismissed for requesting flexible working hours, that does not incentivise men to do more at home to care for their children. Of course, some men do not need incentives—they want to be at home more—but workplace norms make that request awkward to make. Why should a man be at home when his wife could be there? Research from Plymouth University from earlier this year stated that dads face a “fatherhood forfeit” when applying for part-time employment in the workplace—dads who want to work reduced hours or on a flexible basis are perceived as suspicious or deviant and questions are raised about their commitment.
The SNP Scottish Government are working hard to promote and reward flexible working and childcare in Scotland, using our devolved powers. They have supported the “Happy to talk flexible working” job advert strapline, which I added to my own recent job adverts. Working in partnership with Family Friendly Working Scotland, they have supported the top employers for working families awards. This year’s award ceremony is taking place next week, and I look forward to attending.
The Scottish Government are also committed to almost doubling free early learning and childcare to 1,140 hours a year by 2020. The UK Government need to ensure that advice and support is available to fathers so that they are aware of their rights to paternity and parental leave.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. I wonder whether he has seen the helpful Barnardo’s briefing, which points out that without appropriate support, young and vulnerable fathers in particular can end up feeling isolated and marginalised by services and agencies. It goes on to recommend that local authorities should have an identified lead professional responsible for co-ordinating work.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I ask that interventions are brief, otherwise I shall overrule them.
Neil Gray
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is sage advice from Barnardo’s, as is normally the case from that organisation.
Shared parental leave was introduced by the last UK Government, but there was a widespread admission, including from its architect Jo Swinson, that the current policy does not go far enough. We need to ensure that employers are supported in offering all employees the opportunity to take a period of leave to care for their child, so that the responsibility does not fall de facto on women’s shoulders. We need an effective shared parental leave policy that will help men at home and also women at work. It would also help the economy, because a 2014 Centre for Economics and Business Research study suggests that a “work from anywhere” culture would add an extra £11.5 billion a year to the UK economy.
Some mums want to stay at home for as long as possible and would not choose to share parental leave with their partner—I can perfectly understand that—but we are failing to help the mums who want to return to work and the dads who want to spend more time at home. In a similar vein, employees now have a right to request flexible working, but there is no definition of what that means, nor any compulsion on employers to do anything other than just consider it. As a society we are starting, rightly, to move away from the definition of fathers as the breadwinning disciplinarians, but we have not yet caught up in the workplace. The shift in fathers’ desire to be more involved at home does not match the predicted uptake of parental leave by men of between 2% and 8%. There is still a reticence among men to ask to be at home more and a market expectation on them to continue in the traditional role as working breadwinners.
The only way to shift societal norms is to support or incentivise behaviour through policy, but employment law is currently decided here at Westminster. The UK Government must acknowledge the reality that gender-based discrimination against both men and women is not only hugely detrimental to individuals and our society but is harming our continued economic growth.
There was no prouder or more important moment of my life than when I became a father—on either occasion, in case my daughter or son look back on this and suggest any favouritism—but fatherhood and parenthood is clearly not a single event; it is a lifelong adventure and responsibility. My experiences as a dad are already different from my father’s, as society moves on. The Year of the Dad highlighted why being a dad is so important. I have raised this issue today to suggest to the UK Government that they need to do more to help in that regard. We need to support the changing societal ideas about what being a dad is about and support employers so that dads can live up to the new expectations and aspirations of fathers. I make an offer to the Minister today to help constructively to ensure that the UK Government’s employment law is directed towards supporting all mums and dads to be able make the choices that are right for them and their children.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must tell hon. Members that we are operating on a four-minute time limit.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am pleased to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). I, too, am a father—I have two little daughters, one who is barely a month old and one who is two. I agree that fatherhood is a lifelong commitment. Fathers are part of the family unit and mothers matter too, so we should consider the role that fathers and mothers play together as families.
Families sometimes need help, and I believe the Government have a role in ensuring that families get the help they need when they need it most, which is why I am concerned that the tax burden on families is much higher in the UK than it is elsewhere in the world. At the OECD average wage for the UK of £36,017, the tax burden is 20% greater than the OECD average for single parents with two children and 26% greater for one-earner married couples with two children. That unfavourable position for single-parent or single-earner households mainly results from the fact that UK income tax does not sufficiently take account of marriage or family responsibility, which puts a burden on both fathers and mothers. We need to be mindful of that.
Let me put that in context. The UK has low taxes overall. In contrast with the position of single-earner families, single people without family responsibilities pay 8% less than the OECD average, 21% less than the EU15 average and 19% less than the EU21 average. I believe that the Government should consider the support they can provide families through the tax system. They should recognise that although for plenty of families, including many in my constituency, it is totally the norm for both spouses to work, there are also many families for whom it is not, whether because one spouse cannot work or because they want to be at home. I do not think the Government should tell families what they must do. They should not tell families that both parents have to go to work and that childcare will be provided for them. It should be for families to decide those things. It should be for mothers and fathers to make those decisions for their children.
In that vein, the Government should be more neutral on these matters. They should say, “Yes, great—we are going to do more to provide childcare for those who want it.” They have a great agenda on that, but they should also ensure that people who want to look after their own children are not forgotten.
Each year, £1 trillion-worth of unpaid work is done in this country. That phenomenal amount of work goes on under the radar and is uncaptured by most statistics. It is important that we do not allow people up and down this land to be forgotten. There is good that the Government can do, and they can do it for married-couple families too.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on securing this important debate. I want to make a brief contribution as the chair of the all-party group on fatherhood. I welcome the work of the Women and Equalities Committee, which looked at this important issue in solidarity with all fathers across the country.
This is a cross-party issue that really ought to command the attention of all political parties, but unfortunately the political class in this country is behind the general public. All political parties are sometimes hijacked by other agendas. In my party, the attention on rights—particularly on women’s and children’s rights, although they are important and I stand by them—has sometimes drowned out the ability to talk about fatherhood. I also think that my political tradition’s emphasis on the state and state support, particularly for poorer families and poorer fathers, has meant that we have sometimes tended to think that the state should do everything, and we have found it hard to talk about children and the role of fathers. For colleagues on the right of the political spectrum, sometimes, just sometimes, the emphasis solely on marriage and the way the state and tax breaks can be used to deal with marriage has made it difficult to talk about other sorts of arrangements in our country, and specifically about fathers. Sometimes the language can slip into talking about feckless fathers.
Perhaps those are the reasons why we stand so far behind many of our continental European brothers and sisters in other countries, who are much further forward on this agenda. It is deeply worrying that the figures for parental leave are so low for fathers, and that we do not recognise, as the public do, that couples make these decisions every day of the week. If we give them a year or so off to care for their children, they will decide between them who is going to do what bit.
We know that fathers want to spend time with their children. They want to be engaged right from the get-go. How can we as a state facilitate that? I was worried when I was mooting changes to child benefits, because there is a very strong group that believes that we cannot give dad the child benefit or put it in his name because he is going to run off down the pub with the money. That seems a very old-fashioned view, and is not my experience of the fathers I meet up and down the country.
I am very worried about how we support young fathers. We cannot deal with teenage pregnancy unless we support young fathers and think about their housing and how they are going to be connected to their children. We need to think about the fact that our public services really do not respond to young fathers, particularly those from a working-class background, whether white or black. Some children’s centres have not even got a male toilet—such is their low expectation of those fathers. There is much to do, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts on securing this important debate.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on securing this important debate.
As far as I am concerned, being a dad is the best thing in the world. It is the most important job I will ever do. I often say to people that, even if our nation were unfortunate enough to have me as its Prime Minister, I would still consider being dad to my boys to be far more important than that role.
Sadly, there is a growing crisis of absent fathers in our country. It is a sad fact that 3 million children in the UK live in lone-parent families, 86% of which are headed by the child’s mother. When we talk about family breakdown, more often than not we are actually talking about dad leaving the family home. There are 1 million children in our country today who have no meaningful contact with their father at all, and a 15-year-old boy today is far more likely to have a smartphone than a father at home. That surely must be a wake-up call for our country. Fatherhood should be seen as a social justice priority. Unless we tackle the issue of absent fathers and provide more support for fathers to be better dads, we will not effectively address the issues of social justice and social mobility in our nation.
Children from low-income households who have an active father figure at home are 25% more likely to escape the relative poverty they are growing up in. At the most extreme, 76% of all male prisoners come from households without a father figure in the home. Boys with little or no involvement with their fathers are twice as likely to become offenders as boys with highly involved dads.
Research commissioned and collated by Care for the Family found that children with dads involved in their lives had better attitudes towards school, better behaviour at school, higher educational expectations, greater school progress, higher qualifications and greater enjoyment from being at school. Surely those are all things that we should want for every one of our children.
I stress at this point that I am not putting down households of single mothers. I know from my experience of helping lone parents—the vast majority of them are single mothers—that they provide a loving, caring and positive environment for their children. They are often the unsung heroes of excellent parenting, even in challenging circumstances. However, we cannot ignore the fact that we do have a crisis of fatherhood going on. The right hon. Member for Tottenham alluded to the fact that there are changing attitudes in our country today, with a far greater desire particularly among millennial fathers to be more involved in their children’s lives, whatever their situation with regards to a family. We should welcome that and support it.
I put it to the Minister that the Government should be doing more to support fathers. Will the Government consider following the example of Scotland, which last year had a Year of the Dad—it is not often that I congratulate the Scottish National party, but on this occasion I am more than happy to—and call for a UK-wide Year of the Dad, where we can celebrate, support and promote the important role of fathers in our country? Will the Government also consider putting together a working group of colleagues with an interest and experience in this issue, in conjunction with their forthcoming social justice Green Paper, to work to identify policies that are effective in supporting fathers?
This issue is far too important to leave to chance. We need the Government to take a lead and to put policies in place to support dads.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. Let me thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for securing this important debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who made an outstanding contribution, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who made a passionate and smart speech on these important issues.
I share the view of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay on the Year of the Dad. I was not aware of it until earlier in the week, when I started researching it, but I agree that we could see it rolled out not just in Scotland but across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That would be welcome.
What I have studied of the campaign has been overwhelmingly positive. That businesses, charities and public sector organisations are all coming out to promote and celebrate the role of fathers is to be appreciated. I read the comments by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts on the PoliticsHome site with regard to the shockingly low number of men who take up parental leave. We have a lot to do to change the culture so that men feel more comfortable in approaching their employers to be able to take time off to support the children and mothers.
The other issue I would like to raise is dads’ lack of fair access to their children after separation from their partner—if we are honest, it is often the dad, as the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay made clear. Perhaps we have to look at changes in legislation to make access for fathers easier and simpler when a separation has occurred. Another particularly important point that has not been mentioned yet is parental alienation, where, following a separation, one or indeed both parents psychologically harm the child—it is effectively child abuse—by convincing the child that the other parent is not doing a good job, does not love them or something like that. That really warrants further debate and examination in this place and in wider society.
Even in the best of circumstances, separation can cause and exacerbate problems for the individuals involved. Matt O’Connor, the founder of Fathers 4 Justice, has spoken about several tragic cases where fathers who have lost contact with their children have thrown themselves under trains or off bridges. He has also highlighted Department for Work and Pensions data showing that parents who leave their children are almost three times more likely to die earlier than the average. Those statistics clearly need attention.
In summary, I welcome the success of Scotland’s Year of the Dad campaign, which should be rolled out across the country. It would particularly help fathers who are separated from their children, and we should build on its successes.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on bringing this important debate before the House and the tone with which he introduced it. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for saying that he wants to take party politics out of the issue. This should be a no-brainer for us all and something on which people from different political traditions can come together.
It is right that we need to be careful about language. We all support the fantastic work that single mums do—indeed, many of us are passionate about this issue because we want single mums to have more help with the very tough job of being a parent. When Gordon Brown left Downing Street for the last time, he said that he was going on to do an even more important job and devote himself fully to being a father to his children, which he viewed as more important than being Prime Minister of our country.
I am encouraged by Early Intervention Foundation research, which the Government are taking very seriously as they work on their social reform White Paper—we all look forward to seeing that shortly—showing that the role of fathers is increasingly recognised as an important influence on child development. I am grateful to Tavistock Relationships for pointing that out. That has not always been recognised, and it is important that we do so.
It should be hugely concerning to us that there are what are sometimes called “dad deserts” up and down the country. The Centre for Social Justice, which also provided a very good briefing, identified 236 hotspots across the country, which should concern us from a social justice and inequality standpoint. When the number of fathers in a community diminishes, it gets harder for the fathers who are there to take their role seriously and to be good role models.
We must also think about how we can ensure that both young women and young men make wise choices about who they partner with. Young women need to look to men to be the fathers of their children who will be there for the long haul and take their important responsibilities seriously. We need to have frank conversations with young men about the incredible joy but also the responsibility of bringing a child into the world. One of the animal charities says that a dog is for life, not just for Christmas. How much more should that be true of having a child?
I am impressed by quite a lot of what happens in this area in north America. The National Fatherhood Initiative has existed in the United States for some time, and there is bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans. President Obama made incredible father’s day speeches, which were really moving and powerful, not least because he did not see a lot of his own father when he was young. He said that we can pass all the laws in the world, but it takes parents at home to do the long, hard work of bringing up children, and we want more dads to be present to help mums to do that important work.
I know that the Government take this matter seriously and I am encouraged by the Early Intervention Foundation research. I know that the Minister absolutely gets this issue, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say about it.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Main, for your chairmanship of this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for calling the debate, in which I am pleased to take part.
Strong families, stable relationships and fulfilling familial ties between children and their parents, grandparents and extended families are the bedrock of our society, but for too long, regardless of which party has been in power, a narrative of deadbeat dads, mothers knowing best and hapless fathers has prevailed and a damaging culture has become entrenched in some of our institutions.
To be clear, I am not condoning irresponsible fathers who do not pay their child support upon a divorce or family breakdown or, even worse, as I encounter frequently in my surgeries, fathers who deliberately change their employment status from salaried to self-employed in order to escape the radar of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Support Agency. That is irresponsible. Nor am I condoning perpetrators of domestic abuse. As a barrister who represented victims of domestic abuse, I saw up front the tragedy that that causes. I am talking about the treatment of fathers in the family justice system when a marriage sadly breaks down.
The truth is that there are 114,000 divorces per year, half of which involve children. There are 1 million children growing up without a father in their lives at all, and 35% of children of non-resident parents do not see that parent at all. That is a tragedy, and it is unfair. The truth is that our justice system treats fathers unfairly. Good dads are systematically shut out of their children’s lives by the system, and 50:50 access is rare. A father is doing well if he gets a couple of weekends and a weekday per month. If he wants greater access, he needs to perform feats or miracles involving the courts, expensive applications, re-litigation of facts and an extended and drawn-out procedure.
The debilitating legal framework presumes that the father’s equal access is a privilege, not a right. That is unjust. The Children and Families Act 2014 went some way to addressing that issue, requiring involvement of both parents to be instilled in child arrangement orders. However, that parental involvement can be direct or indirect, and there is no minimum access of 50:50. In some of the worst cases, the maximum can be a Christmas card or a birthday card every year. How can that be a meaningful relationship between a father and his child?
Another problem is the lack of enforcement against resident parents—who are, in large part, the mothers—who breach those child arrangement orders and stop non-resident parents seeing their children. They can get away with it without any consequence or enforcement. Will the Minister consider some ways of reforming that?
Lastly, we need to encourage more mediation as an alternative to litigation. Many divorces start off amicably and reasonably and end up high-conflict and very expensive, ruining the father and mother both emotionally and financially. That can be avoided, and there are many examples around the world of how. Children need both parents. I hope the Government will take action to remedy this burning injustice.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on securing this debate. I declare an interest, as not only a father but a criminal defence solicitor. I refer to the latter because I certainly can amplify the stats given by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). When I reflect on the consistent themes in my filing cabinet, there were issues of addiction and mental health, but the predominant theme was an absence of involvement of fathers in the lives of those young people—predominantly men. It is clearly an issue of social justice. We must take the role of fathers seriously.
Some 36% of male prisoners come from households without a father’s involvement. Of those male prisoners, 50% have a child, and we need to take their responsibilities as fathers seriously. We cannot just cast them out from the justice system. Those responsibilities have an important role to play in their future rehabilitation. When I think of those prolific offenders, the light switched on not only when they took responsibility for themselves and for their habits—getting the next fix or the next stolen item—but when they suddenly realised they were a father.
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend reminds me about the Farmer review, which is looking in particular at the relationship with fathers and at making that link. It is about that responsibility for another. The opportunity for rehabilitation is so important in the long term.
Involving fathers is a route out of poverty, as has been mentioned. Therefore, we must recognise that it makes social and economic sense to take the role of fathers seriously. In dealing with family relationships and crucial moments such as the birth, the early days, weeks and months, maternity services should involve paternity services. Barnardo’s makes that point clearly. The relationship with midwives and health services must involve fathers. Children’s centres, which the Government are looking at, and family hubs must take seriously how to involve fathers. There are some good examples in my constituency and elsewhere of involving fathers in such work. Fathers can play a crucial antenatal and postnatal role. Sadly, that has become too much a middle-class preserve, with the national childbirth trusts and others involving fathers. All of us may have been involved in that, but sadly fathers from more disadvantaged backgrounds are not involved. We must look practically at how to get fathers involved from the early stages before birth and afterwards.
Preventive work in terms of education is also important. As I should have said at the beginning of my speech, I pay tribute to the Centre for Social Justice for championing the role of fathers, along with other organisations, such as the Relationships Alliance—reference has been made to it. We must recognise the preventive role. Education can play an important role in that. Today, the Government rightly responded to cross-party calls to require relationship education in primary schools, providing a foundation for sex education. That is crucial in terms of the role of fathers and understanding that from a very young age.
The Minister has a cross-cutting role in this area. There is an issue of equality here. She has responsibility for equality. We have made a cross-party call on a practical issue of equality—the joint registration of births. That has been on the table since 2009—schedule 6 to the Welfare Reform Act 2009 provides for the joint registration of births. That happens automatically for mums, but why not for unmarried fathers?
Mr Burrowes
Yes. The measure must be implemented, rather than having the elongated process to get on the birth certificate. There are already exceptions in law to deal with violent fathers who should not be anywhere near the mothers, and we recognise that. However, that is not an excuse. We must implement that as soon as possible. It is a very practical measure. We talk here about the role of fathers. There are lots of ways to do this, but this is a matter of law. We all battle for a change in the law. That happened in 2009. Implement it, so that we can say loud and clear on the registration certificate that there is a joint enterprise of mothers and fathers and that we are taking it seriously. It is there from birth—it should be in the registration. We are saying loud and clear that of course mothers matter, and fathers matter too.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Before I call the SNP spokesman to wind up, I point out that I would like to offer Neil Gray a minute or so at the end of the debate.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on securing the debate. We have had a number of speakers, including the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who invited us to imagine him as Prime Minister. I can only point out that the unexpected can often happen in politics. There is clearly an appetite to debate this issue, and perhaps we can revisit it in a longer format in future. It is also good to hear so many MPs from south of the border looking to copy Scottish Government initiatives—it is always a welcome thing to hear, as an SNP Member.
Thankfully, the days of dads being passive players in the raising of their children are increasingly rare. Nowadays most dads want to get involved in every part of their child’s life. The modern-day father comes in various forms, and today’s family unit thankfully no longer has to conform to the traditional parenting paradigm of the man being the traditional breadwinner and disciplinarian in the family. He can be single or married, an employed or stay-at-home dad, gay or straight, an adoptive parent or step-parent, and a more than capable caregiver to children facing physical or psychological challenges.
The purpose of the debate is not to downplay the critical role that mothers play in families, but simply to celebrate the father’s role, and to debate what can be done through Government and workplace policy to enhance that role. From my experience of helping to raise two beautiful daughters aged 10 and six—Eilidh is seven in two weeks and four days, as she is keen to remind us—I know that the modern-day father wants to be there for their child at every stage. We want to help feed the baby, change their nappies, read them their bedtime stories, drive them to after-school activities and actively discourage any interest from any potential suitor until at least their mid-20s. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I feel your pain.
However, our society still makes it difficult for fathers to be actively involved in raising their children. Some 53% of millennial dads want to downshift into a less stressful job because they cannot balance the demands of work and family life. If I thought it was difficult to achieve a good work-life balance in my old job, it has pretty much gone out of the window with this one. However, after two years in this role, I know that I must try to do better in striking some sort of balance, for the sake of not just my children but my wife, who is a full-time student, a part-time worker and, for half of the week, has to juggle those roles with being a full-time parent with no assistance whatever from me.
Our economy also retains bias about the role of fathers in the family unit. According to University of Plymouth research, fathers face a “negative bias” from managers when seeking time off work to take care of their children. I know from speaking to other dads that workplaces tend to question their commitment to the job should they request a period of flexible working in order to look after their children. That complements University of Edinburgh research that showed that many dads would prefer to lie and say that they had a dentist appointment, rather than admit that they were leaving work to look after their children.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that the problem of fathers not seeking parental time off is more pronounced among young fathers at the outset of their careers? In fact, their being able to be more flexible on that would actually improve outcomes for children and families.
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend; he makes a powerful point. I think we have all seen circumstances in which that is definitely the case.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that all the evidence from the work of the Women and Equalities Committee—including the gender pay gap report, the pregnancy and maternity discrimination report and the current fathers and the workplace inquiry—outlines that there is an economic benefit to fathers playing an active role in their children’s lives?
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend; if she had waited a few seconds I would have come on to that. Those factors help to create a situation in which men in the UK still spend only 24 minutes caring for their children for every hour that women do. Policies to create an economy that empowers and promotes the positive role of fathers in the family would help to achieve equality for women. In Sweden, it was found that for every additional month of leave dads took, mums’ career earnings increased by 6.7%.
However, despite some progress—such as the Scottish Government’s Year of the Dad initiative, which highlights the positives of active dads and which my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts spoke of in detail earlier—there is still a lot of work to do in creating an economy that allows dads to achieve an appropriate work-life balance. Attitudes towards the role of the father have changed somewhat, and for the better, but our economy has not adapted to the changing role of the modern dad. I think we all want to see any dad be able to achieve an appropriate, family-friendly work-life balance. That would benefit not only families but our economy.
In closing, it would be remiss of me not to speak of families in which the parents’ relationship has not survived, and there is either no father figure, or one whose influence is via scheduled weekly access. Like an increasing number of children, I experienced growing up in a traditional family unit, but following my parents’ separation when I was around eight, I was brought up, in the main, by my mother through my formative years. Although we talked earlier about promoting parental equality and enhancing the role of fathers, we must ensure that those who bring up children on their own—be they male or female—are fully supported, and we must try to end the stigma that the Daily Mail and other such publications attach to such parents.
Let us be clear: in the vast majority of single-parent families, it is women who bring up the children. They are often vilified in said press, whereas a single father will often be depicted as brave and an all-around good egg. That inherent bias aids no one and must end now. The truth is that although we would all like to see relationships succeed and children growing up in stable and loving families, that has become more an exception than the rule. Equally, there can be no doubt that children brought up lovingly in single-parent families have a better environment in which to grow up than children whose parents constantly argue and are trying to stay together for the sake of the child. That rarely works.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Can the hon. Gentleman be brief? I thought he said “in conclusion” quite a long time ago.
Gavin Newlands
I do not often say this—in fact, I may have never said it—but I would like to thank my own mother for doing a fantastic job in raising my sister and me following my parents’ separation. I would like to reiterate that there is no one perfect model for perfect parenting—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is eating into other Members’ time. I have to call the Opposition spokesperson.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on securing this interesting debate.
We know that families come in many shapes and sizes. Regardless of the gender of the parent, children need a safe, loving and stable environment in which to thrive and develop into healthy and happy adults. We also know that many fathers wish to spend significantly more time with their children than they are currently able to, in order to create that loving environment. However, many fathers find themselves unable to avoid working long hours or are subject to an inflexible working environment that prevents them from sharing parenting duties more equally.
Many of the underlying causes of those issues are inextricably linked to the same deep and corrosive structural barriers that hold women back in the workplace and contribute to a persistent gender pay gap of 18.9%, which, at the current rate of progress, could take 60 years to close. Occupational segregation, for example, sees women stuck in low-paid and undervalued sectors of the economy. Women make up more than 60% of those earning less than the living wage set by the Living Wage Foundation. Meanwhile, men continue to dominate the best-paid positions. Women make up 67% of the management workforce in entry-level roles, but only 43% of senior managers and 29% of directors. Those factors, taken together, often give families little choice as to whose wage they rely on.
Women continue to play a greater role in caring for children and sick or elderly relatives. According to Office for National Statistics analysis of time use data, women put in more than double their proportion of unpaid work in cooking, childcare and housework. As a result, more women—42%, compared with 11% of men— work part time, and those jobs are typically lower paid, with fewer opportunities for progression. The issue therefore becomes cyclical.
The impact of women being stuck in low-paid or non-paid caring roles has implications for fathers in the workplace too. Research undertaken by the TUC last year shows that as many as two in five new fathers are ineligible for shared parental leave, as their partners are not in paid work or they fail to meet the qualifying conditions. That prevents fathers from spending time with their newborn children. Will the Minister tell us what steps she is taking to ensure that all new fathers who want to take shared parental leave are able to?
Another solution to enable greater flexibility for parents is to provide high-quality, universal, affordable childcare, as Labour has promised to do. We believe that childcare can play a vital role in promoting gender equality, particularly by making it easier for parents to balance the competing demands of work and family life. The Government’s promise of 30 hours of free childcare a week for three and four-year-old children of working parents is looking more and more likely to collapse as each day passes. Research by the Family and Childcare Trust shows that providers and local authorities feel that the 30 hours requirement will mean either that they are forced to reduce the total number of places on offer or that they will simply no longer remain financially viable.
The Government have also admitted that the majority of children who are eligible for the current universal 15 hours of childcare per week will not be eligible for the expanded entitlement, leaving hundreds of thousands of children from working families—particularly those with parents on low or insecure incomes—shut out of the 30-hour-a-week offer. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do to ensure that providers and local authorities can afford to provide 30 hours of free childcare? Does she have plans to expand the current entitlement?
Finally, the Women and Equalities Committee report on the gender pay gap recommends increasing paternity rights, particularly those around leave, to ensure that men can spend more time with a new child. Increased paternity rights for men, on top of existing maternity rights, would make both men and women’s lives better. We know that fathers want to play an active role in their children’s lives and families want to spend more time together with a new baby, which is why Labour would increase both paternity leave and paternity pay.
One of the most pervasive underlying causes of the imbalance between men’s and women’s roles in the family is workplace discrimination. Government research with the Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that 54,000 women a year are being forced out of their jobs due to maternity discrimination. Does the Minister agree that extending paternity leave and consequently increasing workplace flexibility would be one way of addressing that appalling discrimination? Does she also agree that women suffering maternity discrimination must be able to uphold their rights, yet—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Will the hon. Lady finish her sentence and then conclude?
Paula Sherriff
Okay, sure. If we are to support men in taking a greater role in the family unit and, as a consequence, tackle the barriers facing women, we need to support men and women in having a real and meaningful choice when it comes to accessing well-paid and family-friendly employment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mrs Main. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on securing this really important debate. I also congratulate both him and other hon. Members on doing such a great job of articulating clearly how involving dads in their children’s lives is good for the emotional health and wellbeing of both parents, great for childhood development and really good for society.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this debate is timely, as the Women and Equalities Committee recently launched its important inquiry into fathers in the workplace. We welcome that inquiry and will look with great interest at what the Committee comes up with. The role that fathers play in family life is a subject of great importance for me in my role as Minister for Women and Equalities and for the Government more broadly, and it is intrinsically connected to the work that the Government Equalities Office is doing to close the gender pay gap.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House’s attention to this year’s successful Year of the Dad campaign in Scotland. Highlighting fathers’ really important role in child development was key to that campaign, and I wholeheartedly support that sentiment. Nothing is more important than childhood development. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), among others, asked whether we could have a UK-wide Year of the Dad, and I will certainly consider that. It is vital that we support fathers and encourage businesses, employers and society more broadly to do the same.
We know that dads want to be more involved in their children’s lives, and we are committed to supporting them to do that. The role of dads in family life is already changing. Increasingly, men are choosing to work part time. Although mothers continue to do the majority of childcare, dads do ever more. Dads these days are much more actively involved in their children’s lives—they are not afraid to change a dirty nappy or spoon-feed some pureed carrot into an unwilling mouth—and that is great. The Year of the Dad campaign has rightly sought to advance father-friendly practices among employers and others.
Tackling the gender pay gap is a central part of what the Government are trying to do to ensure that there is a balance between work and family. The gap is now 18.1%, which is the lowest on record, but there is still more to do. Its causes are broad, but one is the time that women spend out of the labour market caring for children. Helping fathers and mums to share that responsibility will not only help us to reduce the gender pay gap but, crucially, allow fathers to better balance work and family. It will also build stronger relationships between fathers and their kids, and help us to build a stronger and more productive economy. That is why we will introduce legislation next month requiring large employers to publish their gender pay gap. That will shine a light on the inequality in business and encourage employers to do more to ensure that they have family-friendly policies and actively promote and encourage their staff to take advantage of those policies.
One such policy is shared parental leave, which this Government introduced in April 2015. It enables working parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay in the first year of a child’s life, if they so wish. That is designed to give parents more flexibility in who cares for their child in that first year and to give fathers a bigger role. Shared parental leave also helps to strengthen working parents’ connection to the labour market, giving them more flexibility to combine work with family responsibilities. It gives mothers and fathers the opportunity to equalise care and work responsibilities, and it is crucial in helping mothers to retain a link with the labour market. Neither parent should have to make a binary choice between having children and having a career, so we hope that shared parental leave will address long-standing gender stereotypes. There is nothing more important in a child’s development than the role of parents, and it is essential that we support them both in playing a full part in their children’s life.
Caroline Dinenage
I think the hon. Gentleman will have time to sum up at the end, so he can speak then.
The Government have extended the right to request flexible working to help men and women maintain a better work-life balance. Since June 2014, all employees with 26 weeks’ continuous service have had the right to request flexible working, and that extension has doubled the number of employees who are able to make that request to more than 20 million people.
We already have one of the most diverse ranges of working arrangements in Europe. The OECD rates us as the fourth most flexible place to operate a business. Flexible working is steadily becoming more popular. Some 60% of employees surveyed in 2011 had done some form of flexible working; that was up from 56% in 2006 and continues to rise. It is great news for business and the economy that employers have access to the widest pool of talent, but it is also good for individuals.
Mr Jayawardena
Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be the parents’ decision whether they work or not if they can afford it?
Caroline Dinenage
Absolutely; that is fundamental. Parents should make their own decisions about whether they want to work or stay at home and look after their children, and about which of them decides to do that role.
Flexible working can allow fathers to spend more valuable time with their children and achieve a better work-life balance. Some Members and the Women and Equalities Committee have called for shared parental leave and flexible working to be made compulsory, or for the regulation to be extended. All I will say is that these are relatively new regulations. It is going to require a culture shift in order for these things to take off properly, and that will take time.
Caroline Dinenage
I have very little time. If my hon. Friend does not mind, I want to make a bit of progress.
I am determined to keep further action on this in my back pocket to see how these policies bed in for just a little bit longer, especially when we bring in the gender pay gap regulations next month, before imposing any further changes that would impose significant costs on business and the public purse. I do not want to do that unnecessarily.
We know that for families with young children childcare is not an issue, but the issue, and is hugely important for both mothers and fathers. That is why we are increasing our spending to a record £6 billion per year by 2020—more than any Government ever. That means we are doubling the childcare entitlement to working parents of three and four-year-olds from 15 hours to 30 hours. That will start in September 2017, saving parents who get the full entitlement about £5,000 per year.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) is wrong—we have eight early implementer areas that are already delivering that. I have met most of them, and the policy is going really well and making a measurable difference to parents up and down this country. More than 80% of local authorities will see their money go up. We are spending a record amount of money on this, so it is unfortunate scaremongering to say that it is not going to be a success. It comes in addition to the 15 hours a week we give to the 40% most disadvantaged two-year-olds. She asked about parents who are not in work; we are also helping with 70% of childcare costs for people on low incomes through working tax credits, and 85% for parents on universal credit.
We will shortly publish an early years workforce strategy, which aims to support and attract the best people into the early years workforce. Crucially, it will include how we can get more men into early years work. If we are going to focus on how we get more girls into science, technology, engineering and maths, it is only right that we get more boys into caring roles, and it will do something to break down gender stereotypes and ensure that more men work in caring professions.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) mentioned family law. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the law changed in 2014, bringing in a statutory presumption that both parents should be involved in their children’s lives. I will certainly pass on their comments to my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, along with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on the issue of joint registration.
My hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay and for Enfield, Southgate talked about offenders who grew up in fatherless households. Positive family relationships have also been identified as a factor in preventing reoffending. For example, research has found that prisoners who reported improved family relationships while in prison were less likely to reoffend after release.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. May I ask the Minister to wind up to give one minute to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts?
Caroline Dinenage
Absolutely. We are entirely committed to achieving gender parity in the workplace. I conclude by paying tribute to the dads, the stepdads, the foster dads, the grandads and the other remarkable father figures up and down the country, including my own, who are making a positive difference to young lives and old lives on an hourly and daily basis.
Neil Gray
First, I thank all Members who have contributed today. We have had a fantastic turnout and a very positive debate, which is what I hoped it would be. I am pleased that the Minister has committed to considering a UK-wide Year of the Dad. I hope that that takes off, and I know other Members who have spoken today will put pressure on to ensure that it takes place. I am slightly disappointed that she said she would not utilise further powers to push shared parental leave and incentivise it better, but most of all, I am clear that this debate has been about being positive about the role of dads. It is an equality issue. I am clear that enhancing and promoting the role of fathers at home helps women at work.
Written Statements
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Service Pension Indexation and Revaluation 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Legislation governing public service pensions requires them to be increased annually by the same percentage as additional pensions (state earnings-related pension and state second pension). Public service pensions will therefore be increased from 10 April 2017 by 1%, in line with the annual increase in the consumer prices index up to September 2016, except for those public service pensions which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro rata increase. Scheme Police Fire Civil service NHS Teachers LGPS Armed forces Judicial Revaluation for active member 2.25% 2.6% 1% 2.5% 2.6% 1% 2.6% 1%
Separately, in the new career average public service pension schemes, pensions in accrual are revalued annually in relation to either prices or earnings depending on the terms specified in their scheme regulations. The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 requires Her Majesty’s Treasury to specify a measure of prices and of earnings to be used for revaluation by these schemes.
The prices measure is the consumer prices index up to September 2016. Public service schemes which rely on a measure of prices, therefore, will use the figure of 1% for the prices element of revaluation.
The earnings measure is the whole economy average weekly earnings (non-seasonally adjusted and including bonuses and arrears) up to September 2016. Public service schemes which rely on a measure of earnings, therefore, will use the figure of 2.6% for the earnings element of revaluation.
Revaluation is one part of the amount of pension that members earn in a year and needs to be considered in conjunction with the amount of in-year accrual. Typically, schemes with lower revaluation will have faster accrual and therefore members will earn more pension per year. The following list shows how the main public service schemes will be affected by revaluation:
[HCWS510]
UK Digital Strategy
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
I am delighted to announce the publication of the UK digital strategy. The strategy is being deposited in the Library and is available online at: www.gov.uk/ukdigitalstrategy.
The UK has a proud history of digital innovation: from the earliest days of computing to the development of artificial intelligence, the UK has been a cradle for inventions which have changed the world. Today, this history translates into a world-leading digital economy. The digital sector contributed £118 billion to the economy and employed over 1.4 million people across the UK in 2015. The digital economy is growing fast and digital technology is transforming every sector and all aspects of our lives.
Our digital strategy applies the principles outlined in the industrial strategy green paper to the digital economy and develops them further. It sets out our vision of a world-leading digital economy for everyone, with the benefits and opportunities spread across every region and every community.
The digital strategy is formed of seven strands, each underpinned by bold ambitions: no part of the country or group in society should be without adequate connectivity; everyone should develop the skills they need to participate in the digital economy and help all businesses harness the productivity benefits of digital innovation; making the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a digital business; for the UK to be the safest place in the world to be online; maintaining the UK Government as the world’s leader in serving its citizens online; and to unlock the power of data and improving public confidence in their use.
Overall, industry has come forward with over 4 million training places to ensure more people can get the digital skills they need. This is the start of an ongoing conversation and relationship between the digital sectors and Government: as we develop our industrial and digital strategies, we will build on that conversation. To facilitate this, we will work with the tech community and others to support the growth of the UK digital economy. By working together and putting each of the elements of this strategy in place, I believe we will cement our position as a world-leading digital economy and ensure it works for everyone.
[HCWS508]
Sex and Relationships Education
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
I am today announcing my intention to put relationships and sex education on a statutory footing, so every child has access to age-appropriate provision, in a consistent way. I am also announcing my intention to take a power that will enable me to make PSHE statutory in future, following further departmental work and consultation on subject content.
The amendments that the Government will table to the Children and Social Work Bill place a duty on the Secretary of State for Education to make regulations requiring:
All primary schools in England to teach age-appropriate “relationships education”; and
All secondary schools in England to teach age-appropriate “relationships and sex education”
The amendments also create a power enabling the Government to make regulations requiring PSHE to be taught in academies and maintained schools—it is already compulsory in independent schools. By creating a power on PSHE, we are allowing time to consider what the right fit of this subject is with relationships education and relationships and sex education.
The statutory guidance for sex and relationships education was introduced in 2000 and is becoming increasingly outdated. It fails to address risks to children that have grown in prevalence over the last 17 years, including cyber bullying, “sexting” and staying safe online.
Parents will continue to have a right to withdraw their children from sex education. Schools will have flexibility over how they deliver these subjects, so they can develop an integrated approach that is sensitive to the needs of the local community; and, as now, faith schools will continue to be able to teach in accordance with the tenets of their faith.
The Department for Education will lead a comprehensive programme of engagement to set out age-appropriate subject content and identify the support schools need to deliver high-quality teaching. Regulations and statutory guidance will then be subject to full public consultation before being laid subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In line with this timetable, schools will be required to teach this content from September 2019. My Department will today publish a policy statement, which sets out more detail.
Copies of the Government amendment to the CSW Bill and the policy statement will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS509]
Rail Franchising
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
Today the Department for Transport has announced that the following companies have successfully pre-qualified to bid in the competition for the East Midlands franchise, to run rail passenger services from November 2018:
Arriva Rail East Midlands Limited a wholly owned subsidiary of Arriva UK Trains Limited;
First Trenitalia East Midlands Rail Limited, a joint venture company wholly owned by First Rail Holdings Limited and Trenitalia UK Limited; and
Stagecoach East Midlands Trains Limited a wholly owned subsidiary of Stagecoach Transport Holdings Limited.
In order to pass the pre-qualification evaluation each of the prospective bidders had to demonstrate that they have the financial strength, safety and operational experience to run this important franchise. This announcement marks another key milestone in the rail franchising programme and is the next step in delivering real benefits for the passengers along the East Midlands routes.
In due course, once the invitation to tender has been issued, the bidders will be required to submit plans to demonstrate how they will deliver the enhancements for passengers using the East Midland services.
The Department will evaluate the submitted bids to determine passenger benefits, deliverability, and value for money.
As for all rail franchise competitions, and as is consistent with the Secretary of State’s duty, the Department will ensure that alternative plans are in place for the continued running of passenger services in the event that the Department determines that the bids would not provide services in the most efficient or economic manner.
[HCWS507]
Grand Committee
Technical and Further Education Bill
Wednesday 1st March 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Technical and Further Education Act 2017 View all Technical and Further Education Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 88-III(a) Amendment for Grand Committee, supplementary to the third marshalled list (PDF, 54KB) - (28 Feb 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Welcome, my Lords, to the third day of Grand Committee on the Technical and Further Education Bill. I should announce at the start that in the very likely event of there being 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.
“( ) minimise the risk to a local community of a long-term loss of technical and further education provision.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to appear in the Committee. I have been present on various occasions during the first two sittings, but I have not been able to find an issue on which I wanted to speak; therefore I come with my powder dry.
We have no argument of substance on this part of the Bill, because we understand what is happening. It is essentially a good housekeeping measure, rather than a threat to any existing or future institutions. It arises from two sources. First, there is a proper and appropriate sense of wanting to ensure that in any default situation, such as liquidation or insolvency, a process is in place and all the major players know what happens and how. It also comes from a wider consideration of how public services are procured and delivered.
In the good old days, as some might say—I say it in heavy quotes—public provision of such services as further education, but including utilities more generally, would always have the underlying assumption that the Government of the day would carry any debts incurred. Of course, that does not happen under privatisation—there is no particular reason why it should—but the responsibility for continuing work that is in the public interest still has to be resolved. That is why, over the past 25 to 30 years, there has been a growth in special regimes for insolvency. They are not unusual. They are broadly all of the same pattern. That is unsurprising as they come from one cutting shop: the Insolvency Service. They carry a common approach: they are instituted to ensure that, where it is appropriate and necessary, it is possible to intervene in the ordinary processes of insolvency or voluntary liquidation to the extent to which it is thought proper that the purposes for which the service exists are maintained, to ensure that those who are relying on it or have made it part of their lives in good faith are not let down by any cost-cutting arrangement.
Having said all that, we have tabled some probing amendments, to which I hope that we will get good responses on the record. Nothing will be unexpected—much of it came up in the other place—but we have learned a bit more about how the system operates, so there may be a slightly sharper focus.
I move Amendment 37 and speak to Amendments 38 and 39. This first group focuses on the education administrator, who is the person to be appointed by the court—the courts can act only on the request of the Secretary of State in England or Wales, depending on which territory they are in—and, if appointed, has responsibilities which will be set out both in the Bill and the broader range of insolvency legislation alluded to in the primary legislation; I expect that regulations to follow will fill in any gaps. We are not at variance with the Government in proposing that the system applies, although there will be things that we want to probe later.
The purpose of these three amendments, taken together, is on the question of whether we have got the right person to do this work. We have not seen many colleges go into liquidation or insolvency, which is a good thing. We were reassured in another place—so we do not expect it—that nothing in the Bill should be read as taken to imply that the Government have in mind a raft of closures. On the other hand it is fair to ask the Minister, when he comes to respond, to help us a little about what the context is for this.
The figures provided by the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills in the other place were slightly obscure. He said that,
“80% of colleges are either good or outstanding”,
and that some,
“59% of institutions are in good financial health and 52% are operating with a surplus”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/16; col. 80.]
One can of course read that the other way round: you could say that 48% are not operating with a surplus and that a situation may therefore arise which we are not fully apprised of. The Minister might wish to comment on that. I do not necessarily see that as an issue and, if he wishes to take time to write to us, we would be happy with that.
The context is also a little more complex, in the sense that we are well aware that there is a more general decline in further education. The ongoing work of the area reviews may or may not lead to closure as a result of mergers. Mergers cannot be imposed on the system but if the system wanted to do that and if a particular college was weaker, we may find this issue in front of us in a relatively short time. The procedures therefore obviously need to be right but, if the Minister could say a little more in that context about his perception from the centre of whether a number of closures will arise from the area reviews, that would obviously be interesting. We do not know of any and are aware that work is going on but some sense of that, if not the actual detailed numbers, would be helpful.
In the other place, the Minister was pressed a little about the context of what I have been saying. He came out with a nice rubric when he said that Part 2 of the Bill was,
“about protection, insurance, prudence and caution”.—[Official Report, Commons, Technical and Further Education Bill Committee, 29/11/16; col. 166.]
He was not picked up about that list of words. It does not quite have the ring of an aphorism about it but it is an interesting list. Would the Minister like to reflect on whether that is his reading of the situation? I take it slightly differently: I think this is a prudent, sensible and cautionary approach, as I do not see any red lights arising from it and gleaming in the dark that would cause us to have difficulty, and that the issues are appropriate. Those are the general questions.
On the questions raised by the amendments, Amendment 37 questions whether we are right in assuming that, at present, the Bill tends to focus the attention in relation to colleges and their continuation on a systemic approach. That was slightly picked up by the area reviews as well, in looking at the holistic approach to an area, although from the bottom up—in other words, from the locality—FE colleges are often seen as important bulwarks of local community activity. Particularly in rural areas and areas of lower density, they can provide a centre not just of education and training but for other activities, so there is a wider context for this. Amendment 37 asks that the education administration system, particularly the education administrator, should, in addition to the list in the Bill, take in the need to,
“minimise the risk to a local community of a long-term loss of technical and further education provision”.
That will be an important issue for many areas and I will be interested to see the response.
Amendment 38 would give more detail than is currently in the Bill about the consultations, discussions and debates that must take place before the education administrator takes forward the proposals that may come to it. We will obviously come to a wider view about this in the next group. This would include the “quality of education provided”, the capacity of other bodies or institutions and,
“the infrastructure of the local area”—
again, the reference is to local rather than national issues. An issue that came up strongly in discussions in the other place was of how students, many of whom will be relatively young, will function if they have to add a significant transport arrangement to their other education requirements. How exactly does that fit in with some of the overarching issues we will come on to, in relation to the balance between maintaining a provision in a place and the need to provide local services and community support in that area, as opposed to the needs of the students in terms of the qualifications they are trying to obtain, which might be better dealt with in another college, perhaps a couple of hours’ travel away? One can see the impact that would have in terms of community, and on the individual. A slightly more detailed list, as in Amendment 38, may be overprescriptive but the intention is to make sure that wider consideration than a simple binary question—open or shut—should face the education administrator.
Thirdly, on Amendment 39, the question is of who should be consulted. There is obviously an expectation, and comforting words were given in the other place when this issue was discussed. However, we have tabled an amendment that specifies that the students in particular—they are often omitted in these considerations —should be consulted, and that staff and recognised unions at the body concerned should also be included.
Lord Storey (LD)
Given that insolvency is a major part of the Bill, many of us were concerned that there might be something hidden that we did not appreciate or understand, which is perhaps unusual. I thank the civil servants. I hate that term. They are civil; they should not be servants. My noble friend Lady Garden and I met them yesterday to talk about insolvency, and I came away very reassured. Actually, I almost did an about-turn and felt that further education was protected in many respects.
The amendments are right. I do not foresee FE colleges becoming insolvent, because the new measures protect them in a more robust way than currently. During the area reviews, there has been a safety blanket. When they are finished and the new regime comes into place, it will be a much better landscape for FE to operate in. Having said that, in the 0.001% where something happens, it is right to point out that students need to be considered, as do the community and the staff. That is particularly so in rural areas. If a college goes in a rural area, the loss of it and its courses can be devastating to its students.
I will go along with it but I am never quite sure about “consultation”. Of course one can consult. If in the new landscape a college is on the road to insolvency, presumably we would pick that up pretty early on. It would not be a case of its suddenly being insolvent—“By the way, we’re closing down and we’d better consult students and staff”. We would see the process happening gradually. Any well-managed system would of course consult those bodies. When I see “consultation”, I always ask how we will consult. Is it a tick-box exercise, or a letter to everybody? When we have done the consultation what do we do with that information, or is it just, “It looks good so we’ll say it”? I understand the thought behind the amendment, however.
These amendments are okay. I am just beginning to understand the Government’s desire—I am pleased about it—that, under the new combined authorities regime, combined authorities will be involved in the adult education part of further education. I do not yet understand how that happens in practice as well as principle. I have been involved in a couple of emails about that, but I would like to understand it before Report. Having said that, I am happy with the amendments and I guess we will support them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, for these three amendments, to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his remarks supporting them and to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his comments.
These amendments relate to assessing the impact of the proposed insolvency regime on further education colleges. Before I deal with individual amendments, I shall respond to some of the general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and if I do not cover them all I will certainly write to him. Following the area reviews, all colleges should be on a sound financial footing for the longer term. That is part of the reason behind the area reviews. These measures will not come into force until after the recommendations of the area reviews have been implemented. There will be no closures as a result of the reviews. Colleges are working together to remove overcapacity in their area and to better align their offer to local employers’ needs. Some colleges may merge as a result, but there will be no insolvencies as a direct result of the reviews.
I believe that Amendment 37 is intended to ensure that the special objective offers protection not only to existing students of an insolvent college but to those of the future. In that regard, noble Lords and I share common ground. Indeed, that is the purpose of our programme of area reviews. We are working with colleges, local authorities and other local stakeholders to ensure that FE bodies are put on a strong and resilient footing. This is the best way to safeguard the interests of all students. Delivering strong, sustainable colleges that can provide young people now and in the future with the opportunity to pursue courses right for them will offer them the opportunity to achieve their full potential.
In the unlikely event that an FE body were to become insolvent, our first priority would, rightly, be to the existing students, whose studies are likely to be directly affected. That is the purpose of the special objective. While we cannot know how the education administrator will propose to achieve the special objective in every insolvency, as that will clearly depend on the circumstances of each case, it seems likely that the preferred solution would be to find an alternative provider to take over provision at the insolvent body’s campus. That would almost certainly prove least disruptive for the students involved. However, that may not be possible or the right outcome. It might ultimately be better for existing and future students to attend other colleges where they may have access to a greater choice of course, better facilities and the like.
I recognise noble Lords’ concern that moving to a different provider might mean travelling greater distances, with a consequent increase in travel costs. While many students would be willing to travel to access the right provision—a point the FE commissioner made when he gave evidence to the Committee in the other place—there will be those for whom this would be a challenge. Colleges are already able to provide financial support to help eligible students with their travel costs, and this will extend to students transferring in from an insolvent college. In addition, the education administrator may be able to make provision for such costs where it is for the purpose of pursuing the special objective.
There is the possibility that a college that is the only FE provider in the wider area may become insolvent; for example, in a rural area such as Devon or Cornwall. Were that to happen, I assure noble Lords that the Government could not and would not ignore their wider responsibility to students in the area. No Government would leave an area without any FE provision. However, this is a matter for the Government of the day to consider, not the education administrator.
I shall now respond to Amendment 38. Clause 14 sets out the fundamental principle underpinning the special administration regime we are introducing in the Bill. In the unlikely—I must emphasise “unlikely”—event that an FE body becomes insolvent, we are acting to ensure that disruption to students’ studies is avoided or minimised as far as possible. That is the purpose of the special objective set out in subsection (1). Pursuit of that objective will govern all the actions of the education administrator. It will be for the education administrator to decide how the special objective can best be achieved. Whether it is one of the solutions suggested in subsection (2), a combination of them or something different will depend on the special circumstances of the college or FE body. Only by considering these issues will the education administrator be in a position to come to a view on the most appropriate approach. As we all know, something that might be right in one situation will not necessarily be right in another, so, in a way, I agree with Amendment 38. Noble Lords are right that there are a number of assessments that the education administrator should carry out before taking any action to achieve the special objective, including assessments of the capacity of other bodies or institutions to undertake any additional functions or provide education to additional students.
Noble Lords are right, too, that there should be discussion with those most directly affected by the decisions to be taken—the students, the staff and their unions. Where I think we differ is that I do not believe such assessments or discussions need to be prescribed in legislation. As my colleague the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills said when this matter was debated in the other place:
“It is inconceivable that they,”
by which he meant the education administrator,
“would draw up proposals for achieving the special objective without having had discussions with a wide range of stakeholders, such as the Further Education Commissioner, student bodies and others, and without considering a wide range of pertinent issues”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/17; col. 113.]
I wholeheartedly share this view. As the Minister made clear in the other place—and I do here today—it is our clear expectation that the education administrator will engage fully with those who have the knowledge and experience to aid them in developing their proposals: the commissioner, staff and students, local authorities and other providers.
When we refer to avoiding or minimising disruption to student studies, this is not just about keeping students’ timetables unchanged or ensuring that they remain at the same campus—although, in reality, this might well be the case. It is also about ensuring that where it is necessary to transfer students, factors such as those identified by noble Lords are taken into consideration. In developing their proposals, the education administrator will be expected to consider the quality of the alternative provision, as well as the impact of travel distances if students need to complete their studies at another location.
Of course, some trade-off or compromise between the different factors might be necessary, but this will be for the education administrator to address in the particular circumstances. If students find themselves having to travel to another location, I recognise that they may incur additional travel costs. Where this is the case they may be eligible, as I have said, for the 16-to-19 bursary fund, or the education administrator may consider setting up a specific scheme for them paid for by from any funding provided by the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers.
I turn now to Amendment 39. In developing the special administration regime we have been concerned to ensure that the process should take no longer than necessary. Concerns have previously been expressed, including during debate in the other place, about the time a special administration might take. I share these concerns. However speedily the special administration is concluded, it will be too long for those involved. Staff, students and creditors will want certainty about what will happen to them at the earliest opportunity. Amendment 39, which seeks to require the education administrator to consult students, staff and the trade unions of the FE body before making any decisions on how to achieve the special objective, would inevitably lengthen the process but would be unlikely in reality to have any real benefit to the education administrator. Indeed, it may fetter his or her discretion to find the best way of achieving the special objective to the disadvantage of all concerned.
We are not disputing that the issues raised by noble Lords are important. They are. But, as I hope I have made clear, they cannot help but constitute a major element of the education administrator’s considerations in developing his or her proposals and there is therefore no need to legislate in this case. I hope the noble Lord will feel reassured enough by my explanations to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his support for these amendments and his comments about what we are trying to achieve with them. I think that those were picked up by the Minister, and I thank him too for taking the time to go through some of the issues and recognise that they had a bearing on this, should insolvency happen. The fact that these words are now on the record is a very good thing.
We particularly recognise that where provision has to be provided at a distance under special measures, travel will become a material issue. Confirmation again that costs could be considered within that is very important. We accept that it would be wrong to tie the hands of the education administrator if, by having a list in the Bill, damage was done to how he or she approaches his or her work. I do not think that that was the intention, but I recognise the danger. The issues were engaged with by the Minister and were recorded in Hansard, which will be sufficient to ensure that these points are not ignored at the appropriate time.
We might want to come back to the question of how and on what basis the comparison between the provision made in one institution that might have to close and another will be done in practice, but that comes under the next group of amendments. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the amendments in this group are rather unfortunately grouped together, as there are two issues. I will take them in a slightly odd order to bring out the points. I hope that will make it easier to engage when the debate starts.
Amendment 40 is again about the education administrator. The point that we ended the last group on is the question of whether that person would have sufficient relevance, experience and knowledge of the further education sector. Those persons who have responsibility for doing insolvencies and wind-ups are usually accountants, who are the butt of staple jokes about vision, intelligence and depth of understanding. Of course, I am an accountant, so I can say all these things. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the judgments that the person responsible for a special education administration system are going to have to make will rather stretch that stereotyped approach, because effectively that person will take over the responsibilities of running an FE college with thousands of students and making decisions that will affect thousands of lives on a longer-term basis.
There are some big issues here. Given the fact that I know one or two insolvency practitioners, it would be a stretch to expect that group to be expanded in a short enough time to include people with experience. In the unlikely event that we have a rash of these insolvencies, experience will surely be increased and the problem will solve itself. But there is a gap here: No particular solutions come to mind, but the question will continue through our discussions today about how the expertise necessary to make some of those judgments will be gained.
Other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 44, suggest that it may be necessary to make sure, in regulations if not in the Bill, that the person appointed as the education administrator has access without bar or hindrance—certainly no barrier should be put in place—to receiving the sort of advice that will be required to make the decisions that they will need to make in running an FE college. The proposal in Amendment 44 that the,
“education administrator may, in performing … functions … request information, advice or guidance from practitioners with an understanding of education”,
is meant in a permissive and encouraging way, rather than as a statutory duty. Nevertheless, the point is well made, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says.
The meat of this group is in Amendments 42, 43 and 46A. That last amendment is a late addition, because I realised in preparing for the Committee that we could not get to the point without an additional amendment. I apologise for the late tabling of it. The scheme that we are talking about can come into existence only when the Secretary of State decides that it will do so, and only with the permission of the court, so there are already two steps in the process for a college that is going into insolvency, for which there will be checks, balances, discussions and debates, and some context will be provided. I am sure that that is an appropriate and effective way of going forward. But with the appointment of the education administrator comes the next stage in the process; that person will take over the responsibilities previously held by the owners of the operation and will have to deal day to day with the problems of running the college as they go forward.
I would be interested to know whether any work has been done for the Government on roughly what proportion of the insolvencies or liquidations it is expected will go into special administration as opposed to the normal routes, because the law already provides for companies that operate many activities, one of which would be education, to go insolvent or become bankrupt. There is a process under which that operates. We would not expect it to operate in many cases because it is a fairly brutal process.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments. It probably is important that any education administrator should be familiar with further education because it is a very distinct type of education. I have a question that I would like the Minister to clarify. Clause 22(4), which it is now proposed to delete, indicates that the administrator must,
“carry out his or her functions in a way that achieves the best result for … the company’s creditors as a whole”,
yet Clause 14 says that the primary,
“objective of an education administration is to … avoid or minimise disruption to the studies of the … students”.
There seems to be a slight contradiction here regarding whether the education administrator is going to put students or creditors first. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, that perhaps the problem is with creditors: if they feel they are going to be last in line to get paid back, that might make more problems for colleges in getting funding. Can the Minister perhaps clarify the apparent contradiction between those two clauses?
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
I generally support the amendments. I started from a very particular consideration: I wondered whether I would be prepared to be an education administration person, because I think I am qualified to be so. The first thing I would want to know is where my financial backing was. The first thing I would ask for would be a guarantee that I would not end up personally liable, as under normal insolvency law I would be. I would need a back-up. The problem here, as with all public sector bodies—I have been through this before when we were thinking about what to do about a failing nationalised industry—is that if the Government are the guarantor or provider of last resort, the creditors will be perfectly happy but I am not quite certain how the education administrator gets out of it. I do not think I would be prepared to be an education administrator without an underwriting behind me. Mere appointment by a court would not do it for me. Have the Government thought about this bit?
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have put their names to this group of amendments. I shall begin with Amendments 40 and 44. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also referenced Amendment 46A, regarding creditors. I will get to that but if he and other noble Lords could bear with me, it would be rather easier if I could do this sequentially.
On Amendments 40 and 44, then, as is the case with other special administration regimes, Clause 15 provides that the person to be appointed as the education administrator must be someone who is qualified to act as an insolvency practitioner in relation to the FE body. This is the only criterion that must be satisfied for appointment as an education administrator.
Amendment 40, however, would require the person appointed as the education administrator to have relevant experience and knowledge of the further education sector, as noble Lords have said, in addition to being qualified to act as an insolvency practitioner. Saving the blushes of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, he is a very good example of accountants who have a breadth of perspective—indeed, I should declare an interest as I am married to an accountant who has a fantastic breadth of perspective—so we should not underestimate their ability to address different sectors with the same amount of expertise.
While such experience may be desirable, it is certainly not essential. Noble Lords familiar with the company insolvency regime will know that insolvency practitioners are often appointed to administer companies in sectors where they have little or no experience. That does not prevent them carrying out their duties successfully; it is their ability to understand and apply the different options available to them in the insolvency toolkit that is of most importance, not a detailed knowledge of the sector or the company. It is no different in an education administration.
In his evidence to the Committee in another place Mr Stephen Harris, an experienced insolvency practitioner with Ernst & Young, said that:
“From an insolvency practitioner’s perspective, it is worth standing back and recognising that insolvency practitioners are not train drivers, or people who spend their life in the railway or the London Underground, when it comes to a special administration regime, nor are they specialist property developers. They come to each situation afresh. One comforting thing that insolvency practitioners bring is recognising when they need to keep in place the existing management structure in a corporate sense, or the workforce in a pastoral sense, recognising that those people have skills and qualifications that they as an office holder do not necessarily have, and also”—
this is key—in bringing,
“outside specialist help to continuing the duties of education administrator should the need arise. That is … part and parcel of any trading insolvency regime”.—[Official Report, Commons, Technical and Further Education Bill Committee, 22/11/16; col. 46.]
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
What has just been said is true and I understand exactly where the Minister is coming from but, in a sense, she is talking about traditional creditor-led insolvency. That is not what we are talking about. As I am an accountant with a broad vision, I can extend to make the point that we are talking about replacing a board of governors, with expertise from all around the table, a senior management team, heads of departments, lecturers, a whole panoply of technical and support workers and everything else with one person, and that person is not doing the day job. The day job is getting the creditors into a room and banging their heads together until they settle for 10% or about that level, and then going away. This is about running an institution, perhaps for a long period and on a very complicated basis. It is not quite the same.
Baroness Buscombe
I accept the point, but I re-emphasise therefore the importance of that person bringing in outside expertise to support them in the process. I also ought to make the practical point that we would be hard pressed to find many insolvency practitioners who had this expertise as a matter of course. Maybe there are one or two, but I do not know how many.
Mr Harris rightly made the point that the education administrator is similar to all the other special administrator roles, and I share his view. It is not necessary for the education administrator to have direct experience and knowledge of the education sector, but I expect—indeed, I am sure that we all expect—the education administrator to avail themselves of the advice and guidance of those around them. I am being a little repetitive, but this is an important point. I mean not only the management team and staff of the insolvent college but the governors, the further education commissioner, the local authorities and others. Indeed, I cannot conceive of a situation where an education administrator would act in isolation, developing their proposals for meeting the special objective and protecting students without first discussing them with a wide range of stakeholders.
Amendment 44 provides that the education administrator should be able to request information, advice and guidance from those with an understanding of education in performing their functions for the purposes of achieving the special objective. I wholly agree with the purpose of this amendment. Of course it will be important for the education administrator to take advice from experts in the sector in carrying out their functions. As I said, this is precisely how we expect the education administrator to operate. The leadership team in the further education body will be in place to provide support on the day-to-day running of the college and to provide information to assist the education administrator in their task of achieving the special objective, if possible. So too will the further education and sixth-form commissioners and their teams, as well as the officials in the Minister’s department. The education administrator will of course be free to seek advice from any other source that they may consider. We therefore believe that there is no need to provide in the Bill for something which the education administrator is free—and encouraged—to do.
I would make the point, as I often do in situations like this, that we want to be careful not to be too prescriptive in primary legislation, particularly when the Bill, as I said on Monday, really sets out a framework for how these processes should be managed. We do not want to be too prescriptive up front. I want to respond to a number of issues but I shall leave them until I have finished replying to this group of amendments, to be clear that I can cover everything that noble Lords have asked of me.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I am still slightly confused about how what the Minister says is squared with Clause 22(5) which says that the education administrator must,
“carry out his or her functions in a way that achieves the best result for—
(a) the company’s creditors as a whole”,
That does not seem consistent with what she is saying about the emphasis on the students.
Baroness Buscombe
I did actually reference this while the noble Baroness was talking to a colleague. There is no contradiction. As I said about five minutes ago, the creditors’ objective is secondary and subject to the special objective of protecting students’ studies. Only when it is consistent with the special objective does the education administrator have regard to creditors’ needs. This reflects normal insolvency procedure. It is right that the education administrator has regard to creditors’ needs. I hope this is helpful.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
May I have another go at this point? In the days when I was a civil servant, a bust company would arrive on the doorstep of the Minister. Since it was in the Industry Act that we had the power, and indeed a duty, to preserve jobs, the administrator would usually ask us, “How far do you want to go? I can keep this company going for another five weeks, while we look for a buyer, but I want an underwrite. My client, the bank, is not interested. It is going to close this company”. There is the same problem here. Who authorises the administrator to go on putting the students’ interests first and to what end? The legislation is clear: the administrator puts the students’ interests first and tries to get a satisfactory answer. After two months, it becomes clear that nobody wants these students, nor this institution. I would not start out as the administrator without having a pretty clear view of what I had to do, when I was asked to stop and to whom I should go back and say, “This one is not going to work. May I now go back and satisfy the creditors?”. The process is worrying me. The words are all right, but I do not understand the process. I am sure we would all prefer not to have the process tested in practice, as it were, and have it come unglued there.
Baroness Buscombe
I am clutching a response to the noble Baroness’s earlier question which is on point. Clauses 26 and 28 allow the Secretary of State to provide the education administrator with indemnities or guarantees where that is necessary or appropriate. The education administrator will be able to apply to be discharged from office when they believe that they have achieved the special objective.
It may also help if I move on to Amendment 46A which specifically references creditors. Although we share common ground in our commitment to ensuring that if a further education body were to become insolvent, students would be placed at the heart of the subsequent administration process through the special objective, we do not share common ground here.
Clause 5 applies existing company insolvency law to further education colleges. The long-standing insolvency regime ensures that the interests of creditors are protected when a company becomes insolvent. Without such protection, lenders would rightly change their lending behaviours, such as by imposing higher interest rates and lending lower amounts. Other businesses would also become more cautious in trading with companies they perceived to be at risk of failing. This would ultimately paralyse growth. The same is true of the further education sector. So, while we are all agreed that there is a need to protect students’ studies—and that is the purpose of the special administration regime—there is also a need to have regard to the interests of creditors.
Through the special administration regime, we are rightly placing the protection of students’ studies ahead of the interests of creditors. However, as I said, this does not mean that the interests of creditors can, or should, be ignored. That would undoubtedly damage the further education sector, and I am sure that colleges themselves would be opposed to such action.
Subsections (4) and (5) make clear, therefore, that where the education administrator has a choice between courses of action that equally meet the special objective and protect students, they must follow the approach which achieves the best result for creditors and, where the college is run by a company, the company’s members. This delivers both protection for student studies and the reassurance that creditors, particularly lenders, need to ensure that the further education sector continues to be able to grow and improve to meet the needs of young people.
I want to respond to questions about the banks. Gareth Jones of Santander said:
“Overall, from our perspective, we are still very supportive of the sector—still looking to grow our exposure to the sector and grow our lending book. On the Bill and the proposed insolvency regime, we are actually supportive of the clarity that they provide”—[Official Report, Commons, Technical and Further Education Bill Committee, 22/11/16; col. 38.]
I was asked whether we are afraid that commercial debt will dry up for colleges as banks reassess their risk profiles, which is a critical point. The answer is no. Banks make lending decisions based on many considerations, and of course we expect them to reassess the risk profile of the sector now that exceptional financial support will no longer be available, but we expect them to continue to lend, particularly in light of the good work being done through the area review to build financially stable and resilient colleges. If this means a careful assessment of an individual college, its business plan and management, that is a good thing.
I hope that I have been able to answer all noble Lords’ questions on this group of amendments. If not, I will be happy to write to noble Lords but, on the basis of what I have been able to say this afternoon, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank those who have spoken in the debate for their questions, which are at the heart of the issues we raised. As I said at the beginning, this is a group in two parts. The questions about the individual appointed were well answered by the Minister; I am happy on that. There is a big task here. While it is true that the Bill says that the education administrator would be appointed only if they have the capacity to do the work, experience may well be lacking. We may be in difficulty there. On the other hand, I also made the point that we are talking about a specialist area in which there may be some growth in expertise that will allow us to get through that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and my noble friend Lady Cohen made points about how we balance the issues in the special administration system between the ongoing requirements of the students, the priority given them in the Bill and the rather odd words that appear in Clause 22. They which relate to a subset, not all of the groups in FE—I take that point—but they nevertheless imply, on a casual reading, that creditors will not be significantly disadvantaged in the long run because the function of the administration is to be carried out in a way that achieves the best results for the company’s creditors as a whole and, subject to that, the company’s members: its shareholders or shareholder equivalents.
I do not think there is an answer to this across the table. It might be sensible to have a meeting. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, said that he had a good briefing from officials; I did not have that chance. Perhaps if I could have a relatively short meeting on some of the technical issues here. That might be helpful in trying to tease this out. I do not think we are far apart on this. It is difficult. A bit of reassurance is required and, if the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is anything to go by, that might be helpful. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) suspend the Office for Students' protection action for students.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
This should be relatively quick. Clause 18 contains a list of measures to be taken under the power of the court on hearing an initial application—presumably for the purposes of clearing the ground so that the individual who is appointed educational administrator has a narrower process. The list under subsection (2) includes restricting the power of the education body and clarifies that where the education body has a different corporate form, it can also be intervened on to make the work required of the special administrator easier. We thought that the list in Clause 18 (2) was a bit narrow. This probing amendment is to explore that, and I look forward to hearing the Minister on this point.
Lord Nash
My Lords, we have seen from our recent scrutiny of the Higher Education and Research Bill that it includes provisions to ensure that those undertaking higher education courses are able to continue their learning and are protected if their provider is unable to deliver their course—perhaps, but not solely as a result of it exiting the market; the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to that. Under these proposals the Office for Students will have the flexibility to require any provider on the register to have a student protection plan in place through conditions attached to its registration. We expect that the OfS will require all approved fee-capped providers, including FE colleges, if they are higher education providers, to have plans in place. In those FE colleges with students studying HE courses, the FE students will have the benefit of being protected by the special objective in the event of the college becoming insolvent and the body being placed in education administration. Measures within the provider’s student protection plan may also be relevant and could be brought into play.
I understand that noble Lords are concerned that FE colleges offering such provision will be subject to both regimes and that this will add to the cost of running HE provision. Whether to require FE bodies to have student protection plans in place will be a matter for the Office for Students to decide. However, I agree that where an FE body is insolvent and in special administration, it would make little sense for the education administrator to be required to implement the SPP at the same time as implementing the proposals to achieve the special objective, if possible, as those proposals will extend to the very students covered by the student protection plan.
Where the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers have decided to place an FE college in special administration, the special objective should take precedence over SPPs. In seeking to achieve the special objective, the education administrator must avoid or minimise disruption to the studies of students of the FE body as a whole, regardless of the course they are studying. There may be circumstances in which the education administrator may find it helpful to refer to the measures within the plan to inform the proposals for a particular student or groups of students, but a student protection plan might impede the education administrator’s discretion about the best way to achieve the special objective. Where this is the case, the provisions of the Bill already allow the court to make an interim order that would suspend existing student protection plans where it considers that necessary or appropriate. I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that the proposed amendment is unnecessary and that he will withdraw it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for his response. I am glad we agree on this. I thought for a moment he was going to give me a concession, which would have been unexpected for a very broad probing amendment. He did not, but he did say that there is a power in Bill. I have been unable to find it, so if he could write to me about that, I would be grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“3A The education administrator may not transfer assets of any further education body to a for-profit private company where he or she considers that more than half of the funding of the acquisition of the asset came from public funds.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I was hoping to have a short breather while we discussed other important matters, but unfortunately that has not happened. We move on to Amendment 47, which refers back to some of the issues that we have been dealing with regarding process, particularly what happens to assets. Clearly much of the work of the special administration scheme will be the ability to bring forward and, if necessary, sell—in other words, dispose of—assets that would otherwise not be there that could be used to repay the creditors, and I suppose might in part be used to maintain the operation of the college that is under liquidation.
To stand back a little from the issue, the interesting thing is that much of what we are trying to achieve in this special educational administration is more akin to the Chapter 11 processes in American bankruptcy law than to those here. We have the same basic elements: a court-driven procedure, the protection measure in place in order to make sure that the institution is kept as a going concern, and a commitment that is well expressed in terms of the special purposes of the education administrator to take it through. The question is whether or not that follows through all the way.
The amendment is probing, but it builds on one or two issues regarding which we want to get responses from the Minister on the record. In the first place, it would be helpful if we clarified that, as has been explained by the Ministers in their responses, this is unlikely to be a regular occurrence and will not be precipitated by the Bill, but it might happen and therefore we should walk through it and understand it. If we have a situation where a college is going insolvent, either the system can then operate on existing measures or the Secretary of State can apply for and obtain an order to establish the special administration, and then we are into the process that we have talked about at length and do not need to go back to.
However, it may arise that funds coming into the college to maintain it as a going concern are difficult to sustain. There may be changes in government policy or other changes in external funding that mean that it will not remain a going concern. So we are talking about maintaining the services and facilities for the students for as long as possible but in the certain knowledge that the institution is going to close down. At that point, I am sure it will be in the mind of the special administrator that some assets could be sold so that money could be obtained. Depending on the rules laid down for them, it would probably be rather difficult for that person not to engage with that possibility. However much we may wish to have the assets and the buildings maintained in case there is an uplift and the funds come back, the cruel reality of the situation will probably kick in and mean that the assets will be sold.
If the institution were a charity, as many of these bodies are, the question would not arise because, under charity law, charitable bodies holding assets are not allowed to dispose of them to third parties—in fact there is a prohibition that they must dispose of them to charities of similar nature and purpose so that the charitable purpose under which they were originally established may be maintained. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is the Government’s understanding of the issue. Where special systems or incorporation arrangements are in place, I assume that that will also apply, but charitable status is the main area here, so we are talking about a relatively small group of places where the natural process would be perhaps to squeeze the college down to a smaller area and get rid of buildings, equipment and so on.
The problem then arises that funding was almost certainly originally provided from local authorities but, since then, certainly from central government, so there is an investment issue about whether the funding that has been provided should not be better retained in the sector, even if it cannot be retained within the existing body as a going concern. So the amendment poses this question: in the relatively unlikely event of this happening where the college is not a charity, what happens to freeheld assets that could be disposed of where those assets were originally funded from the public purse? Is there not at least a moral obligation to ensure that they are retained within the sector? I beg to move.
Lord Storey
I have always been concerned when public money has been used to purchase a facility—let us say that it has been used to purchase an FE college and that FE college then sells off land, for example a playing field. That playing field may often have a dual use: perhaps the local community uses it for activities, for example, which is good for the FE college and for the local community. So when it sells it off, public money is being lost to that community.
As we said under the first group of amendments, the likelihood of insolvency is remote. With this amendment, I get the point that public money bought the facilities but, presumably, you could have local authorities—I have seen it quite often—saying, “We’ll have the facilities”, but then selling them off to the private sector to get that money in for other things for the community. Is that the point that the noble Lord is making?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
No, it is not actually—although that is a scary prospect. In my scenario, we are in a liquidation situation in which decisions have been reached that the college is going to decline, because it cannot be made secure. It has been superseded by the court order now in the hands of the special administrator, and a decision has to be made about what happens to the residue. That may take time, but at the end of the day there will be a blank wall and the car will hit it. At that point, what happens to those assets? It is not that they could not be sold for benefit—the noble Lord’s point about land is absolutely right. I think it is pretty unlikely, but there could be land associated with FE colleges that, if sold, could realise development potential which could pay off all the creditors, and that could be seen to be a good thing. But if that money was originally provided for the education—not for a charity, because that is protected—what is the right way to go forward?
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
I support what I think the amendment is about. There is a worrying set of complications, in my mind. Someone has provided the money to keep the FE college going while the special administrator decides that actually it cannot be kept going. Where does the person who provided the money rank among the creditors? We are talking about selling assets at the end of this. For a start, the bank might have a charge on those assets, in which case I guess that is the answer, but somebody has put money in to keep the business going. I have done this on behalf of the Department of Industry—we took back the money that we had put in to keep it going. What is the order of batting in relation to the local authority, or whoever it is, who put the money in to keep the institution going, and the rest of the creditors?
Lord Nash
My Lords, I start by saying that I recognise that the amendment is driven by noble Lords’ good intentions. They are concerned that assets that have been paid for largely by money from the taxpayer should not then find their way into the private sector at an undervalue, when they can then be sold and used to make a profit at the taxpayer’s expense. I recognise and share those concerns. FE colleges are statutory corporations with significant freedoms to deal with their own assets, but the key check on those freedoms is that any such dealing must be in the interests of the colleges’ charitable education—as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, the basis on which they have their charitable status.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful comments. I suspect that the most assured protection would be for the body concerned to be a charitable body. This would give total protection to the resources in the institution because it is not possible to make such a transfer under charitable law. That is not the situation if there are special measures. It is sufficiently clear that the primary purposes trump others—in so far as it is possible that the assets should be kept and used for further education. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) to the director of children’s services at the local authority or combined authority in whose area the relevant institution is based, and to any other director of children’s services that the education administrator thinks appropriate,”
Lord Nash
My Lords, I want to explain Amendments 48 to 55, which we have tabled to Schedules 3 and 4. These reflect the commitment that my colleague, the Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills, gave in the other place to ensure that the needs of care leavers are provided for in the event that the FE body they attend enters educational administration. We agree that students who are care leavers and have already experienced uncertainty and disruption in their lives may well need additional support to help and reassure them during what may feel like uncertain times. Of course, it is entirely possible that, in the event of insolvency, the insolvent college will be taken over by another provider and students will be able to remain on the same campus, studying many of the same subjects. If this is not possible and students need to be transferred to other providers and possibly other courses, we want to ensure that care leavers can get the advice and guidance that they need, particularly if this encourages them to remain in further education. Having got care leavers into education—which is sometimes not easy—it is important to make sure that we retain them there.
There was debate in the other place as to whether there should be a requirement placed on the education administrator to take particular account of the needs of care leavers in much the same way as Clause 22(3) requires them to take account of the needs of students with special educational needs. As the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills explained, the needs of care leavers are more pastoral and would, therefore, be better met by the personal advisor appointed by the local authority to support them. He committed the Government to ensuring that guidance to local authorities on their corporate parenting responsibilities would include advice to personal advisers in the event of a college insolvency affecting a young person for whom they were responsible. This amendment supports the delivery of this commitment. It ensures that support and advice is available to those who need it, by adding the director of children’s services in local authorities—or in combined authorities where relevant—to the list of those to whom the education administrator is required to send a copy of the proposals for dealing with the insolvent college. In this way, the local authority will receive formal notification of what is happening and can trigger the necessary action by personal advisers. I hope that noble Lords will agree to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I warmly welcome these amendments. I am sure that if the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, were in his place, he would be particularly pleased to see that these were included. It is reassuring to find the director of children’s services being included in the Bill.
“( ) to any director of children’s services to whom the statement of proposals was sent under paragraph 49,”
“““combined authority” means an authority established under section 103(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;”,““director of children’s services” means—(a) in respect of a local authority, a person appointed under section 18 of the Children Act 2004;(b) in respect of a combined authority, a person appointed to discharge functions corresponding to those of a person appointed under section 18 of the Children Act 2004;”,”
“““local authority” has the meaning given in section 65 of the Children Act 2004;”,”
Baroness Buscombe
“( ) to the director of children’s services at the local authority or combined authority in whose area the relevant institution is based, and to any other director of children’s services that the education administrator thinks appropriate,”
“( ) to any director of children’s services to whom the statement of proposals was sent under paragraph 49,”
“““combined authority” means an authority established under section 103(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;”,““director of children’s services” means—(a) in respect of a local authority, a person appointed under section 18 of the Children Act 2004;(b) in respect of a combined authority, a person appointed to discharge functions corresponding to those of a person appointed under section 18 of the Children Act 2004;”,”
“““local authority” has the meaning given in section 65 of the Children Act 2004;”,”
“( ) Sums guaranteed under subsection (1) shall include statutory pension obligations payable to staff employed by a further education body subject to an education administration order.”
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 56 would ensure that staff employed by an FE college continued to accrue statutory teachers’ pension scheme and local government pension scheme pension obligations during an education administration. The first of those is self-explanatory, and FE colleges are legally obliged to offer either that or LGPS membership to their staff. The latter is the scheme for the large number of so-called support staff, from learning support assistants, caretakers and catering staff to administrators, cleaners and IT technicians. It would be completely unacceptable if, as a result of an insolvency, staff pension rights or their potential pension rights were to be adversely affected.
When this amendment was considered on Report in another place, the Minister, Mr Halfon, said:
“As with any administration, once the administrator has adopted the employment contracts of the staff they decide to keep on, they are personally liable for the costs of those ?individuals, such as their salary and their pension contributions. They would take on the appointment only if they were confident that sufficient funds were available to meet the costs. Some pension contributions will continue to be made and benefits accrue”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/17; col. 115.]
Although that sounds like a firm commitment, it has not assuaged those with staff directly involved in colleges—namely, the Association of Colleges and the University and College Union. If that is what the Government understand the position to be, I suggest they can have no objection to placing it in the Bill. The Minister in the other place did not provide a reason why that could not be undertaken, and I hope the Minister today will state the case one way or the other.
There are wider issues regarding pensions relating to the Bill. There is concern within the FE sector that the insolvency regime outlined in the Bill is already discouraging partnership and investment by making banks hesitant to lend to colleges. Some colleges are facing issues with proposed mergers arising from area reviews because of difficulties with bank lending linked to local government pension scheme liabilities, which now have to be shown on colleges’ balance sheets.
The area reviews under way are aimed at rationalising the FE sector. That process has been more problematic than it might have been, but at least no colleges have been closed thus far. A number have been merged and often that has worked well, with both partners approaching the future with greater confidence. However, that has not always been the case. For various reasons some projected mergers have not been completed, and one such example is currently the subject of some controversy. Other than to say that they are based in the same city, I will not identify the colleges because that might serve to exacerbate an already difficult situation, but the major stumbling block in that case is the pension scheme, more so at one college than the other. The local LGPS has changed the colleges’ deficit repayment terms from a 22-year plan with no interest to a 10-year plan with an interest rate of 4.3%. As a result, banks are refusing to advance the necessary funds to allow the mergers to go ahead. Essentially the increasing potential for colleges to become insolvent and the proposals within the Bill mean that colleges are now being viewed as high-risk employers, making both pension schemes and banks look on them less favourably and undermining area review outcomes where these have otherwise been agreed.
I have already mentioned the two schemes that apply. When incorporation began some 25 years ago and colleges were removed from local authority control, part of the deal was that by regulation they were obliged to offer one of the schemes as appropriate to existing staff. For new staff, colleges have often held contracts of employment with a wholly owned subsidiary company that may or may not be part of either the teachers’ pay pension scheme or the local government pension scheme—more often, for obvious reasons, it has been “may not”. So, provided that a college keeps paying for current staff, pension costs in respect of new staff will slowly be reduced as they are put on significantly worse pension schemes.
The college area review process has caused problems because often the local fund of the local government pension scheme requires the scheme’s debts to be met by the new entity. This becomes more complicated where mergers cross local authority borders, involving different strands of the LGPS. Differing LGPS regions have significantly different policies on past service deficits, and impose differing contribution rates. They might even insist upon any deficits being paid off in full.
An example of this has been brought to my attention by Sandwell College in West Bromwich. The West Midlands local government pension fund has notified all colleges in its region that, because of its interpretation of the Bill, it intends to increase the risk banding of all colleges. Sandwell College has been rated financially outstanding by both the DfE and the SFA and, in the area review, the further education commissioner decided that it should remain a viable independent institution. Despite all that, the West Midlands pension fund still believes that, because of the insolvency regime that forms the bulk of the Bill, Sandwell College is now at high risk, when it is palpably is not.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I support this important amendment. As we said at the beginning and keep underlining, the insolvency regime is highly unlikely to happen, but that does not mean that we cannot give comfort to staff working in further education, particularly at a time when all the changes, area reviews and, indeed, the Bill have created uncertainty when they need certainty. As we have heard, often through no fault of their own, they could be in a poorer financial place. When we have just heard that BHS staff are to get their full pension entitlements, would it not be nice if the Minister would agree the amendment?
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
I raise another worry that has come to me, which is the reverse. If a public or private company is in danger of takeover, one very good way to prevent that is to introduce a poison pill. The quick way to do it is usually through a very generous pension scheme, or a pay-off scheme for your senior staff. If I were a threatened institution, I might be tempted to consider either of those. It is a hard life, but do we have any means of dealing with threatened institutions which introduce financial measures which will make it much more difficult if they need to be closed or otherwise dealt with?
Baroness Buscombe
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate and will do my very best to reply and, I hope, reassure—notwithstanding that I think that noble Lords accept that some of the important issues raised go beyond the scope of the amendment.
I recognise the well-intentioned purpose of the amendment, which is to ensure that those staff employed by a further education body in education administration continue to accrue their pension entitlements. I hope to reassure the Committee that pension rights will be protected in the unlikely event that the further education body becomes insolvent and is placed in education administration.
In developing the special administration regime, the Committee will see that we have sought to mirror many of the provisions that exist in the ordinary administration regime that applies in the event of a company insolvency. As noble Lords will know, in an ordinary company administration, the administrator has 14 days to decide whether to adopt staff contracts. Those who continue to be employed by the company will continue to be paid in accordance with the contract, including payment by the company of any pension contributions that fall due. These payments are an expense of the administration and continue until the staff are transferred to a new employer, if the business is sold to a new owner, as is often the case, or until their contract is terminated. We propose to adopt similar provisions for an education administration.
We have been clear that, for the education administration to be successful—for the special objective to be achieved—it will be necessary for the Government to provide funding to achieve the special objective: for example, to allow the college to continue to operate while the education administrator prepares his proposals for the college’s future. The Bill provides at Clause 25 powers for the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to provide that funding, where necessary, whether through loans or grants. In addition, the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers may choose, where they consider it appropriate, to give indemnities under Clause 26, or guarantees under Clause 28, during the education administration.
Any funding provided under Clause 25 can be used to meet the cost of the education administration, including ongoing staff salaries and associated contributions, such as employer pension contributions. For as long as pension contributions are being made in accordance with staff contracts, pension entitlements will continue to accrue. The education administration changes nothing in this regard. However, once contributions cease, so too will the accrual of benefits. This would happen where staff were made redundant during the education administration. As with any employer pension scheme, once an individual’s employment ends they can no longer continue to pay into that scheme, but that does not mean that the benefits individuals have accrued in the scheme at that point are lost. Although they can no longer be added to, the benefits accrued will remain in the scheme and increase, as provided for by the terms of the scheme. Individuals will be able to access these benefits as and when the terms permit.
I believe that the way in which the regime will operate in practice means that the amendment is unnecessary. The Secretary of State may not provide a guarantee during an education administration, whereas it is almost inevitable that the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers will provide funding through a loan or grant during an education administration. This funding will enable the continued operation of the further education body, and this in turn will mean that pension contributions continue to be made for all staff, whether teachers, caretakers, cleaners or support staff. I hope that that gives some reassurance.
I turn to some of the wider issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen. Further education colleges report that they are seeing a marked increase in the risks attached to their LGPS pension deficits. The question is: what are we going to do to counteract that? Further education bodies underwent the triennial revaluation of their LGPS pension deficit positions last year, and are still in the process of receiving and reviewing their results. We are aware of the outcome of a few, but not the majority, of the positions of colleges across England. The picture we have is mixed, with some coming out with results better than anticipated, and a minority even seeing their deficit repayment cost reduced for the forthcoming period. Others are seeing their costs increased. In some cases, that may be because they did not increase substantially in the previous revaluation period. There is residual adjustment being made in this period.
The assessment of repayment obligations is a function of many factors, including fund performance, the size of the deficit and fund managers’ overall analysis of the financial position of the relevant college. Reports from colleges received so far suggest that in only a few cases has a pension fund’s assessment of the risk of further education insolvency specifically contributed to revaluations with significantly increased repayment costs. Further education bodies have freedoms and flexibilities in law to be financially and operationally independent of government and are therefore classified by the ONS as private sector. Pension revaluations are a matter for negotiation between individual FE colleges and their pension fund, and final revaluations are normally based on a variety of factors as assessed by actuaries.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned Sandwell, and I shall reference that and West Midlands. Only two of the 91 LGPS pension funds expressed in response to our consultation that the special objective in the insolvency regime was inappropriately formulated, one—which was actually West Midlands—suggesting that creditor protection should be placed on a par with learner protection and the other suggesting that creditor protection should be prioritised over learners. The others that responded to the consultation supported the premise of learner protection or were silent on the point.
As was set out in our response to the consultation, it is right that learner protection is prioritised and that approach is widely supported, even by other creditors. That is the point of the special objective. A few pension funds also questioned not limiting the length of the time for a SAR. We are clear that this is so as to not constrain the education administrator. In reality, an education administration may well last a similar length of time to an ordinary administration. Ordinary company administrations often last at least 12 months and then are often extended for a further 12 months or so, so an education administration lasting this length of time would not be unusual for insolvency proceedings. Several pension funds, as well as other creditors, sought greater certainty on how a SAR would be funded, and the Government responded by providing additional flexibility in the funding power set out in the Bill, removing the requirement that loans from government be made on a basis of priority to other creditors. So the Government can choose, in each individual case, to pay for the costs of the SAR up front by a loan and to not require that loan to be repaid unless any funds remained after other creditors had been paid out, meaning that the assets normally available to creditors remain available to creditors in the usual priority. This will be a matter to be decided case by case, but it does not appear that all pension funds have taken this change from the stricter position in normal insolvency into account in their assessment of the risk.
With regard to the wider issues, which go beyond the scope of the amendment, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords. If there are issues outstanding, I shall write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library for the benefit of all. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank the noble Baroness for that comprehensive response. On the first part of the response relating to the amendment, to a significant extent she repeated the words of Mr Halfon in another place but, equally, she repeated his failure to give a reason why this should not be in the Bill. She said that the Government propose to adopt similar provisions—
Baroness Buscombe
I may not be able to reassure the noble Lord, but we simply do not feel that it is necessary to have this in the Bill.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
Yes, but that is not giving a reason. The proposal is very important, and it fits in with the provisions in Clauses 25 to 28. No harm can be done in having it in the Bill; if it gives reassurance to those working within the sector, I would suggest that, in the absence of any reason not to do it, that should be sufficient reason for it to be included.
I accept that the other points that I raised were beyond the scope of the amendment, and I thank the Minister for indulging me in her response. I praise the perspicacity of the officials sitting behind her, who obviously had an answer pretty much prepared, without knowing that I was going to raise these issues. Maybe it just came off the top of their heads—but either way it was impressive and very detailed.
I will want to take some time to consider what the Minister said. There may well be a case for seeking a report from the Government Actuary on funds that have acted strangely because, if I heard her correctly, she said that two out of 91 funds have suggested that they foresee problems as a result of the provisions of the Bill. I had not realised that it was that narrow. There is still the potential for other funds to adopt a similar position. Perhaps they are holding fire until the Bill becomes law. Can the matter be referred to the Government Actuary for a report on the potential outcome as well as the actual outcomes? At the moment, it seems that problems are being created for some colleges. If they are mainly in the West Midlands, so be it, but the point is that it could happen elsewhere. Will she look at that possibility? On the basis of what she has said to me, we will decide whether to revisit this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The Secretary of State must ensure that the list of disqualified officers is made publicly available.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I shall, rather sensibly, be brief because I am trying to amend a clause that I think will be deleted in the next group, so there is not much point in me trying to argue persuasively the merit of my case, although I certainly could. Since the point arises again in relation to the new Clause 37, if it is approved by the Committee, we may as well just cover it.
I do not think we are far apart on this. The question is more one of being clear about what is asked for and how it will be made available. The issue raised by the amendment is that where people are disqualified from holding office in the further education sector, there is a risk if their names are not made available because they could pop up in other colleges and might be subject to the same concerns. A list, which is quite common in other areas of insolvency, should be made available. It is not mentioned in the Bill or the new clause. When the Minister speaks, I may be advised that this will be dealt with in regulations. If so, I would be very happy at that stage to concede that this point is not required. I beg to move.
Lord Nash
I intend to go into the detail, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to, of the application of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to FE bodies when I speak to the amendment that I have tabled to amend Clause 37 by replacing it with a revised version. As we continue to refer to that Act, in this and the subsequent amendment, I propose that we use its acronym, the CDDA.
For consideration now is Amendment 57, which was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, which specifically provides that the Secretary of State must ensure that the list of disqualified officers is made publicly available. This amendment refers explicitly to disqualified officers, which we take to mean members—that is, governors—of an FE body who have been disqualified by the court having been found liable of wrongful or fraudulent trading under the Insolvency Act 1986, as applied to FE bodies that are statutory corporations by Clause 5, or of similar offences. Under Clause 5, the provisions in the Insolvency Act 1986 relating to wrongful and fraudulent trading will apply to governors and other individuals who run FE bodies in the same way as those provisions apply to directors of, and others involved in the running of, companies.
I understand noble Lords’ concerns and recognise the intent behind this amendment that a publicly searchable list of disqualified individuals should be maintained, so that it is apparent who should not be appointed as a governor of other FE bodies. However, there is already provision in the CDDA for a register of disqualification orders, which is to be open to inspection, to be kept by the Secretary of State. Therefore Clause 37, both as currently drafted and as we intend to amend it, already provides for the well-intended purpose that noble Lords are seeking to achieve. On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for his comments, which I fully accept. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Nash
My Lords, the amendments we have tabled are to replace the original Clause 37 with a new version, with the intention of fully applying, rather than replicating, the CDDA to FE bodies in England and Wales. Amendment 65 to Clause 43 adds an additional clause—Clause 5, in so far as it relates to Section 426 of the Insolvency Act—to the parts of the Bill which extend to all parts of the UK.
The amendment to Clause 37 removes the delegated power to replicate the CDDA and instead applies that Act in full to FE bodies in England and Wales. This allows the court to disqualify any governors whom it finds liable to wrongdoing, not only from being governors but also from being company directors. In so doing, it fully prevents them from being able to repeat, in a different way, the mistakes they have made potentially at the expense of another FE body. This was not possible with the original drafting of the clause, which allowed us to replicate the CDDA but not fully apply it. The amendment closes a potential loophole in the legislation and more fully protects learners at FE bodies from the actions of any governor who chose to act recklessly.
Wrongful and fraudulent trading are important elements of the corporate insolvency regime, which protects creditors against wrongful conduct by directors. We are looking to achieve the same protection in our own regime for creditors of FE bodies. The responsibilities we propose for those bodies’ governors are very similar to their existing responsibilities as charity trustees. Part of that protection is the deterrent effect enshrined in and created by the CDDA regime, which goes hand in hand with the corporate insolvency regime and has done so for the past 30 years. The Charity Commission is wholly supportive of the approach we are taking and sees it as in line with the approach taken for the trustees of charitable companies and charitable incorporated organisations.
The amendment to Clause 43 provides that the provisions of the Bill which extend in their application to all the different parts of the UK include Clause 5, in so far as it relates to Section 426 of the Insolvency Act. Let me be clear: this does not mean that the FE insolvency regime would apply to FE bodies incorporated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It would apply, as set out in Clauses 5 and 6 when read together with the definitions in Clause 3, only to those FE bodies in England and Wales established under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
The amendment would provide that Section 426 of the Insolvency Act extends to the whole of the UK, which would ensure co-operation between the courts of the different parts of the UK. This means that courts in different jurisdictions might be asked to co-operate on a particular case, for example over the enforcement of a charge where assets are located in a different part of the UK to the location of the insolvent FE body; or, in the case of governor disqualification, preventing a governor disqualified in England or Wales becoming a governor in another part of the UK. In view of what I have said, I hope noble Lords will agree to accept the amendments to Clauses 37 and 43.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, Clause 38 is about information reported to the Secretary of State about further education. We are proposing to add these additional lines because of concerns that any changes to the further education sector should be monitored. This is to ensure that the changes are not having an adverse impact either on the quality of courses provided or on people accessing further education. We need to ensure that no groups are particularly adversely impacted.
In 2015, the Independent reported on concerns that a,
“crisis in education funding could see the closure of as many as four in ten sixth-form and further education colleges, according to a new financial analysis”.
In 2014, Sixth Form Colleges Association research showed that the quality of courses was clearly under threat. Its key findings were that over two-thirds of colleges have had to drop courses this year as a result of budget cuts, 15% more than the previous year, and over one-third have dropped sought-after modern language courses. Modern languages will be even more important if we are to continue to communicate with our near neighbours post-Brexit, as well as keeping up trade and good relationships with countries further afield.
More than one-fifth of colleges have apparently lost courses in science, technology, engineering and maths. We are all aware of the shortage of STEM skills. What folly it would be to lose any provision in these subjects. Almost all the colleges in the research, 95%, say they have had to reduce staffing levels; more than two-thirds are teaching students in larger classes; and almost three-quarters say they have had to reduce or remove extracurricular activities such as sport and music. This situation is not healthy for the country, nor for individuals. The amendment would ensure that we were not walking blindly into an irretrievable position, with the loss of valuable educational provision.
I have also added my name to Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, who spoke on this point at Second Reading. There is so much in the Bill about insolvency that we are in danger of losing sight of the institute. Amendment 62 suggests that the institute should promote soft skills. Particularly for disadvantaged young people but actually for any number of other young people, soft skills are important in getting access to jobs and future opportunities. Surely this could profitably be part of the institute’s role. I beg to move Amendment 59.
The Earl of Liverpool (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for referring to my amendment and adding her name to it. She is quite right that I referred to this point at Second Reading. I also referred to the House of Lords report entitled Youth Unemployment in the EU: A Scarred Generation?, prepared by the EU Committee’s Sub-Committee B. My noble friend Lady Buscombe recently reminded me that for a time, we both served on that committee. As I believe she will respond to this group of amendments on behalf of the Government, I very much look forward to hearing what she has to say.
I make no apology for going back to that sub-committee report because I want to pray in aid paragraph 91 on page 41, which makes the case for my amendment. I should like to read the relevant paragraph, headed “Skills”, into the record:
“Employers suggested that one of the key issues in the area of unemployment was that young people did not have the basic skills to take the available jobs. Marks and Spencer said, ‘we are seeing … school leavers lacking basic employability skills, such as communication, self-esteem, confidence’. It said that this created a vicious circle where young people were unable to get jobs due to their lack of skills, which then further damaged their confidence. WORKing for YOUth said that ‘employers tell us in no uncertain terms that it is the soft skills—the communicative skills, the social skills—that they find most lacking by the time people leave school to come to them’”.
I am sure I am not alone in finding that many of my friends in commerce and industry fully endorse this point.
I do not wish to criticise the youth of today, who in some respects are better qualified than ever before, but it is this area of soft skills—or a lack of them—which can let them down when attending job interviews. It is not their fault; since the advent of smart phones, tablets, Facebook and many other apps and games, the young have become almost addicted to looking at their screens and not interacting with others face to face. Indeed, I read an article in a national newspaper at the weekend saying that young people spend an average of five hours a day looking at their screens, so it is little wonder that some communicative and interpersonal skills are to be found wanting.
Surely, the main purpose of this legislation is to seek to provide the youth of today and tomorrow with the broadest set of skills possible to prepare them for full-time employment. This is a golden opportunity to write this amendment or something similar into the Bill. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister and other noble Lords have to say.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we have an amendment in this group. I support the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. They make a very good case for additional words in the Bill to reflect what is surely implied in much of what we have been discussing: the ability of this sector to turn out people with not only technical and apprenticeship skills but wider abilities in the pursuit of jobs and the support of UK plc.
Our amendment is based on an assumption that if all this information is going to be collected then it must be used for something and not simply stay in files in the department. It should be used to support the technical and FE sectors and make sure that people are aware of what work is being done there. The quality being provided and assured by this Bill will make a difference to what people might do and which careers they are going to have. One of the great complaints we hear is that so little is done to try to encourage people towards this sector where good and rewarding courses are on offer, out of which good and rewarding careers can be built. If that is not known, people will not apply, and we will perpetuate the problems we have had in the past. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about these issues. We support the other two amendments in this group.
Baroness Buscombe
Amendment 59 is proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey. It is important that we have a comprehensive analysis of how the further education system is operating in England, including which learners are studying which courses. I agree with noble Lords that analysis of the quality—that is a word I do not think we have used this evening but which we used a lot in Monday in Committee on this Bill—of further education provision and information about learners, including diversity and their geographic circumstances, are important.
However, we believe that this amendment is not necessary. The clause already enables the Secretary of State to require such information if she chooses to do so. The clause rightly gives discretion to the Secretary of State about what information to require from provider organisations. That is the approach in the current legislation we are amending through this clause that underpins a national data system that is working well. The way we gather information is not broken and we are not trying to fix it. We already have the ability to require the information specified in this amendment and already do so. The purpose of this clause is simply to ensure that we can continue to perform a robust and comprehensive analysis of the operation of the further education system in England after responsibility for some aspects of it are transferred to certain combined authorities as part of the wider devolution deals the Government have agreed.
On Amendment 60, I entirely agree with the sentiments of the new clause that would require the Government to have regard to four important aspects of technical and further education. However, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary because they are all things already provided for in the legislation. The duty to,
“promote and support the technical and further education sectors”,
is at the very heart of the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in his review. In the skills plan we announced that we would streamline the technical education system by introducing a common framework of routes underpinned by occupational maps. New qualifications will be introduced that are driven by the needs of particular occupations and based on standards designed by employers and other relevant stakeholders. Many of the reforms will be taken forward by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education under amendments made in the Enterprise Act 2016 after Royal Assent which will come into effect from April this year. The reformed technical education system will be reliant on a strong network of colleges and other providers.
The Government’s area review process has supported a restructuring of the post-16 education and training sector and helped to create more financial stable and efficient providers as well as improved collaboration across the different types of institution. We have announced £170 million of capital funding for the institutes of technology to make sure that we have sufficient provision targeted at delivering high-quality technical education at higher skills levels that is tailored around the needs of local employers.
With regard to the duty to ensure high-quality apprenticeship programmes, the duty in paragraph (b) of the proposed clause is not necessary. The Government have already made a public commitment to ensure high-quality apprenticeship programmes. We will discharge this duty in a number of ways. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Richard and Sainsbury reviews that will help ensure that the apprenticeships offered are of a high standard. As noble Lords are aware, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—on course to be launched in April—will be an independent body, led by employers and others, which will assure the quality of apprenticeship standards and plans in England. Our apprenticeship reforms have introduced a higher bar through the end-point assessment. The holistic assessment of apprentices will give employers confidence that their apprentices are job-ready by requiring them to demonstrate full competence in their occupation in order to pass their end-point assessment.
The Government’s responsibility to ensure high-quality apprenticeships also extends to training. We are working closely with Ofsted, which has a statutory responsibility to inspect the apprenticeships that we fund. We have also created a new register of apprenticeship training providers, with an emphasis on quality. Those with an inadequate Ofsted rating are not eligible to apply. The Skills Funding Agency also ensures the quality of apprenticeship training through its minimum standards and intervention regime.
In paragraph 10 of our draft strategic guidance for the institute, we have made it clear that,
“we would expect the Institute to support employers to develop ambitious plans for good quality standards, not least in sectors where we have evidence of skills gaps and that are priorities for the industrial strategy”.
We have also made it clear that:
“Supporting greater social mobility is also a clear Government priority. Apprenticeships can play a key role in helping to deliver this, through ensuring that people from all backgrounds are able to progress”.
The next duty is to support the financial stability and good governance of further education bodies. Strong financial management and effective governing bodies are important priorities recognised across the college sector. Many governing bodies have made significant progress in ensuring that they have the relevant finance skills and expertise. A survey of governing bodies, carried out by the Association of Colleges in 2015, found that among independent governors, 17% had a professional background in finance, which was second only to those with a background in education. We know that some colleges still find it difficult to recruit governors with a financial background. This is why the Government are funding the newly launched inspiring governance service to help colleges, as well as schools, find people with the right skills to join their governing bodies. The Government are also supporting the Education and Training Foundation in developing a training programme for governors with an existing finance role.
Where colleges fail in their financial management through poor financial performance or control there is an intervention system in place which can include referral to the further education commissioner. The commissioner will assess the college and make specific recommendations for strengthening the governing body. The further education commissioner has set out lessons for strengthening governance in colleges through his termly letters to the sector.
Finally, the duty to support good-quality careers advice is contained in the proposed new clause. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has the appropriate advice and guidance to climb the ladder of opportunity and make the most of their talents. That is why we confirmed in the Building our Industrial Strategy Green Paper our intention to publish a comprehensive careers strategy for all ages later this year. The strategy will set out our plans to expand the quality and quantity of careers advice. We will make it easier for people to access the support they need to find a fulfilling route that is right for them, whether that is an academic or technical route or an apprenticeship.
I hope we can all agree that we share the same objectives and that I have provided sufficient reassurance about the steps that the Government are already taking to support these objectives. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not feel inclined to move Amendment 60.
I move to Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Liverpool and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. As set out in the Post-16 Skills Plan, the Government’s ambition is to ensure that we have young people and adults with the skills, knowledge and behaviours that better equip them for employment in the 21st century. The effect of this amendment will be to prescribe that those skills, knowledge and behaviours include soft skills. I fully understand why my noble friend has put forward this amendment, and I agree that these skills are of paramount importance. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has the appropriate advice to climb the ladder of opportunity and make the most of their talents, but that will not happen without these soft skills. I fully understand why my noble friend has put forward these skills, but I am not convinced that placing an express duty on the institute is the most effective way to address them.
One of the fundamental principles of the new technical education reforms will be that employers, supported by education experts, will set the standards required for specific occupations to allow them to shape the content to give students the skills, knowledge and behaviours that employers require. It will be up to employers and relevant stakeholders to determine which soft skills are required for each occupation. That said, I recognise that soft skills will be important to ensure that individuals gain the key employability and occupational skills to get them ready for the workplace, and we are already putting in place measures to encourage this. For example, the Government continue to support schools to offer a broad and balanced curriculum.
We expect all schools to offer their pupils a rigorous curriculum that is supported by activities to develop the soft skills that prepare them for success in modern Britain. For example, extracurricular activities offered by many schools help pupils develop various soft skills such as resilience, leadership, teamwork, and social and emotional skills before they leave school at the age of 16. In 2015-16, the Government invested £5 million in character education to fund grants to organisations and schools to test new approaches and to expand existing programmes, new activity to build the evidence base and the first round of character awards to celebrate those schools and organisations leading the way in developing soft skills in young people. In addition, these core employability skills could be developed through a high-quality, substantial work placement which every 16 to 19 year-old student will undertake as part of the new technical education courses.
I take on board what my noble friend has said in referring to the report, which he and I contributed to, by that EU Sub-Committee which talked about the real importance of those basic skills. One of the key words that my noble friend used was “confidence”. Confidence, communication and self-esteem are absolutely fundamental. You can have all the skills in the world, whether they are academic, technical, or whatever, but if you do not have the ability to communicate and present and accept that as an employee you will often be the first contact with that company—your employer—then it is very difficult for you to climb that ladder of opportunity.
In view of this, we will reflect on current approaches and determine what more we can do to support schools and colleges in this area. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel reassured enough to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I thank the Minister for her detailed reply and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their contributions to this debate. I think it will be important when the institute gets under way to ensure that we monitor the effect it is having on further education. Indeed, I also support the aims of Amendment 60.
We really look forward to the long-awaited careers strategy and hope that it is closely followed by careers advice, because a strategy on its own is not a lot of use unless there is something coming hard behind it. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, that we will just have to keep trying to find ways to encourage soft skills. I noted the Minister’s words about how important they are and that the Government have them in mind. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
“Refund of VAT to further education bodies
(1) This section applies where—(a) VAT is chargeable on—(i) the supply of goods or services to a further education body, (ii) the acquisition of any goods from another member State by a further education body, or(iii) the importation of any goods from a place outside the member States by a further education body, and(b) the supply, acquisition or importation is not for the purposes of any business carried on by the further education body.(2) The Commissioners shall, on a claim made by a further education body at such time and in such form and manner as the Commissioners may determine, refund to that body the amount of VAT so chargeable.(3) Subject to subsection (4), the claim must be made before the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the day on which the supply is made or the acquisition or importation takes place.(4) If the Commissioners so determine, the claim period is such shorter period beginning with that day as the Commissioners may determine.(5) Subsection (6) applies where goods or services supplied to, or acquired or imported by, a further education body cannot be conveniently distinguished from goods or services supplied to, or acquired or imported by, it for the purpose of a business carried on by that body.(6) The amount to be refunded under this section is the amount that remains after deducting from the whole of the VAT chargeable on any supply to, or acquisition or importation by, the further education body such proportion of that VAT as appears to the Commissioners to be attributable to the carrying on of the business.(7) References in this section to VAT do not include any VAT which, by virtue of an order under section 25(7), is excluded from credit under section 25.(8) In this section—(a) references to the further education body are to the further education body acting in that capacity, and(b) “Further education body” has the same meaning as in the Technical and Further Education Act 2017 (see section 3 of that Act).””
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, this is a probing amendment because I am well aware that issues of VAT are somewhat outside the scope of the Department for Education. However, it is an issue that keeps recurring and it does no harm to raise it again occasionally. The purpose is to equalise the arrangement for VAT refunds between schools and colleges. Currently, colleges, schools and academies are all required to pay VAT on their purchases but schools are subsequently reimbursed for these costs. The Sixth Form Colleges Association argues that:
“The Government’s historic defence for the absence of a VAT refund scheme for … Colleges has been that the VAT costs of … Colleges are taken into account as part of their up-front funding allocation. But with the introduction of the new 16-19 funding formula, all 16-19 providers (including school and academy sixth forms, free schools and … Colleges) are now funded in the same way, using the same methodology. We welcome the steps that have been taken to equalise the funding arrangements … Yet schools, academies and free schools continue to benefit from a mechanism to recover their VAT costs, while …Colleges do not”.
A recent survey indicated that the average college pays some £300,000 a year in VAT. This is obviously a significant amount being taken away from the front-line education of students in a way that is not comparable in schools and academies. Apparently, it would cost around £31 million each year to refund the VAT costs of colleges—but perhaps I should not have mentioned that.
The parliamentary Library briefing on the funding of 16-19 education indicates some key points. In 2010, the Government made a commitment to “fairer post-16 funding”—closing the funding gap between 16-19 education in schools and that in colleges. This was set out in a White Paper called The Importance of Teaching. However, the Government do not seem to have followed this up. There was a ray of hope in an Answer given by David Cameron when he was Prime Minister to a Question from Ian Swales who was then the Liberal Democrat MP for Redcar—those happy days. He asked why colleges had to pay VAT while schools and academies did not. The Prime Minister replied that he would look carefully at what had been raised, particularly in respect of free school meals for sixth form colleges and for secondary schools. He added that it was very welcome that children in infant schools would not have to pay for school meals. He then said:
“I will look carefully at his point about VAT”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/13; col. 158.]
However, looking carefully did not seem to mean that much happened afterwards.
This seems to be an anomaly which could and should be rectified. It would bring considerable benefit to the education of young people and adults in further education bodies, be they sixth form colleges or further education colleges. I raise it again just to see whether there is a more positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I support the amendment; it is a probing amendment in a complex area. Of course the matter is not in the hands of the Minister who is due to respond to it, because it is a matter that is jealously guarded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who after all is responsible for tax receipts. In my experience, the issue is very complicated, not least because of history and practice. There may be a strand of European ideology built into this as well, which may reach a conclusion in a couple of years’ time—or not, as the case may be.
The basic principles of the VAT system are very straightforward: a trading operation has to trade with the full weight of VAT on it, and expenditure on it is recouped against subsequent users and from those who purchase the goods and services provided. Those things that are not deemed to be trading do not attract VAT, but equally they cannot be redeemed against the VAT that has been incurred in the purchase and preparation of them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, those bodies exposed to the full weight of VAT on their non-trading activities suffer a 20% penalty for the work that they are doing, and that is money that could be properly reinvested. That is a sound case and I am sure it has exercised Ministers before. I look forward to hearing the response.
Lord Nash
I thank noble Lords for this amendment, which calls for a change in tax policy. It seeks to allow FE colleges to claim refunds of VAT incurred on their non-business expenditure. As noble Lords have acknowledged, tax policy is a matter for the Chancellor and the Treasury. Any tax changes are considered by the Chancellor in the normal way and announced in the context of his Budget judgment, as he will be doing next week.
I understand this call for additional funds from the Treasury for FE, but there are clear implications when thinking about such a change. It is estimated that it would cost the Exchequer about £145 million per year. That cost would have to be covered somewhere in the economy—for example, reducing public expenditure on other government priorities. In addition, the VAT treatment of FE colleges is no different from many other public bodies.
However, in view of all that the noble Baroness said about the previous Prime Minister’s comments about looking carefully at the matter, I will go back to see what further I can say by way of explanation for the status quo. I hope that in view of my comments, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I am grateful to the Minister for his careful looking and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support for the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Constitution of further education corporations
(1) Section 20 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (4) insert—“(5) An instrument must provide for the role of the Clerk to include providing advice to the corporation with regard to matters including—(a) the operation of its powers,(b) the conduct of its business,(c) matters of governance practice, and(d) general procedural matters.””
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest in that my wife is a consultant at the Education and Training Foundation.
The very fact that we have been debating insolvency measures in the Bill underpins the responsibility of the boards of FE institutions. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to the issue of financial competence and the initiatives being taken on governance, which are welcome. We should certainly pay tribute to the public-spirited citizens who undertake these roles, which have become ever more onerous in the past few years.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, will know that my main experience is in the National Health Service. Between 2011 and 2014, I chaired the board of an NHS foundation trust. In many ways, the way that FE colleges and NHS foundation trusts have developed is similar. They are very similar institutions: they both provide a public service and are almost entirely dependent on public funding, although the routes by which it reaches the institutions are a little different, but increasingly they have to stand on their own two feet and, if you like, the buck stops with the board. That is very different from the way that FE used to be, with institutions that were owned by the local authority. It is the same for NHS foundation trusts.
However, there is a difference in governance. In the NHS there is essentially a two-tier structure. As chairman of the board of directors, I was appointed by the governing body, which was elected by the members of the foundation trust—in my case, 100,000 of them—who were essentially patients, members of the community and staff. As chairman of the board of directors, I had regularly to account to the governors in public meetings every other month and meet them individually as well, as did the chief executive—whose appointment had to be ratified by the governing body—the executive directors and the other non-executive directors. I and the non-executive directors had a term of office that was subject to reappointment, but only at the pleasure of the governing body.
We also had a senior independent director, a non-executive director to whom any member of the board could go if they were concerned about anything to do with the running of the board, the performance of the chairman or indeed the performance of the chief executive. When outside regulators came to review the performance of the organisation, they would be able to talk directly to the senior independent director. In addition, we had a highly qualified and experienced company secretary who was charged with ensuring that the trust acted within the law and exercised good governance, and acted as an adviser to the chairman on difficult issues, including the performance of the chief executive and the executive directors. This was not an issue in my case but if, for instance, I as chairman had decided along with my non-executive colleagues that we wished to remove the chief executive, it is to the company secretary that we would have gone, and he would have advised us on the way to do it. He would have done so without informing the chief executive, except where due process would at some point be required.
Looking at governance in further education, I just do not get the sense that there is that robustness. In too many colleges, the members of the governing body tend to be self-perpetuating—it was interesting to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about financial literacy among those governors—the principals often play too much of a role in deciding who the members of the governing body will be, and the board’s members are of course accountable to no one but themselves and do not meet in public. So there is very little transparency about the performance of the boards of FE institutions, and there has to be some suspicion that, at least at some colleges, they do not exercise challenge and scrutiny as much as they should.
This therefore makes the role of the clerk to the governing body very important. However, there is a problem, to which I referred at Second Reading. The Minister will know that one of the reasons we are having these insolvency provisions is that some institutions have got themselves into trouble financially. We also know that in some cases that is because principals have decided to undertake ventures that, if they were subject to proper scrutiny, I do not think they would have been allowed to. There is an instance in Birmingham where basically a principal was going on foreign adventures—there was a fashion in FE for colleges to try to open up and do deals abroad—without the kind of expertise and scrutiny that we are talking about, and almost all those adventures ended up in trouble. There is evidence that the college’s board of governors did not exercise due scrutiny and diligence when it came to those issues.
There was a paper by the former Learning and Skills Improvement Service identifying a number of issues with governance. It stated that in FE there can be too much polite consensus to avoid conflict, with insufficient challenge, a business focus at the expense of core educational performance, a taking on of big risks but not managing them, with the clerk being undervalued in being able to stimulate and facilitate good governance. This is where I come to the role of the clerk. These days, I do not think the word “clerk” aptly describes what needs to be done. Unfortunately, some principals seem to have mistaken the role of clerk for that of secretary, and that is a big problem. At national level, I have no argument at all with the Minister’s department, the FE commissioner or Ofsted, all of which have on a number of occasions given their support to professionally qualified clerks at a high level.
On the ground, there is a suspicion that that has not always been reflected. There is some evidence that, when clerks leave, it is not unusual to see the role offered at a lesser salary with lesser hours and for it to be offered internally, to an administrator. Unbelievably, there have been reports of examples of the principal’s secretary being asked to undertake that role. That is completely unacceptable, and I am surprised that the national regulators have not ruled on that. It reflects the fact that governing bodies are poor and simply do not challenge principals when they make decisions that are totally unacceptable, such as that one.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has spoken wise words. In local government, the quality of officers advising elected members is hugely important—the independence of those officers and their ability to challenge and scrutinise with neither fear nor favour. In further education, we are talking about multimillion pound budgets. You have only to flick through the pages of the further education press to see some of the horrendous accounts of what has gone on in the past. I do not want to go into those lurid details; I shall leave it to people to have a look at them if they so desire.
What that suggests to me is that the governing body of those institutes has to be of the best possible calibre; it cannot be a friend of a friend, not wanting to offend the principal. It is often difficult to attract calibre governors, so the role of the clerk cannot be some sort of part-time lesser role; they have to be people who are confident in themselves. Those three words—“scrutiny, challenge, transparency”—are really important. This is the tail-end of Committee, but to get the Bill right is important. The points that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has made are also important. I hope that between now and Report we can look at this in a little more detail, because it is crucial.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
I support the amendment. I am new to the business of voluntary governorship in state-funded institutions. I have been fortunate for most of my working life to have been in organisations that had admirable company secretaries, who had the equally difficult task of standing up to chairmen and chief executives—but these were well-trained, qualified and well-paid people. The problem in all education is, of course, that anything that is not a teacher reads like an unmerited overhead.
I am not quite certain what I should propose as a remedy, but this point is key. Many of the messes that schools and further education institutions get into have to do with governance, and that has to do with a clerk who is not actually qualified and probably not properly paid.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I hesitate to speak because I can see that a Division is pending and it would be nice for us to be able to finish at just the right point, but I realised when my noble friend was speaking that I was that clerk. In an earlier career, I was the clerk of an FE college. The spectre of the buccaneering principals who were around in FE at that time came crowding back, and I felt I ought to share that with the Committee. The problem was that these institutions were very often the creatures of the local authority that owned and fronted them, and there were pressures at play. The principal wanted to be the person who was the main conduit to the local authority and would not brook any interference. Absent the principal, the company secretary, who was indeed a demon of great skill and ability to maintain her position in the structure, took over and ran the place very adequately. But with the growth of corporate structures and, now, the whole question of how that must be used to mature and operate organisations of some scale and scope, I would have thought there must be a way of ensuring that, when corporate structures such as companies are established, there has to be a company secretary, and that company secretary must fulfil at least the minimum standards required of those who operate in the private sector. So there may be a way forward.
I agree entirely with what my noble friend said: the pressure to keep those who are academics—and who should be academics—away from trying to do things that they are patently unable to do, just because they happen to occupy the position of principal or vice-principal, has been an enduring theme with those who have worked in the education sector at FE and HE level. It is only recently that appropriately qualified and suitably remunerated members of that profession have been operating in the way that they should. I support the amendment.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I recognise the very important role played by clerks as expert advisers to governing bodies of further education institutions, and I pay tribute to the contribution by clerks and governing bodies up and down the country. As the responsibilities of those bodies increase, we must also support the development of the capability and professionalism among clerks. As the Minister responsible for governors in schools, I can completely see the importance of this matter. That is why we support the Education and Training Foundation in the delivery of a new professional development programme for clerks to be rolled out this year. Sector representative bodies also deliver a range of activities to support clerks, including a very active clerks’ network and best-practice materials. The ETF is also supporting the increased professionalism of clerks through the improving clerk to company secretary programme to take account in changing college structures and clerks’ responsibilities, whereby clerks can attain company secretary qualifications. We are supporting chairs of boards of governors through the national leaders of governance programme, where experienced chairs mentor others who need support.
There is a well-established statutory requirement for the instrument of an FE institution to make provision for there to be a clerk, and for provision for the responsibilities of that role to be set out in the instrument. That is set out in Schedule 4 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. This means that the importance of the clerk’s role, which I know is recognised by members of this House, is also reflected in law.
While further statutory prescription in relation to duties and responsibilities of the clerk may appear attractive, I do not believe that it is the right approach in this case. I will elaborate. The amendment proposes a few high-level matters relating to advice that clerks should provide and, as proposed, overlooks certain features that would reasonably be expected to be an important part of any clerk’s role. These include, for example, independence from the senior management team at the institution and a duty to take appropriate action if the board, the chair or one of the committees appears to be at risk of acting outside their powers or to be proposing actions that may be unlawful.
The 1992 Act sets up high-level requirements for the instrument and articles, including a requirement for there to be a clerk and for the clerk’s responsibilities to be set out in the instrument. Since 2011, colleges have not required the consent of the Secretary of State to amend their instruments. The detailed content of the instrument, including the details of the responsibilities of the clerk, now largely rests with the governing body of the FE corporation rather than with Ministers.
In my view, the existing balance between the requirements set out in legislation and the responsibilities of the governing body is the right one. We should be very careful about removing from colleges the necessary flexibility that enables governing bodies to adapt and tailor their governance arrangements to fit the circumstances of their institution. That is particularly important in a sector as varied as further education. It is obviously important to guard against the possibility that greater prescription has the unintended effect of undermining the responsibility and thus the accountability of governing bodies. The careful balance set out in the current legislation in relation to matters of governance, including in respect of the role of the clerk, remains important going forward.
Principals do not appoint board members. Governors are appointed to the board by the board itself. A good principal will have a strong interest in having a capable body. When there is a material pre-existing relationship between the principal and a member of the board, it should be declared as part of the appointment process. The Association of Colleges’ model job description states that the clerk should be independent of the senior management team and should provide unbiased advice.
We do not think this amendment would add materially to the conduct of clerking or to governing bodies of FE colleges. We believe clerking is generally working well, and the quality of clerking has undoubtedly improved significantly in recent years. However, as I have spent part of the last four years attempting, I think with some success, to raise the importance and effectiveness of governance in schools, and in view of what noble Lords have said, I will go back and investigate their concerns and see what more we might be able to do in this regard, because it is important. Legislation may be a very blunt instrument, but I will go back to look at it further.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am very grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Lord McCluskey
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Immigration
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Green of Deddington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentage of the change in the total number of households in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2014 is attributed to households with a non-United Kingdom born household reference person.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, according to the Office for National Statistics, 90% of the growth in households from 2010 to 2014 can be attributed to households with a household reference person born outside the UK.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I have been asked to explain that a “household reference person” is modern bureaucratic-speak for head of household. Now we know what we are talking about, I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that we should welcome the many contributions that immigrants make to our society and economy, but that we should also be frank about the costs? Does he recall telling this House on 19 January that in the main scenario, just over one-third of additional households were due to net migration? Yet today he tells us that in the most recent period, 90% of additional households were headed by an immigrant. Surely it is now obvious that the DCLG should be using the high-migration scenario—that is, the one that implies a demand for a new house for a migrant family every five minutes, night and day.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is the case that 37% of household growth is due to net migration. I certainly endorse the noble Lord’s comment that we have every reason to be grateful for immigration; it adds to the diversity of national life and makes a significant contribution to national life, not least to the public services.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, these statistics need to be interpreted very carefully. For example, the Minister’s right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was born in the United States of America so—although Marina might argue to the contrary—Boris Johnson is the head of a household who was born outside the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that overall, migrants, particularly those from the European Union, contribute far more to the United Kingdom than they take out, and not only should they be welcomed but, if they are already here, they should be allowed to stay?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is interesting to speculate that as the Foreign Secretary was, as the noble Lord has said, born in the United States, that makes him, I think, eligible to stand and become President of the United States—an interesting scenario. I certainly endorse the noble Lord’s effective point about the contribution that the immigrant communities have made to this country. As the Prime Minister has indicated, that will continue to be the case: in any scenario we will still be welcoming many people to this country as immigrants.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister realise that the Foreign Secretary renounced his American citizenship only last year and that he is therefore not eligible to stand for President of the United States of America?
Lord Clark of Windermere
But while I am on my feet, will the Minister also confirm that about 60,000 individuals from the European Union are working in our National Health Service, and that the service would collapse completely without them?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me in relation to the Foreign Secretary. I certainly was not trying to whip up a campaign on his behalf, and I now know that there would be no point in doing that any way.
The noble Lord’s very serious point about the contribution of EU citizens—as well as of other people who were not born in this country—to public services, including the National Health Service, is well made and the Government are well aware of that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, I would not dream of asking the Minister a question about how many EU citizens are involved in building houses because he is very proficient and I am sure he would not have that information. However, would he agree with my observation that many houses—for both incoming and existing families—are built with the endeavours of migrant workers from the EU?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness is very kind and her point is well made. It is certainly the case that a significant number of people who work in construction are from communities that were born overseas. We have regular discussions with the construction management board to ensure that the needs of that sector are taken account of, in view of the independent Farmer review which looked at that area.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that our universities are—along with those in the United States of America—the best in the world? This is greatly because of the foreigners who make up almost one-third of our academics. According to a recent report, almost 50% of academics in some subjects are from abroad. Without them we would not have excellence. It does not matter that they were foreign born: they are of benefit to this country.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point about our universities, which I think are the best in the world, independently of America. Many people in them are undoubtedly from overseas, including many students.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister rightly pointed to the contribution made by immigrants to the health service, but a growing proportion of households have someone needing care at home. A report today from the TUC suggested that 7% of social care workers are from other EEA countries, with others from outside the EU as well. What effect would it have on informal care in the home if immigration were significantly reduced?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very valuable point about the care sector, a large number of the employees of which undoubtedly come from overseas—not just the European communities. The Government are well aware of this and it will inform our immigration policy. We recognise that we need significant numbers of the brightest and best people with particular skills for our public services and elsewhere.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as the series of questions to which we have just listened shows, it is completely counter- productive to keep harping on about the quantity of immigration, not the quality?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I think that that is the essence of the Government’s policy. We recognise the need for particular skills. We recognise that over time we have relied on the skills of immigrant communities who have made a massive contribution to national life, and continue to do so. I endorse what the noble Lord said.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, we have heard a number of questions and all of them have commented on the very good things—the advantages of immigration to this country. Will my noble friend tell me how many of those convicted of terrorism or aiding terrorism have been immigrants, and how many of them have been the children of immigrants?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend will appreciate that I do not have those figures to hand, but it is undoubtedly the case that there are people from any community who are involved in crimes—terrorist crimes or other crimes. I will endeavour to get the figures that my noble friend asked for and ensure that a copy of the letter is placed in the Library.
Circuses: Wild Animals
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will bring forward legislation further to their manifesto commitment to ban wild animals in circuses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to banning the use of wild animals in circuses, and primary legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time is available. In the meantime, ahead of a ban, to safeguard the welfare of any wild animals still used in circuses, Defra introduced a licensing scheme in 2013, which is currently in use for 16 wild animals in two travelling circuses.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for his reply, and I take his point that only a few animals are subject to this, but however well-regulated, they still suffer physical and social deprivation. Given that more than a dozen Private Members’ Bills on this issue have been blocked in Parliament over the last few years, will the Minister give us a timetable for the Government’s delivering on their promise of a ban?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am not in a position to say precisely, but I would like to take one issue up. One of the reasons we introduced the licensing scheme was to ensure the welfare of the animals. I have seen the conditions of the welfare scheme associated with the licensing, which is rigorous and requires inspections by vets and inspectors at least four times a year. The welfare standards of these animals—six reindeer, three camels, three zebras, one fox, a macaw, a racoon and a zebu—are high. On ethical grounds, this situation should be prohibited.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that such legislation might obstruct the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pull a rabbit out of a hat next week?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am afraid my noble friend is a bit too fast for me there. The truth is that this is important legislation that we wish to put forward, but I am confident that the welfare elements, which are so important, are well-provided for in the licensing scheme.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, wild animals are not just kept in circuses—they are still kept in homes. About 5,000 primates are kept as pets in the UK. The Primate Code was due for review in 2015. When are the Government going to get on and do it?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, there is of course legislation, and under the requirements of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act the primary focus is public safety, but clearly, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 absolutely applies. We are absolutely clear that it is not appropriate at all for primates to be kept as pets.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I was going to ask about primates myself. Both the BVA and well-respected animal welfare organisations such as the RSPCA all agree that primates are totally unsuitable to be kept as pets; they are highly social, highly intelligent animals and many welfare problems arise when they are kept in captivity as pets. Will the Government consider taking stronger action to remedy this serious welfare issue?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I will certainly take back what your Lordships have said, but it is absolutely clear that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. This is backed up by a code of practice, and no one should keep a primate in solitary conditions, as the noble Lord has said, keep it in a small cage or feed it with an inappropriate diet. In other words, I repeat: primates should not be kept as pets.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may push the Minister further on the real reason for the delay in introducing the Bill. According to the latest Defra consultation, 95% of the population support a ban and the issue has cross-party support, so it cannot be because the Government fear a backlash. We are prepared to work with the Government to introduce what ought to be fairly simple legislation, and I really do not understand why there is continuing delay.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I obviously understand what the noble Baroness is saying, and I too would like to make progress. However, I repeat that 16 wild animals are currently under a very rigorous licensing scheme. I deliberately mentioned their species so that your Lordships could understand which animals were involved. I emphasise that there are very regular inspections, and one reason why primary legislation is necessary is that there is a view that a legal challenge would be made because there would be insufficient grounds to secure a ban on a welfare basis.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, even if enforcement is rigorous in relation to animals in circuses, what about the position of the other animals that have been referred to—the primates which are inappropriately kept in people’s homes? Who is enforcing the laws relating to that?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, these are all matters that local authorities are required to ensure are enforced under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act. Clearly, if there were any issues, Defra would want to work with local authorities because it is absolutely essential that suitable animal welfare provisions are in place. I will take back what has been said about primates—I am very conscious of that—and if I have anything further to add, I will report back to your Lordships.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, a lot of the wild creatures kept in people’s homes as pets, whether birds or any other creature, have been smuggled into this country. Is the Minister confident that the National Wildlife Crime Unit has sufficient capacity to deal with the level of smuggling?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Baroness raises a very important issue. The answer is that we believe that there are sufficient resources at the border, but clearly we need to be ever more rigorous. There are all sorts of schemes under many directives. From an animal welfare point of view, it is hugely inappropriate to smuggle in animals, whether they are domesticated or wild, and this is one area I will very much look at addressing.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister is aware, there are very strict conditions on keeping animals in zoos. Has he seen the report in this morning’s papers about the zoo in the Furness district of Cumbria, where there has been an appalling number of deaths of wild animals—over 500, I think—in recent years?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I have indeed. Of course, a zoo-keeper also died in that case. It is inappropriate for me to reply in detail because this matter is subject to the consideration of an application renewal by Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council, which will be happening very shortly. However, I am very conscious of what I think are far too many deaths among animals in that zoo.
Personal Injury Claims: Motor Vehicle Incidents
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hayward
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in tackling the abuse of personal injury claims relating to incidents involving motor vehicles.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, reforms to address road traffic accident-related soft tissue or whiplash personal injury claims have been taken forward through the Prisons and Courts Bill, introduced on 23 February. These include a fixed tariff of compensation for whiplash claims and a prohibition on offers to settle such claims without medical evidence. A number of changes to the small claims limit for personal injury will also be made.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that a year ago to the day I asked a Question in relation to John Elvin, who reported to his insurer, Sheilas’ Wheels, an accident that he was convinced would be the subject of a false whiplash claim. It was settled and we now have the figures. Sheilas’ Wheels paid £1,500 for damage to a car that was not inspected and the people concerned were given over £6,000 for personal injury, despite the fact that they were able to leap out of the car and protest about a non-existent injury. Is it not the case that the industry has enough to do in putting its position right, as well as dealing with other issues that apply in these cases?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I quite understand the point that has been made. That is why we have included in the proposed legislation a ban on insurers making offers to settle such claims without medical evidence. We have of course addressed the issue of medical reports through the MedCo scheme.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as an unpaid consultant in the firm of solicitors in which I was senior partner. The increase in the small claims limit for whiplash cases is likely to lead to greater activity by claims management companies, which will take a substantial cut from any damages. Will the Government take steps to control this parasitic industry? This week, the Lord Chancellor announced changes to the way in which damages for personal injuries are calculated. Such damages are estimated to cost the National Health Service, which recovers the costs of treatment for motor accident claims, an estimated £1 billion a year, and they increase insurance premiums. Is this not a classic example of a ministerial car crash?
Lord Keen of Elie
No, my Lords, this is not a ministerial car crash. I remind the noble Lord that the increase to which he refers arises as a result of the application of the discount rate introduced by the Damages Act 1996, which was last reviewed in 2001. The object of the change in the discount rate is to ensure that those who suffer catastrophic and life-changing injuries are fully and properly compensated for those injuries by reference to the damages calculation for their future care and support.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I have a copy of the report. Will the Minister comment on the following two simple statements? The report says that, once this is implemented, savings of £1 billion will be made and the average motor policy will come down by £40. Huw Evans, director-general of the Association of British Insurers, says that a 21 year-old’s policy will rise by £1,000 and 30 million other comprehensive policies will rise by £40 to £75 a year. Which is accurate, which is correct and which, in the long run, will prove to be right?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, there are two distinct issues to be addressed in this context. The reforms with regard to whiplash will, on the basis of completed impact assessments, result in very considerable savings in motor insurance premiums of the order of £1 billion. It is estimated by the industry that this will result in an average reduction in motor insurance premiums of about £40. The major operators within the motor insurance industry have undertaken to pass those savings on to the motorist, the consumer. However, the changes in the discount rate will inevitably impact on the cost of insurance, including motor insurance, and that will give rise to certain increases. One may offset the other, but I add that the Lord Chancellor indicated when announcing the change to the discount rate that this will be the subject of consideration and indeed a consultation, which is due to commence no later than Easter.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I begin with a declaration of interest: I do not now practise as a personal injury lawyer but I have done in the past. Does my noble and learned friend recognise that the reduction in the Ogden tables to a discount rate of minus 0.75 will inflate the damages that are recoverable in personal injury cases to an extravagant and unconscionable extent, which is bound to inflate the numbers of fraudulent or unjustified personal injury cases in motor claims to the prejudice of all drivers? That being so, may I welcome the fact that these proposals are going to be looked at again, I hope constructively?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the way in which the discount rate is calculated will be examined with some degree of urgency. However, I do not accept that the discount rate will result in the inflation of the value of damages claims. It was designed originally to ensure that those claims would be properly calculated so that those who suffer life-changing injuries are properly compensated for the future.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Does that mean that if the interest rate goes up, the discount rate goes up? I am only following the noble and learned Lord’s logic.
Lord Keen of Elie
The discount rate is related to the rate of return on government bonds, because there is an underlying assumption that those who receive large damages awards for future care will invest them in a very conservative manner, in bonds. Therefore, as the interest rate drops, so the discount rate will also drop.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I should declare an interest in that I practise in this area. May I suggest to my noble and learned friend that one way to get round this difficulty would be for the Government to legislate to reverse the effect of Wells v Wells, which was decided on the basis that a notional investor would invest in gilts? That is not realistic and has resulted in this extraordinary change to the discount rate.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I agree with the observation that the level of the discount rate reflects a very conservative assumption about how a person would deal with a large lump-sum payment of damages in order to protect their future position. That has to be the subject of review, because it is clearly outdated.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, surely the review and the consultation should have come before the change in the discount rate, which is, as the Minister has heard from around the House, absolutely preposterous. As he knows, it is a fixed number based on three-year index-linked government securities, a commodity in which nobody who is investing funds for an injured claimant will put their money—it is less than you would earn by putting it into a local bank account. The fact that the number is preposterous means a big increase in premiums for motorists and a billion pound additional burden for the NHS, as well as an unnamed additional burden for the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness acknowledges that the basis of the calculation of the discount rate clearly requires review. However, the Lord Chancellor was under a legal obligation to deal with the discount rate and we are now concerned to ensure that we consult fully and address the question of how it should be calculated in future.
Business Rates: Revaluation
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take in the light of the concerns expressed about the increases in business rates facing some businesses.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer the House to my interest in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, a significant majority of businesses will end up paying less as a result of the business rates revaluation and changes to relief. The generous reliefs we are introducing mean that 600,000 small businesses are set to pay no business rates at all. We have also confirmed £3.6 billion of transitional relief to help those companies facing increased bills. We are looking at the hardest-hit businesses ahead of the Budget.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Mary Portas has described the valuation as madness. The chief executive of Sainsbury’s, Mike Coupe, has called for the revaluation to be abandoned. The Federation of Small Businesses is against it. In Southwark, the borough I grew up in, one business in the north of the borough is facing a 50% increase in its business rates—which equates to £66,000 per annum or, to put it another way, three jobs at risk. Will the noble Lord agree to speak to his colleagues in the Treasury to impress upon them the concerns expressed and to make it clear that real substantive action needs to be taken in the Budget to deal with this problem and protect the high streets? Tinkering around the edges will not do.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Yes, my Lords. I should say, however, that the revaluation system has been a constant of life since the 1988 legislation, and three revaluations were held under the Labour Government on exactly the same basis as this one, at arm’s length. But the noble Lord is right: some businesses, particularly larger businesses in London, have been hard hit. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is speaking with the Chancellor and looking at possible options, and we can expect an announcement in the Budget.
Baroness Rebuck (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that sometimes we can actually learn from our European neighbours? France exempts 500 bookshops from business taxes, recognising them as cultural assets in their local communities. But our Government want to clobber our bookshops with rates rises that are, on average, 100% in London and up to 50% for a small independent bookshop in Lincolnshire. Meanwhile, large retailers’ distribution centres get massive cuts. I declare an interest as a publisher. Can the Minister confirm that he will look at the impact of this regressive tax on the one in four of our bookshops now threatened with closure?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Baroness makes a powerful case. As I have already indicated, small businesses are set to pay no business rates at all, and we have increased the number of small businesses by moving the threshold to a rateable value of £51,000. Therefore, any business under that will not be paying business rates at all. However, the point is well made and, as I say, there will be action in the Budget for businesses that got steep rises.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I do not recognise the Minister’s description of the high streets. Our high streets are in crisis. How can they compete with the likes of Amazon, with their low-rateable land away from the high street? During the coalition, a Liberal Democrat Minister commissioned a review of business rates which was scrapped by the Conservative Government. Can the Minister say whether they now regret scrapping that review, bearing in mind the mess they are in? Can he also comment on the fact that business rates are dealt with by the DCLG—which obviously considers it a good earner—whereas it should really be dealt with by the Business Secretary?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, there are quite a few questions there. The point that the noble Lord made about the high street and other forms of business activity has some merit, but it is quite separate from the issue of revaluation, which is done at arm’s length. We are open to looking at options, but obviously it will take time and we could not expect to do anything on this before the Budget. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Treasury did look at this in 2015 and, having consulted widely, concluded that the present system was best. However, I appreciate that globalisation, the internet and the vitality of the high street are factors that have to be weighed in the balance, so we are happy to look at this. The noble Lord asked a few other questions. If I may, I will respond to him in writing on those and put a copy in the Library.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether Her Majesty’s Government would look at the feasibility of setting the threshold of business rate relief at a local level, thereby protecting small independent businesses, many of which are now at risk, especially in high-value areas?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an important point. In a sense, of course, localism is already fed in because the valuation is done locally and should reflect local conditions. As I have indicated, small businesses, with up to £51,000 in rateable value, get the small-business rate; and many small businesses—600,000 in the current rollout from April this year—will be exempt. But the local factor is taken account of by the fact that there is a local valuation that reflects local rental values.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, not just businesses but council-run schools, among others, have expressed concern about these increases, which will put yet another unacceptable pressure on our education system. Can his department and the DfE perhaps get together to address what are very real concerns?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I would be interested in hearing more from the noble Earl on that particular issue. Clearly, as we have found out and as has been true of any revaluation, you always hear from the losers, for understandable reasons, and I am not objecting to that. But once again I remind the House that there are significant numbers of people in large parts of the country, particularly in the north and the Midlands, who benefit from this revaluation, and understandably, they are not the people rushing to the press and saying how wonderful the Government are. It is always going to be those who lose out. But many people have gained from this process.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 1st March 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European 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: HL Bill 103-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (27 Feb 2017)
18:27 - Division on Amendment 9B - Ayes: 358 / Noes: 256 - Amendment 9B agreed.
“( ) Within three months of exercising the power under section 1(1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me on St David’s Day to be opening this session on the Bill. I move Amendment 9B on behalf of the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Bowness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, but also on behalf of perhaps 3 million people, who quite literally feel that they are being used as mere bargaining chips in order to secure the rights of another 2 million or so UK nationals who live, study or work elsewhere in the EU. It is legitimate for them to think that they are being used as negotiating capital because that is exactly what the Home Office told them. All of these 3 million, and indeed the four of us whose names are on this amendment, also share a real concern for those UK expats who, thanks to our EU membership, have settled in one of the other 27 countries. We have all heard of the serious worries of Britons living abroad with their homes, children, jobs and lives settled there. [Interruption.] We are in Committee, so I am sure the noble Lord will have plenty of time to come in.
As I was saying, we have all heard representations of the serious worries of Britons who have settled abroad. They have homes, children, lives and jobs there and now fear for their rights, and their access to medical treatment and other services and wonder what the future holds for them. It is not acceptable to place such people under that pressure. But these two groups of people should not be traded against each other. There are twin objectives, both to look after the EU and the UK nationals who live in each other’s countries.
I reckon that the Minister knows a thing or two about twins because his own, being a boy and a girl, are not identical. But neither are these two groups of people identical. Indeed, the big difference is that for EU nationals here, it is in the gift of our Government—the UK Government, answerable to this Parliament—to decide how to treat people resident in our country. So, contrary to the letter that was sent yesterday by Amber Rudd, we do not accept that this is a matter for our negotiations with the EU. This is a matter for the UK.
Amendment 9B would ensure that the rights that EU citizens here would have if we remained in the EU should stay the same on exit day. These people need to know now, not in two years’ time or even 12 months’ time. They simply cannot put their lives on hold. Some are planning schools for their children or moving jobs, renting or buying homes or acting as carers. Some are receiving healthcare. Many more are working in our health service. All should have their uncertainty removed, particularly as the reality is that many would have other rights to remain under the European Convention on Human Rights. Do we really want to clog up our courts and cause these people dismay by forcing them to court in order to assert those rights?
We should be clear that this view, decoupling their future from that of UK residents abroad, is supported by organisations representing British citizens in the EU which support the guarantee of such rights before the start of Brexit negotiations. Their statement on 20 February called on the Prime Minister unilaterally to guarantee rights of EU nationals in Britain. They say that it is,
“damaging to the UK’s reputation for UK citizens living in Europe and EU citizens in the UK to be treated as negotiating currency”.
They go on:
“Like UK citizens living in Europe, EU citizens in the UK have come and settled in another EU country in good faith on the basis of their EU citizenship rights … rights that cannot be withdrawn retrospectively and the guarantee of their rights should be given before the Brexit negotiations”.
The main, short-term request from UK nationals abroad that I know of, as Fiona Benson in Italy wrote to me, is that they want a helpline through our consulates for getting their documents sorted out.
In addition to the moral obligation that we have to all these workers, students and families established here and who want some certainty, we also need to think of the industries that depend on them—science and academia, large parts of the public sector, especially the NHS and social care, as my noble friend Lord Clark will outline. There is little wonder that the Conservative chair of the Commons Health Committee has called on the Government to guarantee the rights of EU nationals to stay, without delay. Consumers will suffer if the food and drink industry suddenly loses its workforce, which includes over 100,000 EU nationals at all skill levels. Unsurprisingly, the Food and Drink Federation survey indicated that 10% of them were already thinking of leaving Britain. And this in a sector already facing a large skills gap, due to demographic change. Indeed, the FDF estimates that it will need 130,000 new skilled workers by 2024. The Food and Drink Federation joins the 3 million-plus group and the British Chambers of Commerce in seeking urgent reassurance from the Government on the status of those already here and employed in the UK. I do not think that the Home Secretary’s letter is going to satisfy them—nor, indeed, the public. A post-referendum poll found that the vast majority wanted EU migrants living here and working in the UK to be allowed to stay. Just 5% demurred.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in supporting this group of new clauses and amendments, I shall vote for any one of them that is most likely to commend itself to your Lordships’ House.
Perhaps I may begin by acknowledging that the Government have indeed shown sensitivity about this issue. Their position is essentially pragmatic. Their case is that unilateral action will not address the needs of UK citizens now resident in Europe. In essence, the Government’s position is that in order to increase the leverage that they have with the EU as regards UK citizens residing in Europe, they wish to keep on the table, as a bargaining chip, the right of EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom.
While I understand that argument, I remain extremely uncomfortable with it. I cannot accept the assumptions and implications inherent in that policy. We need to remind ourselves of the central facts, which are these: there are millions of EU citizens—maybe over 3 million—who have come to this country in the legitimate expectation that they will be able to live and work here for as long as they choose. For many of them, that has been a career-changing, maybe even a life-changing, decision, which may be irrevocable.
Their decision was entirely reasonable and proper, based on their assumptions. It accorded with the law that then existed. It accords with the law that exists today. For the United Kingdom now to disturb that expectation would involve an act of retrospective legislation and policy that would offend natural justice and, I suspect, the principles of human rights legislation. Indeed, it is probable that if we seek to deny European Union citizens now resident in the UK the right to continue to stay here, we would be challenged in the courts, and that challenge might well succeed.
Moreover, as a matter of general principle, legislation and policies that are retrospective in their operation should be avoided. Individuals are entitled to regulate their affairs in accordance with the law that exists at the time they make their decisions. To depart from that principle exposes all of us to risk to our freedoms and our ability to make safe choices.
I suggest that we test this this way. Many of us have relatives who were born outside the United Kingdom. My paternal grandmother was born in Tennessee. She came here to marry her first husband, who alas died, then she married my grandfather while she was living here. Both my maternal grandparents were brought up in County Galway. They came here after the First World War to settle permanently. Had my grandparents’ right to reside in those circumstances been challenged, and had I been aware of it as an individual, I would have said that that was a profoundly unconscionable prospect and I could not have supported it.
I cite a more recent consideration. On Monday I was lunching in the Members’ Dining Room of the House of Commons, where I was meeting staff whom I have known for many years. One of the waitresses there whom I have known for years came up to me and said, “What is going to happen to me when Brexit takes place?” She was born in France, but she has worked in the United Kingdom and been in the House of Commons for many years. I gave her my personal opinion, which was that there would be no problem, but I was not able to give her the guarantee she was entitled to deserve.
In the end, this is a matter of principle. This House can make a unilateral decision and give a unilateral guarantee. That is what we should do. Let us all remember how shocked we were when Idi Amin expelled the Asians from Uganda—so shocked that we offered them refuge in this country. Indeed, for those who are historians, keep in mind how shocked Europe was when Louis XIV revoked the edict of Nantes, causing thousands of Huguenots to flee France—often to this country—to its great impoverishment.
I do not say that we are going to do this. I do not think it likely that we will. But we have not put it outside our power for it to happen. That is wrong. I ask your Lordships to take the moral high ground and give reassurance to the millions who have made their home here in the expectation that they can continue to live and work here. To the pragmatic among my noble friends who sit on the Front Bench, such as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I say this: the moral high ground is very often the best ground on which to fight a campaign.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in supporting Amendment 9B I shall speak also to Amendments 25 and 41. It is a pleasure to follow the powerful speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I assure the House that the colour co-ordination between us is a complete coincidence.
The Government’s case is that these matters will be dealt with in negotiations. They claim that, but for the obduracy of our EU partners, they would have had a negotiation before the notification of Article 50. It was never realistic to expect ad hoc negotiations on one particular very important issue in advance of notification. There has to be an expectation of structured negotiations.
If the UK Government give a unilateral guarantee now to the millions of EU citizens who are contributing in this country, not only will they be doing the right thing morally and economically but they will be supplying a crucial catalyst for a quick reciprocal deal. It was reported in the newspapers on Monday that the Prime Minister expected to reach a quick deal on the issue, so that it could be removed from the rest of the Brexit negotiations as soon as possible—an expectation which I think would generally be supported—but the truth is that the Government are holding EU citizens here not as hostages and bargaining chips for British citizens in the EU but for other goals. It is disingenuous to inflame the fears of British people settled elsewhere in Europe that their case would be undermined by a unilateral move by the British Government. I think that those groups have appreciated that their case would not be so undermined.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned some of the figures about the contribution of EU nationals to our economy. It is worth remembering that 10% of doctors here are from other EU countries. Sadly, there are reports of many of them wishing to leave or of others being deterred from coming here because of the uncertain environment that they face. Nine per cent of the workforce in construction are continental Europeans —my noble friend Lord Stunell emphasised that—with all the infrastructure ambitions that we have in this country. Similar figures, of 10% and 14%, can be cited for other sectors.
There were rather conflicting press reports earlier in the week about the Government’s intentions regarding a cut-off date. On Monday, it was reported that it was intended to set a cut-off date of 15 March—one’s instant reaction was, “beware the ides of March”—because it was said that government lawyers had advised that using the date of the referendum would be illegal. There was considerable comment that using any date short of our departure from the EU could also be illegal, because while we are in the EU free movement rights continue. There was then a rowing-back from No.10.
The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has stated that after Britain leaves the EU,
“we will be ending free movement as we know it”.
Not only must that apply to arrangements for the future but it must have some significance for people already here. While we are in the EU surely EU law on free movement, as on other matters, applies. Indeed, the letter from the Home Secretary states that,
“nothing will change for any EU citizen, whether already resident in the UK or moving from the EU, without Parliament’s approval”.
If that can be said, I think the Government can be in a position to make the unilateral guarantee that I hope this Committee will back today.
I want briefly to mention the problems that EU citizens, and particularly their families, are having in applying for permanent residence at the moment. Last July, the then Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, gave assurances that nobody needed any documentation to demonstrate that they had a right permanently to reside if they had acquired five years’ permanent residence. I bobbed up and down occasionally to say, “But surely they will need some of kind documentation”. That has proved to be true. It has proved to be an 85-page document. One witness to the Brexit Select Committee in the other place displayed 34 kilograms of documentation, and she was only halfway through the collection. She had been here for 30 years, but she had to show the Home Office evidence of every time that she had entered and left the UK. Has anyone kept documentation for 30 years?
The goalposts have been moved retrospectively. People are being asked to document every move in their lives and they are being required to prove that they have private medical insurance. Although they were previously entitled and allowed to use the NHS, they are now told—having never been warned throughout possibly decades of residence—that they are not entitled to use the NHS. This is a matter of legal dispute, and I believe that the European Commission is making a statement on that subject to the European Parliament this afternoon. We might be enlightened about possible future infringement proceedings.
The upshot is that people are living in a state of anxiety, uncertainty, real dismay and turbulence. This is surely not a state of affairs that a Government whose Prime Minister has talked about the need for a kind and fair society can tolerate. The Government ought to accept that the weight of opinion is in favour of that unilateral guarantee, which will then trigger similar rights for Britons abroad.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, but I do not know what evidence she has for her assertion that the Government intend to use this issue as a negotiating encounter for wider issues once the negotiations start. On the contrary, at the end of last year the Prime Minister made an attempt to resolve this issue in advance of the negotiations on a reciprocal basis, but that was rejected out of hand by Chancellor Merkel and President Tusk on the grounds that no discussion of this issue could take place until Article 50 was invoked.
My noble friend Lord Hailsham, in his extremely eloquent speech, launched a great deal of obloquy on the legislation that would be necessary to deprive EU nationals of their rights. I agree with him, but that legislation is not before your Lordships’ House this afternoon. The question that your Lordships have to decide this afternoon is what action to take in the light of the truth—perhaps unpalatable to many of your Lordships, and unpalatable to me, because I have made it clear on numerous occasions that I actually favour a unilateral guarantee and think that that is what the Government should give—that the Government are not going to change their mind and that the other place, where this issue was raised, considered, voted upon and resolved by a majority of 42, is not going to change its mind either.
Lord Howard of Lympne
There are murmurs from the Benches opposite, but there are no new facts in this debate. This is an issue that is essentially simple. The arguments have been gone through in the other place; there are no new facts. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, criticised the Home Secretary for saying what she said in advance of the arguments, but we know what the arguments are. There are no new arguments on this issue.
Lord Richard (Lab)
A slight thought went through my mind as the noble Lord told us what will happen in the House of Commons: “If that is so, what is the point of the House of Lords?”.
Lord Howard of Lympne
There are many occasions when this House can bring forward new arguments and a fresh perspective on a situation, and genuinely make the other place think again. I do not believe that this is one of them. The question we must ask ourselves today is: how can we best help the EU nationals resident in this country? The best way is to bring the uncertainty of their position to an end as quickly as possible and the best way to do that is to pass the Bill and activate Article 50 as quickly as possible.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, on the issue of new facts, does the noble Lord agree that one new fact is the communication from all the expatriate groups across the European Union that they wish the House to pass this amendment because they believe it is the best way to secure their position?
Lord Howard of Lympne
I am sure many of those groups made their views known when the matter was debated in the other place. Though of course their views need to be taken into account, I do not see that as tantamount to a new fact.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, during this debate, which may be lengthy, it would be helpful for those of us sitting listening if speakers from the Conservative group of Peers did not refer to the Opposition raising objections when objections are being raised all around the Committee. That will not do any good to the image of the House.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, I do not think I ever referred to the Opposition raising objections. The noble Baroness uttered a legitimate rebuke but I do not think it needed to be directed at me on this occasion.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I entirely endorse what my noble friend said when he replied to the last interjection. However, he told the House a few moments ago that he was a unilateralist on this issue. The whole theme of the remain campaign, of which he was a distinguished leader, was taking back control. Why can we not have a unilateral gesture before the negotiations begin, seize what my noble friend Lord Hailsham called the moral high ground and make a declaration?
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, we could but the Government decided not to. I wish we would. I would like the Government to take that view but they decided not to. I believe that this House needs to face—
Lord Winston (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, has made one major assertion repeatedly: he kept saying that there are no new facts. There are new facts and they are really important to the British economy. The Government made it clear that science and technology is one way in which we will lead. Yet we are bleeding the best academics from this country at present. They are leaving one by one, or thinking about leaving, because they do not see themselves having a future in this country. That is urgent. It needs to be dealt with now.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, the debate in the other place was very recent. That fact, along with the others, was well known to those in the other place. With great respect, it is not a new fact. Clearly, many will disagree with me most profoundly but I believe that these amendments will work against the best interests of those they are designed to help. The best way to help them is to pass this legislation as quickly as possible, activate Article 50 and then negotiate to give these people the rights they deserve to stay in our country.
Lord Bragg (Lab)
My Lords, 3 million foreign nationals in a population of about 65 million represents a minority. This country has benefited greatly from minorities for centuries. Sometimes they are minorities of a people fleeing tyranny; most markedly in the middle of the last century, the Jews came to this country and enriched it immeasurably. Sometimes they are minorities who fight for the rights of their religion, such as the Roman Catholics and Unitarians over the past couple of centuries; or for their own rights, such as votes for women; or for the rights of others, such as the magnificent vote in the other place a couple of centuries ago that abolished the slave trade. Again and again, minorities have helped us become the best of what we are, as do the minorities here today in the 3 million we are treating so shamefully. From my own experience and that of others in your Lordships’ House, I can point to the dazzling contribution of minorities across the arts, the sciences and the widest spectrum of our cultural and intellectual life.
I speak strongly for minorities because I am a member of one—a bullied and beleaguered minority whose views have been dismissed and effectively gagged. I, like the Prime Minister, voted to remain. We have become a minority. I am rather surprised that with her pride in her sovereign intransigence, she did not stay on to lead the 48%—
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he seems to be launching into a Second Reading speech. Perhaps he might confine his observations to the amendment in hand.
Lord Bragg
I thank the noble Countess. I have a short speech—about as third as long as the previous speech—and I have nearly finished it. I was wondering why the Prime Minister did not lead the remain campaign after we had become a minority. Why did she not fight on, as so many other minorities have successfully done, to achieve what they honourably and passionately think is best, as we all do, for this country? It is outside the democratic development of our history that a single-issue vote should be allowed to change the course of that history for ever so dramatically and, in my view, so potentially disastrously.
Finally, one major aspect of the disaster is to turn our backs on those who have come here and given their talents and skills to the United Kingdom, settling here and transforming us in so many ways for the better. They are now reduced to pawns in a government strategy which, to many observers here and abroad, seems largely clueless and without any response, save bluster, to any critical questions. The answer to the question of foreign nationals, for our own national pride in who we are, is to tell those who are here now that we want them to stay here and be welcome.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, we shall hear next from the most reverend Primate.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, Uganda was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. It was regrettable that Idi Amin kicked out two types of Asians—British citizens and Ugandan citizens. My opposition to him was over the Ugandan citizens, who were the largest number. He kicked them out and my coming here in 1974 was as a result of my opposition to such behaviour. So I know how minorities can feel in a place. I know that we need to reassure our European friends who are resident here and want to remain here.
However, I have one great difficulty. Your Lordships’ House can scrutinise and revise legislation, but this simple Bill is simply to confer power on the Prime Minister to notify under Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that there is an intention to withdraw. It is giving her the power which I believe only Parliament—not the royal prerogative —can give her. At the meeting of the Lords Spiritual before all this came about, I questioned her right to simply use prerogative power because of what had gone on way back in 1215 in Magna Carta. Clause 39 says:
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land”—
and by “man” of course we now mean “woman” as well. Clause 40 says:
“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”.
I think that is still enshrined in the rule of law in this country.
As far as I am concerned, until we have done the negotiation two years down the road, European citizens who are living here now will have every right to be here, like anyone else. People want to give assurance, but I think the assurance will be when the big Bill comes and we begin the debate. Remember, the European Union has free movement of people, free movement of goods and free movement of services. All that this little Bill is doing is starting a race: on your marks, get set, bang—and then they take off.
It will take two years to run this race. During the running of the race, we want to be sure that the concerns that are raised in this debate will come back. If, as I do, we want to see the Government take this decision on behalf of all of us—that EU citizens should be given a guarantee to remain—the best way to do it is to call the bluff of Angela Merkel by saying that we have now triggered Article 50, we will talk about it and unilaterally give the guarantee. It will be much quicker than the three months proposed in this amendment. I want it to be quicker than three months.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Does the most reverend Primate not understand the moral obligation on this Government? These people are not bargaining chips. If we say quite freely that they are free to stay, that gives the moral high ground to the Government in their negotiations. I would argue that all noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Howard, should vote with their conscience and not with their party.
The Archbishop of York
I never want to see any human person used as a bargaining chip. They are made in God’s likeness and as far as I am concerned, they are people and must be treated according to the rule of law in this country. The Prime Minister tried to give a guarantee. Angela Merkel did not want it before Article 50 was triggered. My suggestion is to trigger it and go back to what you promised.
I may be a Primate, but thank God I am not in captivity. The other Primate is definitely in captivity, because he is unwell and his legs have just had an operation—but I am not. I suggest that the sooner this becomes law, the greater the challenge we can give the Prime Minister on what she attempted to do but was prevented from doing because Article 50 had not been triggered. As soon as it is triggered and the power is given, we shall shout as loudly as we can and campaign as much as we can for her to go back to what she originally suggested.
People such as me were shocked, after being here and having to travel round on a travel document and pay huge sums for visas to visit the rest of Europe, to suddenly discover that when naturalised—that is the word that is used—as a British citizen we could suddenly visit the whole of Europe without a visa. That was great stuff, and I applaud it—but, please, this is a very limited Bill and we should pass it as it is.
I have one more suggestion for our Minister: to set up a truth and listening commission in every one of our four nations, so that the divisions which we are seeing at the moment can be healed and to listen to the truth and to what the people of Britain and Northern Ireland are looking for, rather than simply locking it in the Government. For those reasons I will vote against any of the amendments, as I do not think they are revising or improving the legislation. They are simply adding on and adding on.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I support Amendment 9B, which is in my name as well as those of the other three noble Lords. It is about the rights of EU citizens in this member state, of course, not those in other member states. I support the amendment without hesitation because I believe we have a commitment to honour here, to recognise not just the rights of these citizens—although that is important enough—but the contribution they have made, are still making and will, I hope, continue to make to our economy and our society. The amendment does not seek to dictate to the Government the details of how these rights should be secured. That will be for the Government to sort out in the proposals that are called for in the amendment, and for Parliament then to decide. I would say here to the most reverend Primate that nor does it entail any delay in the triggering of Article 50 beyond the Government’s deadline at the end of this month.
So far as I can see, there is in fact only one faintly respectable argument against the amendment, which is that to speak unilaterally now about how we will treat European citizens here is not the right way for the UK to help the position of its own citizens who are living in other European countries. But that argument simply does not hold water. Otherwise, why on earth would British citizens right across the European Union have today issued a statement making it quite clear that they support our taking the decision in the amendment and believe that it is the best way to secure their rights?
I do not think I could be accused of supporting the cause of those fellow citizens right across Europe in a half-hearted way. I moved an amendment in the House which would have given them the right to vote in the referendum—which, quite shockingly, they were deprived of by the majority who voted against that. My own view is that for us to move unilaterally to protect the rights of EU citizens here is in fact the best possible step towards safeguarding the rights of our own citizens elsewhere in the EU.
I say that as someone with a little experience of EU negotiation. I negotiated our accession to the treaty, in a very modest way, as well as the budget rebate, the establishment of the single market and the opt-out on the euro. Of course, I cannot be sure that I am right, but I do think that there is a reasonable chance that I am right—and I do not believe that the transactional approach, which is the way that the Government wish to go, is the right way to proceed or is likely to produce good results—or will produce them quickly. So I hope that your Lordships’ House will approve this amendment when we come to vote on it.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendment 9B, which overlaps with other amendments, including Amendment 37 in my name. There is a moral case—a human rights case—which has already been very well made and which I therefore will not repeat. I want to pinpoint four different categories of employment in which this issue is particularly acute. I do so from my own experience in Wales, but it is equally relevant throughout the United Kingdom.
The first group that I highlight are workers in the tourism sector, particularly those in the hotels and catering trades. In Wales, we benefit from having hundreds of workers from EU member states, such as the Baltic states, Slovakia and Hungary. It can be argued that most of these jobs could be done by residents in Wales—they could, of course, but the reality is that the work in this sector is not particularly popular, partly because some jobs are highly seasonal and partly because the wage levels are sometimes low. In Wales we now have a low unemployment rate of 4.4%, which is below the UK average. It is no exaggeration to say that if these employees were to depart overnight, the sector in Wales would be in crisis. Employers need to know now that their current staff will be able to remain and, indeed, to have some indication of the circumstances after Brexit or during any prolonged Brexit negotiations under which they will be entitled to employ staff from other EU countries.
Secondly, there is the food processing industry. Many of the same arguments apply—in some cases, to an even greater extent, because firms often overdepend on EU workers. Thirdly, in a different category, is our university sector in Wales and throughout the UK. In Wales, we have 1,355 EU nationals employed at present, often in key jobs where they cannot be easily replaced. Fourth is the NHS in Wales where, as in England, there is a high level of dependency on staff who have come here from other EU countries. I believe that more than 1,100 such EU employees work for the NHS in Wales at present. Without these, the service would be in real danger of collapse. More than 6% of our doctors are from EU countries, and we already have a critical shortage of GPs. Regarding this fourth group, I have been told of key jobholders, fearful of what may happen to them after Brexit, who are already actively seeking jobs in their home countries in case at some later stage there is a stampede of their fellow EU nationals seeking to return home, and getting a job there consequently becomes that much more challenging.
The Government have been taking the line that they will give priority to the position of EU workers in the UK when the negotiations start, but it is not at that point that the necessary assurances can be given to these workers. If the issue is subsumed as part of the overall negotiation package, the outcome will not be known until the negotiations are nearly complete. That would be totally unacceptable not only to thousands of such workers living in Britain but, I believe, to this House and the other place. That is why this amendment must be written into the Bill and why MPs must be asked to think again on this critical matter. If they do not, I believe that we should have the courage of our convictions next week, or whenever, to insist that this provision be enacted. Thousands of people are looking today to this House to give a lead, and I earnestly hope that we do not let them down.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, what faces us today is an extremely serious issue, and I want to put before your Lordships the way I happen to look at it. Throughout the European Union there are a large number of people who were born in one European country—by that I mean a country that is a member of the European Union—and now reside in another, under the protection of the laws prevalent in these countries in consequence of the treaty that puts the EU together. Many people in our country and in other countries are in this situation.
I believe that the moral high ground is to treat all these people equally. They are absolutely equal people—and they are people. I completely repudiate the idea that I should treat any fellow human being as a bargaining counter or anything of the kind. I thoroughly reject that and have no truck with it whatever. I believe it is essential that all these people be treated properly and equally. The problem is that their rights of residence in the countries in which they live are now threatened by the vote that this country has taken—against the views of a number of people here, including my own—to leave the European Union.
The European Union, in its wisdom, has formulated a way in which such matters should be settled—by the terms of a negotiation under Article 50. Some members of the European Union have refused to get into any kind of negotiation until that mechanism, set up under the treaty, is triggered, and this Bill is intended to enable our country and our Government to trigger that mechanism. The Bill is necessary because it is appreciated, and was appreciated in the courts at both levels where the cases were heard, that this would affect people’s rights, secured by Act of Parliament, in this country. Of course, that applies to the same extent in the other countries of the European Union, because the law of the Union, by virtue of the treaty, has to be accepted as the law in those countries as well. So those people’s rights are all rights in terms according to the Treaty on European Union.
The European Union has stipulated a way in which, if any country wishes to leave, it should do so—and Article 50 is that way. I think that all these people have to be treated fairly. They are all in the same boat, and they are all people whose security in the country in which they are residing is threatened until that matter is settled under the European Union negotiation structure. I believe it is right that that should be done in a way that is fair to them all.
I am the first to acknowledge that we owe a tremendous amount to people from other European countries who are resident here—in the National Health Service and a whole lot of other places. I myself have often seen extremely good work done by people who have come from, for example, Poland, to work here. The work they do and the benefits they give to us are very great. However, that is not a reason to give those people preference over the other people who are affected in exactly the same way.
As the most reverend Primate has said, the right thing is for Article 50 to be triggered and for the Prime Minister to immediately ask—as she has said she will—for this to be settled, in a way which would cover the whole of the European Union. The only excuse that has been offered so far in Europe for not agreeing to this is that Article 50 negotiations, which are the way out of the European Union, have not been triggered. I would confidently expect—I have the greatest possible respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick—
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
What is the argument against a unilateral gesture on the part of this Government, generating good will which could permeate the rest of the negotiations? There is no need for any negotiations.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
A unilateral declaration of that kind is not treating fairly all the people who are affected by this problem. The moral high ground is fairness and that is the only ground we can take in a negotiation of this kind. I thoroughly believe that the chances of a complete settlement of this matter are greatly increased if the negotiations are triggered and the Prime Minister makes this the very first requirement, as she has said she will. Nobody in the European Union has so far given any reason for not agreeing with it for all European nationals who are in other countries of residence.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
I respectfully point out to the noble and learned Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that Liam Fox said at the Conservative Party conference that the uncertain status of EU nationals living in the UK is one of the “main cards” in the Brexit negotiations. For that reason, I do not trust the Government on this issue.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I do not regard myself as bound by remarks made by Dr Liam Fox anywhere. I have been given the responsibility, so far, of being a Member of this House and of attempting to explain to your Lordships, as fully and briefly as I can, what I believe to be the moral high ground: to treat all people from the European Union who are in countries other than their countries of origin according to the rights secured by the European Union treaty. The time for a fair negotiation of the whole matter is when that treaty is departed from, in accordance with the rules set out in Article 50. That would come very quickly because, as I have already said—I am repeating myself now but I will not do it again—I have heard no argument from Europe against this, except that the negotiations have not been triggered in accordance with the provisions of the treaty itself.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 16A and 38 and I also support Amendment 9B. Whether or not one favours a unilateral guarantee to EU citizens in this country, as I do, there are key questions about the Government’s approach which can and need to be answered now. Amendment 16A is a probing amendment which seeks to draw out the answers to these questions. I hope that the Minister will respond to them fully when he winds up. First, what rights do the Government intend to provide for EU citizens and their families in the UK and to seek for British citizens and their families in the EU? The Government should tell us now. If they did so, they would provide much-needed clarity for EU citizens here and British citizens in the EU. Those citizens need to know that they and their families will not just have a right to residence and to work, but also have access to public services—in particular, health—without which, for many, the right to residency is meaningless.
Thirdly, what procedure do the Government envisage by which EU citizens in the UK will gain rights of residency under British law? As the report of the EU Justice Sub-Committee on acquired rights makes clear, the current indefinite leave to remain procedure would not be suitable. It would not be able to cope with the applications which would have to be processed and it requires documentation which, in many cases, EU citizens simply will not have because they have never needed it, or had any expectation of needing it.
Fourthly, what do the Government intend to be the qualifying date for the rights that they grant to EU citizens? Will it be the date of withdrawal—as it was in the case of Greenland’s exit from the European Union, which is the only precedent we have—or do the Government intend some other date? Again, people need to know the Government’s intentions so that they can get on with planning their lives.
Next, there is the question of comprehensive sickness insurance cover, or CSIC. As my noble friend Lady Ludford said—many noble Lords will be aware of this—there is a dispute between the UK and the EU on whether the National Health Service qualifies as comprehensive sickness cover. The EU maintains it does, but the UK maintains it does not. Whatever the merits of the dispute between the EU Commission and the UK Government on this matter, three facts are clear. First, many EU citizens had no idea this requirement existed. Secondly, those who did thought they were covered by their right to use the NHS—a reasonable assumption, given that that is the position of the EU Commission. The third and final stark fact is this: if the Government adhere to their current position on CSIC, thousands of people, many of whom have been resident in this country for decades, will find themselves without the right to remain in the country that they have made their home—that cannot be right. This issue is causing huge anxiety to millions of people and it is in the power of the Government to resolve it by stating that evidence of CSIC will not be a requirement for EU citizens to gain permanent residence. They should do so now.
Amendment 38 simply makes explicit the unilateral guarantee to EU citizens resident in the UK and provides that no agreement under Article 50 can be entered into which does not protect the rights of UK citizens and their families in other EU countries.
It is not my intention to put either amendment to a vote this afternoon, but I hope that the Minister will address the questions raised by both of them. I will support the cross-party amendment because it offers the best opportunity to send a clear signal to the elected House. But I will want to come back to the issue of British citizens in the EU, addressed in Amendment 38, because their rights are also of crucial concern to my noble friends, myself and many noble Lords across all parties in the House.
Many British citizens living in the EU have contacted me and many other noble Lords to say how abandoned they felt by the elected House and how heartened they were that this House was addressing their concerns. We must not abandon them again. Through no fault of their own, as the result of a referendum from which the majority of them were excluded, millions of British and other EU citizens suddenly find their future at the mercy of the whims of politicians. They fear that they may be excluded from the countries that they have made their home. In some cases, they fear being split up from their husbands or wives or partners. These are not spurious fears; they are not the result of scaremongering; they are the result of the Government’s failure to provide either moral leadership or administrative clarity. Take the example of an elderly couple—
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, even if you are a Liberal Democrat you cannot have it both ways. You either give priority to people living here—those you think should have priority—or you do not. This amendment, which the noble Lord has spoken in favour of, does precisely that—it gives priority to EU citizens living here, rather than British citizens living elsewhere. He cannot have it both ways.
Lord Oates
Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me but if he listens to my argument he will understand the answer to his question. Let us take, for example, an elderly couple, resident in Germany, who wrote to me recently—one a British citizen, the other a German citizen. They wrote to say that they are terrified that, if the final agreement does not provide for continuing access to healthcare, they will not be able to continue to live in the same country, and the same fears have been expressed by EU citizens in the UK. These are not abstract issues; this is about the lives of millions of people, it is about the anxiety and fear that has been inflicted on them since Brexit, and it is about the uncertainty that means that their lives have been put on hold. The Home Secretary claims in her letter to us that—
Viscount Ridley (Con)
The noble Lord talks about fear and anxiety but does he agree that what we have heard this afternoon—the inflaming of the fears of these people—has come from only one side, including spurious mentions of the edict of Nantes and Idi Amin?
Lord Oates
My Lords, no, I do not agree with the noble Viscount for one moment. These are fears expressed to me and to noble Lords across the whole House. They are not manufactured; they are real and present, and the Government need to address them.
The Home Secretary claims in her letter to us that a unilateral guarantee to EU citizens resident in the UK would cause uncertainty for British citizens in the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, that is not the view of the many groups representing British citizens in the EU that have written to me and have published a statement today. Not only do they accept the need for a unilateral guarantee but they have strongly urged it on me and, I am sure, on other noble Lords. Far from causing uncertainty, they believe that it would provide them with reassurance.
During the debate on this Bill, there has been a lot of discussion about who said what in the referendum campaign, but no one disputes that the leave campaign claimed that the rights of EU and British citizens resident in other countries would not be affected. That is what they said; they also said that to state anything else would be scaremongering.
Since the vote to leave, politicians from across the political spectrum have been clear that we should unilaterally state that we will protect the rights of EU citizens here. A prominent leave campaigner, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, spoke earlier. In evidence to the Justice Sub-Committee, he made it clear that that should be the case, at least as far as residence and rights to work and study were concerned. He said that he did not think we should,
“wait for any question of reciprocity”.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, rightly advised the Government—some months ago, I think—that they should lead by example. He has taken a clear, principled stance on this issue throughout, as have many noble Lords in this House, including the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord Hannay, my noble friend Lady Ludford and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who moved the amendment—noble Lords of all parties and none, remainers and leavers alike, because this is not a partisan issue; it is a question of principle.
Doubtless the Minister will tell us that this Bill is not the place to concern ourselves with such principles, but it is the only place. It is our one opportunity to send a clear signal back to the elected House that we regard the principle of protecting the rights of EU citizens resident here and British citizens resident in the EU as a matter of honour for our country, and, in doing so, to show that we have heard the distress and anxiety of millions of British and other EU citizens, and that we have been prepared not just to offer warm words but to act.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, we need to try to organise this debate so that we hear all sides of the argument. I hope that noble Lords will understand if I suggest that it is the turn of my noble friend Lord Tebbit.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, in a manner which has not been followed by anybody else in the House today, I should declare my interest in this matter. I have a nephew who has lived and worked in Germany for 20 years and I have a Danish son-in-law who has lived in this country for over 30 years.
Being here today has been an extraordinary experience. First, we have been unfortunately and unusually denied the presence of my noble friend Lord Heseltine, who is not in his usual place.
Lord Tebbit
Then perhaps he will do us the kindness of addressing us, because it is an almost unique experience.
The other reason that this is a remarkable day for me is that, at a time when we so often hear slave traders criticised, my noble friend Lord Hailsham has made the most splendid defence of them. He said that a man who decides to do anything is entitled to do so in accordance with the laws as they were when he took the decision. I hope that we will hear a little less about students tearing down portraits of slave traders now that my noble friend has dealt with that so effectively.
It seems to me that the first duty of this Parliament of the United Kingdom is to care for the interests of the citizens of this kingdom. If we are to be concerned about anybody’s rights after Brexit to live anywhere on this continent of Europe, we should be concerned for the rights of British people to live freely and peacefully in other parts of Europe. Somehow or another, today we seem to be thinking of nothing but the rights of foreigners.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, people of nationalities of other countries within the union are foreigners.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
Will the noble Lord develop the argument about protecting the rights of UK citizens a little further? What would he say to a UK citizen married, perhaps, to a German or Dutch national and now worried about their right to remain, to work and to live in this country?
Lord Tebbit
That is exactly what the Prime Minister has said: we will look for an equitable solution. That means, in my view, that the rights of those who are currently resident here who, although they are not British subjects, are citizens of the EU, should be kept. But, of course, so should the rights of British citizens living within the EU. That is not a difficult matter. Why is everybody here today so excited about an amendment that looks after foreigners and not the British?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord that the amendment is structured as it is because we are conscious of the powers of the British Government, who are able to determine the lives of the EU citizens resident in this country but not able to determine the lives of our own citizens abroad. That does not mean to say that we think any less of them; we are fighting for them.
Lord Tebbit
Of course we do not have the power to look after our citizens overseas—not in these days when we do not have many gunboats—but we have an obligation to look after the rights of those people and to look after those rights first. The best way we can preserve the rights of all those concerned—EU citizens here and our citizens on the continent—is to allow Article 50 to be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible, to get the worries over, and for a decent and proper arrangement to be made. I only wish that European statesmen such as Mrs Merkel would come forward, perhaps arm in arm with Herr Juncker, and say that that is exactly what they want, too. We do not need this amendment; it would make it much more difficult to get to that solution.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry. It is the turn of the Labour Party. I suggest we hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I support this amendment. I also have my name on Amendment 16A with the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and on Amendment 38. I want to reiterate the point about the position at the time of the referendum. During the campaign, reassurance was given to EU nationals living here, and to our citizens living abroad in the European Union, that their rights would be protected. They were told this would happen under the international law of acquired rights.
As chair of the European Union Justice Sub-Committee, along with my colleagues on the committee, I heard evidence on the international law of acquired rights. It became very clear to us—and this is the basis of the report which is available to all noble Lords—that international law does not provide the kind of protections that were being given as a reassurance to those many people. Our committee embarked on an evidence-taking session which showed us that, with regard to the position of European Union nationals living here as well as our citizens living around Europe, they would be in extremis if we did not take steps very quickly to secure their rights.
As we have heard, more than 3 million European Union nationals live in this country. But they are not the only ones experiencing anguish; it is also their family members, their employers and their neighbours. This will affect a whole cadre of people beyond the people themselves. I suspect that our committee is at the receiving end of the greatest number of communications from those people about their distress, their anxiety, the fears of their children and their fears about their future. So we should not think that this is about only 3.5 million people and that we are preoccupied—as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, seems to think we are—with the rights only of people living here. We have received a huge mailbag from people around Europe who are fearful of what their pension positions are. They are fearful because they retired to places such as Spain and now wonder what their prospects are: they worry about their healthcare situation and so on.
When we say our position should be that we leave it to the great negotiation and that it should be number one on the list, I want to remind, for example, the most reverend Primate that our Prime Minister did not go to Europe and say that we would give a unilateral declaration. She said that she wanted a negotiation before the triggering of Article 50. It was not on the table because, as we know, negotiation begins only after that. What she should have done—and what we urge her to do—is say that we will take the principled position of honouring our responsibilities to people who live and work with us, because of the impact on their lives, the lives of their families and the lives of all the people around them.
I would like to explain something. We discovered while taking evidence something that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oates—that the law around permanent residence is incredibly complex and byzantine. In fact, Lord Justice Jackson described it as being such that its complexity would even have made Byzantine emperors envious. We have taken evidence about the impact of this on people making applications. The new piece of evidence that I offer to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, is this: we now know that in the period since the referendum, 30% of the applications made for permanent residence have been rejected. The refusals have been on the grounds of incomplete documentation or—and this is one of the most painful things to hear—that women who took time off from employment to have children did not pursue the private sickness insurance that the Government say was required. They are supposed to provide documentation to show that they had sickness insurance. If they are not able to provide it, they are told that they are not entitled to permanent residence. Many have received a refusal on that ground. These are the mothers of children, married to men here in Britain, living their lives here and having sent their children to school here. Many of them have been here for more than 20 years. We should understand the scandal that that creates.
I want to say to people who have been involved in any kind of business negotiation or legal negotiation that when you take a principled position at the beginning of a negotiation, it wins you so much good will. In communications we have received only today and yesterday, and from all those people in the European Union who are in contact with me as the chair of the sub-committee, people are saying to us, “Please pass the unilateral declaration amendment in the House of Lords”, because it is giving reassurance not just to those nationals there but to all of us in Europe who are fearful about the future and who feel that it will give strength to our arguments in relation to Governments such as the Spanish Government, the Portuguese Government and so on.
I urge your Lordships to accept that this is a matter of principle. This is about the honour of this House. This is about us speaking to what people need to put their fears and their anguish at bay. We have a real responsibility to those people, and in taking the responsibility for the ones whom we can make decisions about, we therefore take responsibility for our citizens living in other parts of the European Union.
Lord Bowness
My Lords, I did not participate at Second Reading because I could not be present for the closing speeches, but I have sat through, watched or read all the proceedings. Had I been present, I would have spoken in support of the Government taking the action urged in this amendment, to which I have added my name—something for which I have no regret, despite this afternoon.
Our attitude to this amendment will help define the kind of country that we want to be. I have read very carefully the letter to your Lordships from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary urging rejection of the amendment. I do not disregard it lightly, but I do not find acceptable the argument that we should be prepared to confirm the rights of EU nationals living here only as part of the negotiation about our own citizens. I think it is a misjudged position to adopt, and wrong both politically and in terms of justice and fairness. I find it neither justifiable nor, with respect, credible to prolong the uncertainty of EU nationals in this country. I wish that we could remove the uncertainty for our nationals in other EU countries, but that is not in our gift.
Our stance on this matter implies that, without a satisfactory outcome to the linked issues of UK citizens, the rights of EU citizens here might not be safeguarded. If we may use the rights of EU citizens here as a bargaining tool in connection with UK citizens’ rights, why not, some people think, for other important issues? But I do not believe it to be a credible argument. Does anyone believe that we in the United Kingdom would actually deprive EU citizens of their rights? For that matter, do we believe that our current partners in the European Union would want to make our nationals’ continued residence in their country impossible, impractical or intolerable? If we do indeed believe that, it says much about our attitude towards our partners. I suggest that in negotiations we need to demonstrate some greater trust. Before we start negotiations, we should reject outright the idea of some kind of diplomatic tit for tat.
Let us remember that we are not dealing with enemy aliens in times of war but with people who came to this country with our consent under the treaties of accession. In 2003, the United Kingdom, together with Sweden, Greece, Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands, agreed not to impose transitional arrangements limiting free movement. That was a brave decision at the time, which recognised that the countries of eastern Europe had waited a long time for freedom and membership.
That European Union (Accessions) Act was passed in the other place with no votes against. There were some discussions about transitional arrangements, and likewise, in this House, some discussions but no votes. Although any transitional arrangements would by now have long expired, there is no doubt that the United Kingdom and this Parliament offered an unconditional welcome, which was an attraction to many. We felt what has been described this afternoon: that we had the moral high ground. I suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that now is the time to take that high ground again and give certainty where there is now uncertainty and clearly state that we in the United Kingdom do not bargain with people.
We have chosen to leave the European Union. That is our choice and our right, but we should also recognise that as a nation we made it possible for people from other countries to come here and build a new life. Let us give reassurance and show that we are indeed the generous, outward-looking, internationalist country that we are stated to be heading for in these Brexit negotiations. Let us also not play a blame game with other leaders in Europe. I say with great respect to noble Lords who spoke earlier: do not read the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech as an unconditional offer to settle the issue of EU nationals in this country. Within the words of that speech, the “deal”, which I think was the word used, was inextricably linked to a deal on UK citizens in Europe.
I am very aware of the injunction that we should pass this Bill without amendment—indeed, I have been made very aware of it just in case I had not received the message. If we accept that we will not deprive EU citizens of their rights, what possible motive can we have for being so reluctant on this issue? I hope that it is not because we think it would be seen as a sign of weakness on migration issues. It remains my preference to hear the Minister say that the Government will make a statement that will meet the concerns of those who have put forward this amendment and other amendments in this group. But if he cannot do that now or later, then the matter has to be settled by a Division. For the Minister to take such a step would be preferable, because there are many issues that have been raised by me and other noble Lords that need clarification.
Our amendment refers to EU citizens “legally resident”. That should cover people resident here under their treaty rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred to that at some length. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government recognise the rights of those EU citizens who may just be family members living with an EU citizen who has a permanent residence certificate.
To vote for this amendment is not to delay the Bill, to thwart the outcome of the referendum or to deny the will of the other place. It is a simple request to look at a very serious issue. Indeed, were we to do so, it would be in line with the recommendations of your Lordships’ European Union Committee report on this issue. There is plenty of time for it to go back to the other place and come back here. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will understand that I, for one, do not want to be associated with a position which, whatever the motive for adopting it, appears mean-spirited and does us no credit.
With this amendment or a government commitment to EU citizens, we could commence negotiations—I hope that the future of UK nationals will be top of the list—by saying to our EU partners that we have already done the proper thing by their nationals. That could even assist in creating a good climate in which to start our talks. We want a new relationship with Europe. Let us make no mistake: there are many things that we shall need from our partners in the future. To open the talks with a generous gesture, freely given, would not be a bad start.
Viscount Waverley
My Lords, emotions understandably run high on this issue, both here and on the continent. As a long-term resident on the continent, and after a lot of soul-searching over the weekend, including consultation with multiple UK residents’ organisations that are consistent in the messages they project, I see, however, that the only course of action is to allow the Government a clear run on these negotiations.
A mixture of issues are at play this afternoon, some of which belong elsewhere. Matters such as meeting the dire needs of our health service should be parked as a subject for another day, as should other regrettable circumstances, including those of families, many with children, facing the stark reality of enforced separation or, worse, having to split up because of the quirks of being a non-EU spouse and not meeting immigration criteria set for residence in the UK. Let those needs indeed be recognised but tagged for resolution in legislative debate and amendments to an immigration or any other appropriate Act.
There is no guarantee that, should EU citizens be offered the right to remain in the UK in advance of negotiations, UK citizens’ rights to remain on the continent will be secure. It could be argued by Brussels, for example, that the UK’s need to propose this is more pressing than that of the 27 remaining members. This is where there is a coup de grâce, of which the Minister will be aware. It addresses the point wished for by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, about the need for a new fact or perspective.
Eight member states have thus far failed to notify the Commission of complete transposition into their national legislation of a citizens’ rights directive, thereby enabling working by citizens in another member state. Failure to react to the formal notice and the recent reasoned opinion necessitating compliance will be referred to the ECJ within two months. This does not help the cause behind these amendments. “Beware the small print” is an adage.
After the trigger, however, the Government could, with Brussels, agree to an across-the-EU process of removing a first stage of uncertainty by announcing that those compliant with national residency rules are good to remain. A limited grace period for compliance by others could then be agreed by mutual consent. The only practical way forward is to establish red lines on the criteria on rights to remain. Two sets of issues would then determine where the line in the sand could be drawn. First, two dates are relevant: the date of the referendum and the date of leaving the EU. Secondly, two sets of persons are relevant: those compliant with individual national residency criteria, who should be correctly registered with the national authorities of the country concerned; and those compliant with bilateral tax-treaty terms and correct reporting on the 183-day rule, taking into account primary residence status and centre of economic interests, paying national social security and municipal taxes as required, including conversion of driving licences and so on. In other words, there should be visible and verifiable commitment of intent. By complying with those conditions, one should be afforded the right to equal treatment as nationals in the country in which one is living, including the right to healthcare. The road map I propose would remove a first stage of uncertainty, from which could follow an incremental, reciprocal and mutual consent approach with Brussels that would be considered throughout the Article 50 process.
I will therefore not be supporting these amendments. They would complicate the process of exiting the EU, probably fail to deliver on a reasonable, timely and negotiated settlement, and lead to a hard Brexit.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 25 on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. It is also supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, who are also members, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. Inevitably, I will speak a little to the other amendments in the group, but I assure noble Lords that I have crossed out quite a lot of the speech I arrived with.
Of course, I am aware of the statements made by Ministers, most recently the Home Secretary’s letter to noble Lords, but none of these amounts to an acknowledgement of rights—I stress rights. That is almost where we started, with the second speech from the noble Viscount, who referred to natural justice. The JCHR has reported largely on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the spirit of the committee’s very moderate amendment, I assure noble Lords that our amendment, unlike others in this group, does not amount to an attempt to delay or frustrate leaving the EU.
I am puzzled by the logic of the Government being committed to assurances, while at the same time saying that nothing can be settled now. The latter must call the former into question. Noble Lords have talked about how offensive it is to treat people as commodities, but even if it were appropriate, how useful would it be as a bargaining chip? Ministers are saying that we have their assurances that this issue is a priority. Does not that give us the worst of all worlds—a bargaining chip without any negotiating advantage—because we have acknowledged its priority? Have we downgraded other issues? I leave these questions hanging.
It is said that a unilateral arrangement makes no sense, but I put a different view to your Lordships. Even at the cold, unemotional level of negotiating tactics, I believe it does. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, said, a good will gesture or a moral gesture can be a very effective negotiating tool in itself. I do not have other noble Lords’ impressive record of high-level negotiation, but I have done my share of all-night stints constructing some agreements. I have found that it can be effective.
We are putting the responsibility on other states by saying that they insist on no negotiation before notification, but there is no technical reason why there cannot be a unilateral position. Of course, UK citizens in other European states have the same rights—or, if you like, a mirror image of them—so the scope for negotiation may be a little limited. Given the age of the many UK citizens abroad, particularly those living in Spain, I cannot help thinking that if they return at the same time as we lose or send away so many people working in our health service, we will be shooting ourselves in both feet.
It is not the best reason, but there are also practical reasons for the JCHR’s amendment and others. If some such provisions are not embedded, the burden on the Home Office of dealing with large numbers of applicants seeking to establish their position, and on the courts called on to apply Article 8 of the convention, would be enormous. I do not want to start considering what would then be the logical step of deportation.
We have referred to morality as well as rights. A guarantee is simply the right thing to do. Although I am disciplining myself from repeating what other noble Lords have said about representations that have been made to us, I take this opportunity to thank the enormous numbers of people who have emailed us, very personally, individually and in a very heartfelt way. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that there are no new facts. I do not think he could argue that there is not an increasing weight of evidence.
There is one cohort I want to mention: people who are vulnerable to exploitation. They are perhaps not hugely competent, and are often in the agriculture, construction and care industries. There is evidence now, which the JCHR has heard, that unscrupulous employers are taking advantage of their readiness to believe it when they are told, “You are illegal”, when no such thing is true.
We have heard many times, “Don’t tell the other side your bottom line. Don’t put your cards on the table”. I think this card is on the table, so that argument falls away. This Chamber should demonstrate that it is with those who want their nation to be one which understands common humanity and, dare I say it, human rights.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 25, to which I have added my name, and in general support of the amendments in this group. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I declare my interests: as chair of King’s College Hospital, chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association—this may be the only point of similarity in our speeches. My views are of course my own and not those of the individual organisations.
I should start by saying that this is a difficult judgment for us to make and it will be one of many that we face over the coming years. Like other noble Lords, I have read very carefully the Home Secretary’s letter, much of which I sympathise with, and reflected on the issues overnight. Having reflected, I still come firmly down on the side of supporting an amendment to protect the rights of EU citizens in this country.
The arguments for this are both principled and deeply practical. The principled arguments have already been well made today, so I will not repeat them all. More than 3 million EU citizens have come to this country in good faith. Many have made it their home and, in doing so, contributed enormously to the good of this country. I doubt if there are very many Peers in this House or indeed many people in the country who would actively want them to leave. The only argument we have heard for not confirming their position now, put forward by the Home Secretary in her letter, is that it would weaken our hand in the negotiations on UK citizens in Europe. Whichever way you dress up that argument, whichever way you think about it, it is using the rights of EU citizens as a bargaining chip.
In my view, it is not even a very good bargaining chip, because it is perfectly clear to the Commission negotiators that we need them to stay as much as they wish to do so—if not more so. So our negotiating position amounts to saying, “Do as we wish or we will shoot our own foot off”. I think the EU negotiators will see through that.
My practical reason for supporting the amendment is that, for our own sakes, we need to end the uncertainty for EU citizens now. The Government have said that we can debate this issue at a later stage. They have said that they will seek to reach an early agreement on the matter with the EU. I have no doubt about their sincerity on this point, but the hard truth is that early resolution is not in their gift. In the meantime, the uncertainty creates risks for desperately needed skilled staff, with devastating consequences—let me give just three.
For the building of new homes, which I am passionate about, we know that something like a quarter of construction workers in London come from the EU. In respect of the effective operation of our hospitals, I know that King’s would simply not be able to function without the European doctors and nurses who work for us. For the delivery of social care, EU workers form a vital part of the residential and home care provider workforce. Without those skilled workers, it would simply be impossible to run these functions properly and it is not possible to replace such workers in the short term. It may be that they will continue to stay here, but the survey that we saw in the Guardian today on European doctors immediately puts that in doubt. It may be that early resolution with the EU is possible: I have to say, from my own conversations with those closer to the process, that I am doubtful of this.
In the end, the key question for me is this: given the potentially devastating consequences for all the things I hold dear—new homes, a functioning NHS and delivery of good quality care—do I think that this is a risk worth taking? I do not. Sometimes in life—in fact, very often in life—the right thing to do is to do the right thing. I hope that today we do the right thing.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I think it would be appropriate to have my noble friend Lord Lawson and then hear from the Labour Benches.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, I assure your Lordships that I will be very brief indeed. I shall start by declaring an interest, an even more personal interest than that declared by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. My home is in France, yet despite that, I have gone on record—in this House on a number of occasions and elsewhere—as saying that I would have liked to see the Government give an unconditional assurance that EU citizens in this country, legally here with a right to remain, should continue to remain. There should be no question of that right being taken away. I believe that the idea of somehow linking it with the position of British citizens resident in the European Union was well intentioned—in order to reassure those people—but mistaken. I cannot agree with this amendment, partly and fundamentally for the reasons so well set out by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. This amendment has no place whatever in this Bill.
Secondly, the Home Secretary’s letter has been referred to. One of the things that she said—in fact, the most important one—was that,
“nothing will change for any EU citizen, whether already resident in the UK or moving from the EU, without Parliament’s approval”.
It is quite clear to everyone in this House that there is no chance that Parliament would approve the expulsion of EU citizens legally resident here. This is understood by the Government and there is no way that they would propose this, so there is no danger whatever to EU citizens resident in the UK.
Apart from a certain amount—too much, in my opinion—of virtue signalling, what is the purpose of this amendment and what is its likely consequence? The only consequence of this amendment would be to stir up fear and concern among the EU residents in this country that they might not be able to stay, when there is no question that they will be able to. That is something that I find wholly deplorable.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I have put on one side the remarks that I was going to make because I want to concentrate on the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate—I am sorry, the most reverend Primate—and I do so declaring my interest as a member of the Church of England and a regular churchgoer.
The most reverend Primate seemed to base his argument on two points. The first was that the EU would agree to prioritise this issue above all things and not make it dependent on other parts of the negotiations. That is certainly the Prime Minister’s view but I do not know whether that prioritisation will be recognised by the EU. As for not making it dependent on other negotiations, I have negotiated as part of the EU and negotiations are never concluded until everything is concluded. The square brackets stay around everything until you can finally decide what you are prepared to bargain with, what you will give away and what you want to keep. That is the reality of negotiations and I am afraid that to say otherwise is misleading.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I have the misfortune to disagree with the conclusions reached by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, although I agree with him about the disregard we should have for anything said by Dr Liam Fox. I take some consolation from the fact that I wholly agree with the compelling speech made at the outset of this debate by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
I do not need to trouble the House for long because at Second Reading I addressed this issue to a large extent but nothing I have heard today persuades me of anything other than the catastrophic consequences for the economy and so many of the services in the United Kingdom as a result of those non-British EU nationals who work in these industries and services no longer being available. I also recoil from the notion that we should say to husbands, wives, mothers or fathers of UK citizens, “You must leave the United Kingdom”. I recoil even more at the notion that were we to be in the position of expelling people, we would knock at doors—as I said at Second Reading—either at midnight or midday, saying, “You must leave the United Kingdom”.
Let us look at this from the point of view of families. What sort of stress and strain would it put upon a family? Indeed, what sort of apprehension has this already caused in many families? It is said that there are no new facts. The mounting volume of anecdotal evidence of anxiety on the part of those who may be struck at as a result of there not being an amendment of the kind we seek to pass today is exemplified day after day. The Guardian was mentioned a little while ago. There is a compelling article in that about a family who has already decided to go because the lack of a satisfactory understanding has become too much.
There is a further new fact in the utterances of Mr David Davis. He said earlier that it will be years and years before United Kingdom citizens would be able to take over those jobs fulfilled by non-British EU citizens. What is to happen in the interim? If you are a non-British EU citizen working in a hospital but you know that the long term depends upon whether enough British citizens can be found to take over the job you are doing, what kind of compulsion does that create in wanting to stay? Ultimately, the services you provide will be disregarded.
I go back to the question of the assurance of the Home Secretary. I tried to put myself in the position of those about whom we have been concerned in the course of this debate. I do not doubt that the assurance of the Home Secretary is given in good faith but I believe in belt and braces. I would rather have that assurance on the statute than depend upon the decision of a Home Secretary who in five years may no longer be in office.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The noble Lord just made the point that he would rather have this amendment on the statute. I do not know if it has occurred to him but that is not for this House to decide but the other place, which already voted against this proposition. He is a very distinguished lawyer. This amendment refers to people who are “legally resident”. I cannot find any definition of what “legally resident” means. Which groups is he referring to?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
Just as Brexit means Brexit, legally resident means legally resident.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
We might have to take the expert opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, but I fancy that the courts will be able to reach a conclusion on that.
I was saying that I endeavoured to put myself in the same position as those who find themselves under anxiety and apprehension. Were I in that position, I would be much more concerned to have a statutory right than a political assurance.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
No doubt the noble Lord will try to intervene at another stage, given his characteristically generous attitude towards the Liberal Democrats.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred at the outset to the legal implications of what we are discussing. He is perfectly right because there may well be convention rights, and it is also the case that Parliament and even more so the courts have often been very reluctant to pass legislation with retrospective effect. Indeed, in my recollection the only time that has been done recently was in relation to former Nazi war criminals for whom the United Kingdom was determined to exercise retrospective extraterritorial jurisdiction. However, the mere fact that these issues are live in this debate surely indicates just how complicated any kind of expulsion might be and the extent to which its effectiveness would undoubtedly be adversely affected by people going to law. I venture to guess that they would get a successful outcome from any effort at judicial review.
It has been said already that this is the right thing to do. I doubt very much whether anyone’s mind has been changed to any extent by today’s debate. At least in my mind, it is still the right thing to do and I will vote for it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I have suggested that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Green. We will have a chance to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, later.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 40 and comment on Amendment 9B, which is the main focus, of course, of the discussion. My own amendment has a clear and simple purpose: to place British citizens in the EEA and EEA citizens in Britain on an equal footing. I am puzzled to hear it suggested that abandoning 1 million of our British citizens in the EU is the moral high ground. I was encouraged to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who dealt rather effectively with that argument.
I put it to your Lordships that the nature of the problem we face has been widely misunderstood. In effect, what we are considering here is permanent residence for three different categories. First, those who have already been here for five years exercising their treaty rights will have acquired an automatic right to residence under EU law. It is simply not in doubt. They are sorted. The question is how to identify them. They will have to have their cases considered. It can be done no other way. They will then be granted ILR. That lot are not a problem. Secondly, there are those who will be arriving in the next two years before we leave. To grant them automatic right to permanent residence would be to risk a very large inflow of people from eastern Europe before the date of withdrawal. The third and probably trickiest category is those who have arrived to live here within the past three years. They will not have acquired the five years that they need so there will have to be a decision. I note that if that decision goes in their favour, and judging by the mood in the Committee today, it is rather likely to, some 85%—yes, 85%—of EU citizens currently in the UK will qualify for permanent residence. When we are talking about this, we should offer that reassurance to the EU citizens who are here.
There has also been some confusion over the role of EU workers. It has been suggested that we cannot build the houses we need without workers from the EU. That may well be true, certainly until we train our own, but there will be nothing to stop EU workers coming here to work on a work permit but without the automatic grant of permanent residence. We should not confuse the two issues. Certainly, we need their work and their help and they are welcome, but permanent residence will become a different matter.
Any suggestion that we should use the fate of EU citizens in the UK as some kind of bargaining chip is absolutely wrong in principle and in practice. I think everyone here agrees that its only effect would be to sour the atmosphere of a very important negotiation, but nor should we simply put aside the vital interests of 1 million of our own citizens. It has been recognised by the noble Baroness on the Front Bench that it will be a long time before the status of British citizens in the European Union is sorted by the 27 countries in which they reside. Therefore, we need a careful review, together with our former partners, to find a way forward in each of the many aspects of this problem. To take a very obvious and important issue—health—the solution may well be to extend the current EHIC system for another five or 10 years. But as of today, before the negotiations start, we have no idea whether or not that will run, so we have to be there, round the table with them, to see what is a sensible way forward.
Sadly, Amendment 9B completely disregards the position of British citizens in the EU. I suggest that in the real world, if our negotiating partners are assured in advance that the requirements of their own citizens have already been satisfied, it is inevitable that the issues relating to British citizens in their countries will slip down the agenda, which is already very long and complicated. It has been claimed that such a unilateral guarantee will set the right tone for negotiations. The Government have already offered that. It did not work, did it? It was turned down flat. That is not the way forward. There is a fine judgment there and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, comes down on the other side of that, but we have to be aware that the judgment is a fine one and the interests of 1 million British citizens are in the balance. So there we are. I leave it there. I think the two matters should be considered together.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it is in fact the turn of the Conservatives.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
My Lords, I was not able to be present at Second Reading, although I have—like, I am sure, other noble Lords—read the entire Hansard record of all the speeches that were made on that occasion. But like many noble Lords, and as a remoaner or remainer or whatever you like to call me, I would probably have preferred never to have been in this situation. But as we are, I felt I must contribute at this point, as a former leader of the Conservative Members of the European Parliament and a former UK Immigration Minister, working under my noble friend Lord Howard, and support the government position on these amendments. I also agree very much with my fellow Yorkshire resident, the most reverend Primate.
I want to intervene particularly in relation to Article 50 and its relationship to these amendments and because I believe, as do the Government, that we need to have sensible arrangements in place to secure the position both of citizens from the EU in the UK and of those who have left the UK for EU destinations. In acknowledging the role of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who was Secretary-General of the Convention on the Future of Europe in 2002-03, and his final drafting of what later became Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, I point out that I was a member of that convention and took a particular interest in the article, actually attempting to amend it to add some political aims relating to the future trade arrangements of any country that decided to leave the EU later. Of course, the amendment, like others, failed because the convention did not favour such amendments. As we were reminded then, and are rightly being reminded now, the article was designed to be a process, not a manifesto—a process to enable a state to legally and honourably leave the EU. As noble Lords know, before the Lisbon treaty and this article, it was against international law to leave. But Article 50 was never designed to be used as anything more than a technical process in a limited form, so pursuing the wider aims that are now being pursued in these amendments is inappropriate. We all agree that EU citizens in this country deserve to be treated fairly and respectfully. We all owe them a great debt of appreciation for what they do while in our country, just as we expect our EU friends to treat UK citizens living in other states in a similar fashion.
As the Government have said, preliminary discussions have taken place. It is not really the will of the Government that they were not able to go further. Indeed, the Government are determined to achieve their ends in relation to fairness so far as the EU citizens are concerned. Ultimately, these issues might well be reflected later in an immigration Bill that might follow the great repeal Bill, which might not be the right vehicle to deal with these matters. But in the meantime, no one’s rights are affected. No one’s rights are going to deteriorate. No threats have been made by anybody. Some noble Lords are saying that these threats are being made. Okay, some newspapers might do so but in truth there is nothing, so far as this Government are concerned, that is any way threatening the present status.
As a former Immigration Minister, I have always believed that the key to any arrangements relating to those who wish to live and work in the UK and our citizens who wish to do the same elsewhere is reciprocity. The word “reciprocity” was referred to earlier by a noble Lord and a noble Baroness. There is nothing negative about reciprocity. All the agreements that we enter into, for good, for this country and its citizens depend on reciprocity. Our European neighbours are well aware of that and are positively inclined to that approach.
As far as I can see, although there is a lot of sensitivity and a lot of passion, these amendments in this context and for this Bill are inappropriate and, in my submission, illogical.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, I support Amendment 9B and shall speak to my own Amendment 42. Amendment 42 is very limited but I move it quite deliberately because it exemplifies much more of the wider debate. There have been some very fine speeches in the course of this debate. I will be very brief and not repeat the ground that has been so clearly covered.
I believe that the least we can do is to offer the 60,000 individuals who work in our National Health Service the right to remain in this country. I do so for a number of reasons. First, I believe that our National Health Service, which is under threat at the moment, is unique in Europe and something that we need to fight for. It is under threat because of the shortage of labour. The OECD says that we need an extra 20,000 doctors and an extra 47,000 nurses, just to bring us up to the European standard. And yet we currently depend on 10% of our doctors from the European Union and 5% of our nurses.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, we are not in a very good negotiating position when we are negotiating for our interests. Many of these people are more use in their own countries, the European Union might say, than they are propping up—as it would see it—our National Health Service.
Before I make my two main points, I have a question for the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Green, said, I think, that 85% of European Union citizens would have the right to permanent residency. When we had a series of questions on this issue in this House, within the last month, it was pointed out that European citizens in this country who had worked for five years had a right to permanent residency. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was not able to give us an assurance that permanent meant permanent and that, when we leave the European Union, it was indicated to us that in fact permanent would no longer be permanent. Can the Minister confirm that permanency means permanency?
Lord Green of Deddington
May I clarify what I said? Eighty-five per cent of EU migrants in the UK will have completed five years by the time we leave the European Union and therefore, in principle, would be entitled to permanent residence. However, each case would have to be looked at. That is the point.
Lord Clark of Windermere
I am very grateful for that intervention and I am sure that the Minister will be as well.
I have two points. The advantage of this amendment is that it is a win-win situation, because it is practically right for us to do so, and it is morally right to do so.
I was struck by the argument of the most reverend Primate. I understood it but does he not understand the pain, suffering and uncertainty of individuals working in our health service who feel hurt that they put in so much effort and give their time trying to help the people of Britain? They and their families feel very hurt and I think we owe them something in that respect.
The Archbishop of York
It would be quite invidious to suggest that those of us who are sticking to the rules in relation to Bills do not understand pain or suffering. As far as I am concerned, the Bill deals solely with the formal process of notifying the intention to withdraw. It does not relate to the substance of what withdrawal might look like. For the noble Lord to impute that I do not understand pain or suffering is not on. I said at the beginning that I feel the pain and anxiety, but as a legislator, my role is to look at what the Bill is about, not what the Bill ought to be about.
Lord Clark of Windermere
The point really is that we then move from the practical to the moral. Some of us take the belief that we have the high moral ground here and that is the ground which is occupied. I say this because we are in a win-win situation. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy said, we are going to have a much stronger negotiating position if we spell it out and show our European neighbours that we can be generous and that, even if we are not in the European Union, we want to remain part of the continent of Europe, working together with our neighbours. That is why I believe we are in a win-win situation with this amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I believe the Lib Dems still want to make a contribution. Let us hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief. It has been a long debate, but this issue has exercised your Lordships since the week after the referendum, when it appeared that there was virtual unanimity across this House on how we should deal with the rights of EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom at the time of the referendum.
I will briefly give two quotations. The first came from the debate in July. I will name the noble Lord in a moment. He said:
“In common with other noble Lords, I am appalled by the unwillingness of the Government to give a clear undertaking that EU nationals resident here before 23 June will be able to remain, come what may”.—[Official Report, 5/7/16; col.1862.]
Another noble Lord, asking a question of the then Leader of the House, said:
“Could she say, on behalf of the Government, for whom she speaks in this House, that any European citizen living in Britain has a right to remain here and that right will not be in any way affected by Brexit, and that the position is not negotiable? She must be aware that many people are concerned about their position and their future and surely it is the responsibility of the leadership of this Government to make it absolutely clear that there is no question mark over that”.—[Official Report, 29/6/16; col.1576]
It would appear that there has been a mass outbreak on the Conservative Benches of believing that somehow the letter from the Home Secretary, who was with us momentarily and has now disappeared, deals with this matter and that somehow the statements that have come from the Front Bench give the guarantees that EU nationals currently resident in the United Kingdom deserve and desire.
We have all been receiving emails from people saying, “We are concerned about our future”. If the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in his comments in July, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his question in June believed that there were concerns about EU nationals, the Government have said nothing so far to reassure those EU nationals. If the Government are not going to concede on Amendment 9B which deals with this matter—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I normally have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness’s diligence, but she is wrong to say that nothing has changed. What has changed is that the Prime Minister has said that this is her first priority. She said that the fate of those people living in this country from Europe will be determined by primary legislation and that no change will be made other than with the agreement of the other place and this House. That is good enough for me to not wish to amend a Bill that allows us to get on with the process of making that happen.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, we have heard much about the issue of EU nationals being a priority, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, pointed out, whatever the ambition of the Prime Minister and however great her negotiating skill is likely to be, the nature of EU negotiations is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. So having this as a priority will not, in itself, give EU nationals the security that they need. If the Government do not feel able to accept the amendment—and I suspect that they will not—could the Minister give further clarification not about some distant immigration Bill that will come after the great repeal Bill but about something in line with and in the spirit of Amendment 9B that will occur in the immediate aftermath of triggering Article 50?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Baroness said at the end of her speech. As the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, said, this will be a nothing-is-agreed-until-everything-is-agreed negotiation. If we do not do the decent thing now—if we do not listen to what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said at the start—when will we do it? This negotiation could last all of two years and could end without an agreement. It certainly will not end with dossiers agreed in this calendar year. So if we all believe that the decent thing will have to be done at some time, why not do it now? The Tory party really needs to remember that its guru is Burke, who said:
“Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom”.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it is the Conservative Party’s turn. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, I, too, will be brief. When I was supporting Vote Leave, I, like many others, took the view that we should make a grand unilateral gesture to state that we would grant residence rights and other rights to all EU citizens living in the UK. I thought that for two reasons: first, because it was a nice, decent thing to do, but also because I reckoned that we would get an immediate response from our EU partners, who would reciprocate and confirm that all Brits living in the EU would get similar rights. I thought that we could get this simple issue off the table before the tough and contentious talking began. I was utterly wrong—not for the first time, of course.
The best outcome to get security and certainty for both EU and British citizens would have been a reciprocal agreement immediately after the referendum. That is exactly what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister tried to do—and I was surprised and indeed shocked that the EU rejected her approaches and has apparently refused to talk about reciprocal residency rights until we have triggered Article 50.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Would my noble friend not recognise that we are the ones walking out of the EU? We are the ones who have an obligation to those who, in all good faith, came to this country and invested their future in it. Should we not have done with sophistry and make a moral gesture?
Lord Blencathra
Yes, my Lords, but we also owe an obligation to almost 1 million British citizens living in the EU who could be left in limbo for up to two years unless the EU addresses this issue urgently. It is the case that the Prime Minister raised this with some EU leaders. However, I understand that, although 20 states were happy to agree reciprocal arrangements immediately, Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk refused to do so until we had triggered Article 50. So this venerable institution, the EU, lauded by many in this House as a bastion of decency, and Angela Merkel, are the ones who have given us harsh treatment and been intransigent; they are the ones who are not on the moral high ground.
The other worry is this. When we see the EU and Mr Barnier stating that nothing else will be discussed until we have agreed a divorce settlement of £50 billion, it seems that we are likely to spend all of this year, or at least until the German elections are over, arguing about that money while everything else, including all our citizens in Europe, will be left in the lurch. Indeed, if we have given away citizenship to Europeans in the UK, why on earth should the EU bother dealing with our citizens in Europe as a priority? This would be a very bad position to be in. We would have betrayed our own citizens and thrown them under the equivalent of a European bus.
This is not using people as bargaining chips; that is a silly description. Using people as bargaining chips would be saying something like, “If you give us access to the single market, we will let your people stay”, or, “If you put tariffs on our cars, we will not grant your people citizenship”. That would be grubby and unethical, but it is a million miles away from saying, “Can we agree, as a priority, reciprocal arrangements?”. It is our duty to look after our people in Europe just as much, if not more, than European citizens here.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I hear the desire of some Members of the House to have Front-Bench speakers. However, it would be good to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and then from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief. After such an extensive debate, there is just one aspect that I would like to draw attention to. We are dealing here with residents in this jurisdiction who at present have the right to go to the European Court of Human Rights. We are also dealing with residents in the rest of the European Community who also have that right. The present situation in this country is a matter to be dealt with by Parliament and not by the courts. I strongly urge us not to force people to seek to go to the courts, as they could in this situation in this jurisdiction. It is a matter which should be decided by both Houses of Parliament. As far as I am concerned, I shall vote for the amendment, for the very clear reasons given by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. This is a matter of moral principle as well as one which could be a legal principle—and, so far as the moral situation is concerned, there is only one answer.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, much has been said this afternoon surrounding the whole issue of uncertainty. But the reason I cannot support these amendments is the fundamental flaw that lies at their heart: they will create more uncertainty, in particular for the 1 million British citizens living abroad. Noble Lords opposite have made two defences of that. The first is that they have received some letters from expat groups. Dare we believe that they may be wrong in asserting that giving unilateral rights now to EU citizens living in the United Kingdom will convince overseas Governments to give them the same rights? Secondly, they have said to trust the other EU Governments. But we do not know which Governments they will be dealing with in the EU. There are elections in a few weeks in France and Holland and, in a few months, in Germany.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I am one of those who lives in France, and I must therefore declare an interest. Perhaps the noble Lord did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, when he made the point that all the ex-pat UK groups living in the EU have come together to make the case that they support this amendment.
Lord Strathclyde
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, loud and clear. What I suggest is: can we believe that these groups might be wrong and that, therefore, this House is putting at risk the future of a million British citizens living in the EU? That is why we should not support these amendments.
Noble Lords have said that they do not know what the policy of the British Government is. All they have to do is read the White Paper; it is there very clearly:
“We want to secure the status of EU citizens who are already living in the UK”.
We all agree with that. The bit that noble Lords opposite do not agree with says,
“and that of UK nationals in other Member States”.
Lord Bilimoria
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He said that we should trust the British Government; the Home Secretary has written a letter to all of us in which she says:
“I … reassure colleagues that Parliament will have a clear”,
say. This is the same Home Secretary who wanted companies to list every foreign worker, from a Home Office with a Minister who wanted companies to pay £1,000 per EU worker. How can we trust the Home Secretary?
Lord Strathclyde
Very simply—the law can be changed only with the agreement of Parliament. That is why these amendments are at the wrong time, in the wrong Bill and on the wrong subject. We should support the rights of British citizens living in Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very good debate here tonight—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think the mood of the House is to carry on and to hear from the Front Bench.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
There is no constitutional crisis; there is good order in this House and I hope that the noble Lord will understand that we all want to hear from the Government Front Bench.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, the status of EU nationals living here and UK nationals living in the EU is, as this debate has so very clearly shown, one of the most emotive issues—if not the most emotive—created by our country’s decision to leave the EU. Whereas so many other matters that we debate focus on dry economics, this touches on the most basic and immediate of issues: the lives of over 4 million people who have chosen to make a foreign country their home—Europeans who are our neighbours and our friends, many of whom work in our public services, such as the NHS; and British citizens, who may live hundreds of miles away, but whose interests this Government and this Parliament have a duty to represent and protect.
We all agree that we have a duty and responsibility to British citizens in Europe. We also all agree that European nationals make a very valuable contribution to our nation, especially in organisations such as the NHS. We all know the uncertainty that Brexit has brought to these people’s lives, and we all want to do what we think is ethically and morally right. So we all wish to sort this issue out as quickly as possible, to bring certainty to the lives of these millions of people. The very simple question before us today is: how? I know this question has created a dilemma for many of your Lordships, on all sides of the House. The amendments before us make various points but, as we have debated, they coalesce around one point: they wish the Government to make a unilateral declaration to guarantee EU nationals’ rights. I could labour the point that such amendments have no place in this Bill, and that is true—others have said that this is a very simple Bill—but shall not dwell on this, because when one is discussing the issues of more than 4 million people, such arguments may seem somewhat overly legalistic. Instead, I shall make just two core points.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, it has been one of the highlights of one’s life in the House to hear this debate. I always like debates in which the words “moral” and “principle” are at the top of our agenda. I shall be brief, because I only want to say three things. First, the idea that, because we are asking for action on EU citizens here, we do not have equal concern for the others is completely wrong. Apart from anything else, my great-niece and my great-nephew live in Belgium and France respectively, so I am frequently reminded of this situation.
The morals, the principles and the decency of the case have been stressed, and I think this is the issue. There are insecurity and uncertainty now, and we have already heard that some people are leaving. It is all going to take time. We are all getting lots of messages, even while we are here: they are coming hot every moment to me. Nicholas Tilson from France says:
“You are quite right when you say that we … are not bargaining chips … The best way to protect us is to take a firm moral position and protect those EU nationals living in the UK”.
That is only one: there are another million, and I appreciate that. Do not think that we have done this without thinking and talking to people who live abroad.
The problem with using this issue in the negotiations is, first, that that would be wrong. Secondly, there are countries—such as Slovenia, Estonia and Croatia—that have only about 500 UK nationals in them. Unlike my noble friend Lady Symons, I have not negotiated. But I do know, from stories that I have heard, that sometimes one country holds up something irrelevant to them because they are trying to get something else. I understand that is why the European Parliament still meets in Strasbourg. When John Major was in Edinburgh, France wanted something, we wanted something else—maybe it was JET at the time; I do not know—and we ended up with the Parliament staying in Strasbourg. That is what happens with negotiations. At the point of negotiation there could be one country, with a very small number of UK citizens living there, which for some unrelated reason held up the agreement. We will finally have an agreement, but the uncertainty would be too long, and we should not make people wait.
It has been said that an assurance is enough. But your Lordships will understand—I do not think that my noble friend Lord Dubs is here.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I think my noble friend would probably testify that assurances are not enough. We want this on the face of the Bill. It would not delay the Bill or the negotiations; it simply asks the Government within three months to come up with proposals about what they are going to do with EU nationals. I would like to hear what the Committee has to say about that.
Lord Teverson
“( ) Section 3(2) of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 does not apply to subsection (1), and in subsection (1) the term “EU” does not include the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).”
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will reduce the temperature of the House a little during this debate, but perhaps I will wait an atomic second, or minute, until one or two Members have disappeared.
As I said, we are moving on to what I hope will be a rather less contentious area to debate in Committee. I thank the Government and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Prior, for having had extended discussions with me around this amendment on the subject of Euratom.
I do not stand here as a remainer or a Brexiter. This is an issue that I believe is important for our country. The amendment does not challenge the result of the referendum in any way but, if it were accepted, it would make the job of government easier over the next two years. I put forward the proposition of this amendment on that basis.
I would like the Minister to answer one question, as it seems to me that this amendment may not be necessary at all. On Euratom, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill say:
“The power that is provided by clause 1(1) applies to withdrawal from the EU. This includes the European Atomic Energy Community (‘Euratom’), as the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 sets out that the term ‘EU’ includes (as the context permits or requires) Euratom (section 3(2))”.
Yet Clause 1(2) of this 137-word Bill says:
“This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment”.
That seems automatically to disapply the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. The Explanatory Notes therefore seem to contradict the Bill, but they are not the opinion of Parliament and cannot be taken as part of the authority of any Act that comes into force.
My main point is that legally—this is a certainty—Euratom is not part of the European Union; it is a legally separate entity. As I am sure all noble Lords will remember, the referendum question was whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union. It did not in any way mention Euratom and nor was Euratom part of the parliamentary debate that took place during the passage of the referendum Bill. They are separate legal entities. Indeed, when I have been in discussion with some government Ministers, one of their concerns has been that giving notice on Euratom will in some way leave the Article 50 notification open to challenge.
Legal advice that I have taken has made it clear that the Government have no mandate to give notice under the Euratom treaty, nor have they entered into any consultation. Therefore, given that there has been no consultation on leaving the treaty—despite the fact that a number of rights would inevitably be lost through doing so—by giving notice on Euratom they open themselves up to judicial review. Therefore, the Government have an interest in not triggering withdrawal from Euratom, although there is currently a process for doing so.
The processes are very different. Admittedly, Article 106a of the Euratom treaty refers to the Treaty on European Union, but it is a Euratom treaty clause and method. Article 50 mentions only the Treaty on European Union and nothing else. Therefore, there have to be two notification processes, for only one of which is there a clear legal mandate, which is Article 50 to give notice on the European Union.
Why is this important? It is important not because of all those legal issues but for two reasons. One is what Euratom does and the benefit that it brings for this country. The other—in some ways, this is the more important and more political argument—is that over the next two years the Government have a huge amount to do to achieve a successful exit from the European Union and clearly it would be in the national interest for that to be successful rather than the possibility of having no deal on the cliff edge. So why do we risk going down the more perilous route of giving notice on Euratom at the same time? It will mean that we have to undertake another whole area of negotiation on which this country could, if the negotiations under Article 50 are not very successful, be held to ransom.
Euratom is important because of its functions. It effectively operates under the International Atomic Energy Agency; it is the body regulated and approved by the IAEA for nuclear safety and, even more important, nuclear safeguarding. That includes all the areas of non-proliferation treaties and would encompass areas such as Sellafield. It is also concerned with nuclear fuel supply security—clearly, we still have an important nuclear fleet that keeps our lights on. We also have nuclear research coming out of Euratom with a five-year budget of £1.6 billion. The UK is involved in 12 of those projects, the best-known of which are the JET project at Culham in Oxfordshire and the ITER project. I am aware that one of the few industries given a strong mention in the Government’s industrial strategy is the nuclear industry and nuclear research.
Trade in parts and nuclear fuel and the movement of key people all rely on our being a signatory to the Euratom treaty. That will be a problem if we exit from Euratom. The UK does not have a safeguarding authority, as it is known in these agreements. Internationally, at the moment Euratom has some 11 core agreements. There are 50 altogether, including with the United States, Canada and Australia. Without those, because we do not have a safeguarding authority that has been approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency, all that trading will stop. We are reliant on nuclear fuel from Australia and we have a number of important domestic nuclear issues with the United States and with France in relation to Hinkley Point C, as well as various other generating stations. We do not have a sufficient amount of those fuels in this country. It is not just a question of nuclear fuel; we need isotopes for radiology in hospitals as well.
It is not just a case of saying that we will get around this somehow. I remind noble Lords that Section 123 of the United States Atomic Energy Act 1954 makes any movement of such materials illegal under US domestic law if we do not have an approved safeguarding authority. I am aware that we can probably put all this in place at some point, although it might be more difficult with the remaining members of the European Union if the negotiations do not go well. We are dependent on French nuclear technology at the moment. Indeed, will we be able to have an agreement with Euratom? I hope that we will, but let us not forget that countries such as Austria try to block most things that go on in Euratom because they are anti-nuclear. We do not know what will happen in the German elections this year. Germany has got rid of its nuclear fleet operationally and is also anti-nuclear. Perhaps with a change of Government it will be difficult to negotiate with Euratom about continuing those relationships.
To sum up, I am not trying in any way to constrain Article 50 or the referendum result, but there is no need to leave Euratom at this stage. If we do not, we can ensure that the lights do not go out some time around September 2019, we can avoid the political risk of Austria and Germany vetoing future relationships with Euratom and we can take our time to make sure that the UK has a fully-fledged and effective safeguarding authority that will be recognised by other realms, including, in particular, Australia, Canada and the United States. But, most of all, I ask again: why go down the route of giving notice on Euratom now when as a country, as a Government and as a Parliament we have a huge amount to negotiate over the next two years? Let us give ourselves a break, think about it longer and do this properly—not threaten our energy industry, our radiology and all the other research that we undertake at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment and I support the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is an expert on Euro law. Euratom has shown considerable importance for past and future research, and in the practical use of atomic energy. The UK’s research and economy will benefit by continuing membership of and participation in Euratom. As an example, one of the profound scientific issues which will last long after even the EU, perhaps, is what to do with nuclear waste. This was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. There was an interesting PQ about 10 years ago from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, on the question of transmutation. The question was about how we should deal with waste that could last 10,000 or even 100,000 years. Putting it in the ground is one possibility, which is favoured. But Euratom is considering transforming the waste material so that it will have a much shorter life of only around 100 years.
This is the kind of thing we can do with the other countries of Europe, in Euratom—it might be easier and more effective for us to remain. Another issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was the ITER fusion programme. This is a very considerable investment involving many other countries, and Euratom is playing an important role in it. The UK is a part of this. The ITER programme will need to evolve, but it is more likely to do so if we remain part of it. I support this amendment and I hope it will go through.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
My Lords, I am a supporter of nuclear power and I would like to facilitate nuclear energy in any way I can. However, I am not sure whether the legal forest through which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, tried to take us can be dealt with as simplistically as he suggests. In the first instance, we signed up to a separate treaty when we joined the Common Market in 1973, but by 2008 circumstances had changed. Euratom was by that time integrated into the EU in a way that I do not think renders it the separate entity that the noble Lord has suggested. It is worrying that the Government clearly had not given any serious attention or thought to this. In the course of the last two or three weeks, there has been quite a major change in the climate, in so far as a number of people, myself included, have raised this issue at different times. But we have to recognise that, when we talk about the nuclear industry, we are not talking only about power generation. At the same time, it has to be said that EDF—the agent of the French Government, which I imagine will remain in Euratom—will be running 20 power stations for some years to come. Therefore, in that respect at least, it may be somewhat premature to get too worried about this.
The fact is that the nuclear industry is not just about generation. It is concerned with the fuel cycle, decommissioning procedures, regulatory arrangements for safety and general UK regulatory competence. In all these areas, we enjoy a position of world leadership. The industry gets castigated because we do not build our own reactors any more—we build them for our nuclear submarines, but not for civil generation—but there is an incredible amount of science and manufacturing expertise at stake here. Frankly, I am not too concerned at this stage about whether we are in Euratom, we are going to leave or we have to leave. I am concerned that this industry should demand the proper attention it requires. It has already been suggested that in the Government’s industrial strategy, such as it is, nuclear is going to play an important part. If so, we need to give proper recognition to the international character of the industry and to the fact that a considerable number of British businesses, and considerable British academic and industrial expertise, are still invested in this industry. In many respects, we will be pretty well the only country in the developed world with a nuclear new-build programme. We will see programmes in China and India, and there is one in America, but we do not see the kind of nuclear power development that we might have wished for.
If Britain is to carry on with and take advantage of this industry, the Government will have to give a lot more attention to it. I would like us to get beyond the platitudinous responses which have characterised the Government’s answers in debates and discussions so far. It would be helpful if the Minister gave us a little detail this evening on what is going to be done. How will we address this worrying conundrum of whether we will have a nuclear industry capable of operating on an international basis, and how can we take advantage of the very strong cards we still have to play?
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I refer to a report of the Science and Technology Select Committee from a few years ago, when I was its chair, on the subject of nuclear R&D in this country. In doing so, I support this group of amendments. In the report, we asked: given that the UK is committed to a civil nuclear programme and a refreshing of nuclear energy generation capability, do we have the skills in this country to deliver—not just in overseeing the build by foreign companies, but in the regulation? When we heard evidence from the witnesses, we realised that such capability in the United Kingdom has been seriously eroded. Here are some numbers: the workforce in nuclear energy and nuclear science decreased from 8,000 in the 1980s to under 2,000 by the early part of this century. Our investment in nuclear R&D is half that of the Netherlands and Norway, one hundredth that of France, and less than that of Australia, which does not have a nuclear energy programme at all.
Traditionally, we have not been investing enough in nuclear R&D capability. Therefore, the research capability sponsored through Euratom is, I believe, crucial to the future of our civil nuclear programme. In our report, we said:
“The nuclear industry and the regulator rely on the research base to train the next generation of experts. Once lost, these capabilities will not easily be replaced”.
It is important that the Government reassure us that, if we are to withdraw from Euratom, which I do not think we should, we have a mechanism in place to ensure that that nuclear capability is being developed. The Select Committee report made 14 recommendations, the vast majority of which the Government accepted. One was that the Government should set up a nuclear R&D strategy board. Has the nuclear R&D strategy board been consulted on this issue, and what is its view?
The Earl of Selborne (Con)
My Lords, I was lucky enough to serve on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I now chair the Science and Technology Committee. We are revisiting this issue at present, looking at developments since the 2011 report. One of the recommendations, which was not fully implemented by the Government, but on which, nevertheless, there was a bit of progress, was that a strategy board be set up to advise government in the long term—and nothing could be more long term than a nuclear energy strategy. An organisation was set up called the Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board. NIRAB was set up on a limited term of three years and produced its final report in February—last week, in fact—which is a survey of civil nuclear research in this country. I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: what will follow NIRAB? While in principle it is often a good idea for advisory boards and strategy boards to have a built-in termination—otherwise, they go on for ever—in practice we do need continuity of thought. That has clearly been lacking. Indeed, there has been no thought; that has been part of the problem. Successive Governments kicked this into touch. Nuclear research was an issue that, until recently, simply was not addressed adequately.
In its February report, NIRAB pointed out something totally obvious that nevertheless needs saying: that international collaboration is the main route for developing nuclear technologies. Of course, there are a number of ways of undertaking international collaboration, but we are quite a small player, however much we manage to build up our dismally low nuclear capability compared, say, with the 1960s, when we were indeed a large world player. We have been overtaken by a number of countries. If the industrial strategy, which has nuclear as one of its 10 pillars, is to be implemented, we have clearly got an awful lot of catching up to do.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, slightly failed to note that, although we joined Euratom before the European Union evolved from the EEC, the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008—which I must admit had escaped my notice—joined Euratom and the European Union at the hip in some way. A lawyer can explain to me the implications of that but paragraph 18 of the Explanatory Notes explains that we have to withdraw from the European Atomic Agency Community, Euratom, because it is now part of the EU in legal terms. Be that as it may, it is absolutely clear that we have to have a relationship with Euratom and with other organisations around the world which are collaborating.
One such collaboration, again thinking long term, is the Generation IV International Forum. This is looking very long term, leapfrogging through to new technologies which have still to be developed—we are thinking about the year 2030 and beyond. At the moment, the NIRAB report describes us as only participating as an inactive member—that was the case in 2011—through the subscription to Euratom. When the Government responded to the Select Committee report, they said, “We don’t have to worry about joining the Generation IV Forum if we want to remain connected to the emerging technologies, because we are members of Euratom”. Clearly, that answer does not work anymore if Brexit is going to happen and we are going to leave Euratom. We clearly need quite quick answers.
I agree entirely that this is not controversial. The Government are the first to say that we simply have to develop a nuclear strategy and a nuclear capability, and we have to collaborate. If, for legal reasons—and I do believe they are only legal reasons—we have to withdraw from formal membership, surely when the Minister responds he can tell us, without prejudicing any negotiating position in this case, exactly what ideal situation we would like to achieve.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
My Lords, I shall say a few brief words in support of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has moved this evening. Before I say anything further, I should bring the attention of your Lordships’ House to the interests I have declared in the register. I am the chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association here in the United Kingdom.
I do not think there is any doubt at all that membership of the Euratom treaty has brought very significant benefits to the UK nuclear industry and, in doing so, has served some vital strategic interests of our country. Unlike membership of the European Union itself, which remains a polarising and deeply divisive issue in our country, I have not heard anyone mount any argument at all—ever, at any point in this process—in favour of leaving the Euratom treaty. I get the very strong sense that the position of Her Majesty’s Government has come very late in this process. Having looked at how these two treaties have become intertwined in recent decades, the Attorney-General, giving advice to the Cabinet, has clearly favoured separation entirely, so that as we leave the European Union we face this rather grim and desperate situation where we might find ourselves without any internationally recognised nuclear safeguards operating in the UK.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, I rise to add a few words to what has already been said about the Euratom treaty and its relationship to the UK nuclear industry. I declare an interest as a Cumbrian and as chairman of Gen2, which is one of the main suppliers of apprentices for Sellafield and some of the other west Cumbrian nuclear businesses. There is considerable concern because people just do not really know what the Government have in mind. As my noble friend the Minister knows, I have been interested in this topic over the past few months, and when I read the Lancaster House speech, I did not see any reference worthy of the name to the nuclear industry and the Euratom aspects, which have been vividly described by a number of speakers. What do the Government have in mind and how do they think they are actually going to bring about the changes they appear to want, in a manner which will enable the nuclear industry to continue in a way which contributes to the well-being of the country as a whole?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I too, have the pleasure of serving on the Science and Technology Select Committee under the watchful eye of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, so I am sure he will mark my card next week at the next meeting. The theme so far has been one of questions to the Minister, and I am afraid I am going to add to them. The overriding concern of the House seems to be that we need to get some idea of where this is going. This is a very important part of our industry and a very important part of both science and industry.
I will restrict myself very briefly to just two areas: research and safeguarding nuclear materials. The Minister knows that Euratom provides the UK with access to considerable R&D funding, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, pointed out, and I believe that at least 25 UK organisations are involved in that research. It would be useful if the Minister could tell this House what arrangements are planned to ensure international collaboration can continue in the event that we are no longer in Euratom. Some have said that each of those relationships will have to be separately negotiated. What is the Minister’s view? Do we have to unilaterally renegotiate each relationship, whether business or research? Very importantly, what is the position of JET, the Joint European Torus at Culham, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Teverson? I have friends working there, and there is a great deal of anxiety there about what is going to happen to that project and where it sits. Can the Minister give any comfort to our scientists there both for their future and how they are viewing that project going forward?
On safeguarding nuclear materials, I bow to the superior knowledge of a number of other Peers who have spoken here, not least the noble Lords, Lord O’Neill and Lord Hutton. Of course there are concerns around laboratories and other organisations that have to dispose of materials. I was speaking yesterday to someone who runs an academic laboratory who had occasion over the summer to dispose of some thorium. Of course, who did he call, how did he go and what were the protocols? It was all through Euratom. How does all this get replaced? Can the Minister explain what work is now under way and what scoping has been carried out as regards what will replace all the processes that currently exist for that? Can he confirm that there is some sort of timeline that says it will be ready to operate, fit to go, as soon as we exit the European Union, which plays to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton? If we are not ready at that point, then we effectively drop off a cliff in terms of the governance that we require.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, mentioned that it is a busy period for the Government, to say the least. We see that DExEU is already galvanising other departments around issues such as immigration, air traffic control, customs systems and all sorts of processes are going on. If the Government were able in some way to delay this particular complication, their objective of a frictionless exit might be easier to attain. So I have two final questions. Can the Minister tell us what the experts are saying and can he publish what the expert view has been on this? Can he tell us how many civil servants are currently being deployed on the process of managing and planning this exit?
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. As a former member of the Science and Technology Select Committee, I particularly endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, about the current—and rather weak—state of many of the nuclear activities in this country. It is clear that the Euratom issue has been, as it were, caught in the slipstream of the EU legislation, to the surprise of some people, and is an extra complication that needs to be sorted out in the most frictionless way. It is crucial that if we did not have our EU membership, we would have to reconstitute something very similar in relationships with the EU countries and also, as has been said, with the United States, Japan and Australia in order to continue our collaborations. We need these collaborations in so far as we are involved in not just the building of nuclear power stations but the medical use of radioactive materials, radioactive waste disposal and other safety issues, where Euratom has been very effective.
It is also important to bear in mind that, as has been said, even though we are rather weak—depressingly so—in many areas of nuclear technology, we are not so weak in fusion. The JET project, based in the UK, is one of the major projects in the fusion arena. We have other private projects in this country and we have a major involvement in ITER, so the involvement in fusion is very important.
It is important to ensure that there is going to be no hiatus in the ability to forge ahead with these collaborations if we were to have to leave Euratom. As a final comment, I point out that, although the Euratom issue has come up because of the special link, legally, with the EU, we are going to have similar problems in connection with other international projects. I will mention just two: one is Galileo, the European counterpart of the GPS satellite system, which involves us and is not solely an ISA project—it involves the EU; the other one is Copernicus, which is a set of spacecraft to do environmental monitoring. These are two things where our continued major participation will depend on some legal adjustments when we are no longer in the EU.
I hope the Minister is aware that it is not just in the context of nuclear energy but in other contexts of big international high-tech projects that we need to worry about what will need to be changed if we leave the EU.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support these amendments and associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I, too, was on the inquiry of the Science and Technology Select Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, so ably chaired. I just want to put a question to the Minister about the implications for the NHS of a messy withdrawal from Euratom. The NHS radiological services in particular are heavily dependent on the safeguarding arrangements for the transportation of radioactive material of one kind or another and also some of the waste disposal issues that are involved. What efforts have the Government made to discuss with the NHS, the Department of Health and the technologists in that sector about ensuring and guaranteeing the safe supplies of materials that the NHS depends on on a day-to-day basis?
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to add three points. I have a non-remunerated interest as patron of Trade Unions for Safe Nuclear Energy. The first point is on the referendum question. People have stretched it so far in its meaning, and it means all sorts of things, but I do not think anyone would claim that people voted to leave Euratom. I am not trying to make a debating point; I am trying to answer a point often made from the Government Benches: that you cannot drill down into the referendum question. Let us put that the other way round.
It occurred to me after the contribution the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, that in the past three weeks we have heard quite a lot of party politics about Copeland and how the Labour Party is not really lined up in favour of nuclear energy. Historically, that is nonsense. But a lot of things were said on the part—
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
That was not said about the Labour Party: it was said about a certain person in the Labour Party.
Lord Lea of Crondall
That was a cheap point from my noble friend. The Labour Party position was criticised and it led to some switching of votes. The fact is that the Conservative Party made a great number of gains by saying that it was the friend of the nuclear industry.
The nuclear industry is a lot smaller than it was. It is, as has been said, a long-term industry. Indeed, one could say that jobs at Sellafield are guaranteed for 20,000 years—which is a pretty good length of time to guarantee a job. Seriously, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is one of the best if not the best in that field in the world, and that will be a very important issue. We have been a world leader in promoting nuclear safety. We persuaded the Russians to accept mandatory safety inspections. All of these matters were through the World Nuclear Association, to which the role of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, is affiliated. We have often led the progress being made—from training, health and safety, investment and so on. So this has to be looked at as a major issue of industrial policy.
Do the Government recognise that there is a legalistic question here? If a country joins Euratom, does that mean that it has joined the European Union? No, it does not. I remember Ireland in 1961 announcing its accession to Euratom, which was a precursor to joining the European Union. But they are not umbilically connected like that. As a matter of industrial policy and of looking at the long term, does this not illustrate that the sooner we get to where we are going to engage positively with the EU in the future, being outside it, to have a real central engagement on all these issues of industrial policy is a very high priority for the country that we have not yet heard enough about.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I will raise a brief point in relation to Culham, to which there has been reference. I am Lord Hayward of Cumnor—and, for noble Lords who do not know the geography, Cumnor it is a mere few miles from Culham and Harwell. I was brought up there and my family have regarded that as their home community for many decades.
I am not going to comment on the overall agreement on Euratom, but, as I understand the position—and I know that Ed Vaizey, John Howell and Nicola Blackwood have been pursuing this in another place—there is a need to underwrite JET through to 2020. That underwriting has to be completed by the end of this month for European Commission purposes. I am aware that discussions have been taking place on the subject, but clearly this specific issue is truly immediate. In answering this debate, will my noble friend comment on what progress is being made to ensure that discussions between different government departments, including the Treasury, will meet that contractual requirement?
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I support Amendment 11, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Amendment 23, to which I added my name, is grouped with it. I shall be brief because we have heard many experts who know much more about the subject than I do. In any case, I think we are all on the same side in this particular debate.
Both these amendments address the concern within the nuclear industry and within the communities in which they are located at the possible, perhaps unintended, consequences for the nuclear industry arising from Brexit. My own interest arises not so much from the fact that my physics degree at Manchester University many moons ago had a large element of nuclear physics in it. Fusion, incidentally, was around at that time as well. The ZETA project was the bright new hope that we are still waiting for. My interest more directly arises from the fact that my home county of Gwynedd has two nuclear installations at Trawsfynydd, the decommissioning of which is still in progress 20 years on, and at Wylfa, which is awaiting the go-ahead for new reactors. Indeed, Trawsfynydd has also been identified as a possible location for a new generation of mini-reactors if these are given the go-ahead. I hope that the uncertainty arising out of the Euratom question does not in any way undermine those projects.
Many associated with these plants are very anxious to know that the co-operation across Europe from which they benefit, and sometimes on which they actually depend, will not be undermined in any way by Brexit. They and the whole industry have a right to know exactly where they stand, and I hope that the Government will be in a position to tell us.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I am in favour of this group of amendments. Amendment 39, in my name, follows the position that I suggested at Second Reading. The Euratom treaty is a separate treaty and can be separately amended. It provides options for Euratom other than being part of an all-in-one main deal. There is no doubt in my mind—and I have had reason to look at quite a lot of the EU treaties—that Article 106a, which imports various aspects from the main EU treaties, nevertheless restricts it again in the second paragraph by saying that wherever the EU is mentioned it means Euratom and wherever it mentions treaties it means the Euratom treaty. So I believe that they stand alone. My point also deals later on with some of the entanglements, but some of them go in the sense that the two treaties stand alone. If we were left with any parts of the institutions, again, it would be in a very narrow focus, as has already been explained.
My amendment would not stop this Bill giving the Government the power to trigger Article 50 by way of Article 106a, if that power exists in the Bill, but would delay triggering it at least until the Government lay their final draft of the arrangements for leaving the EU before Parliament. By that stage, I hope that the Government would have settled the institutional arrangements for managing the new partnership with the EU.
It may be that at that stage Euratom could slot conveniently into those arrangements and that Euratom would be part of the deal. It could also be that a suitable transition arrangement would be to stay in Euratom a bit longer at least until the UK had substituted all its arrangements at international level. Or it could even be that a UK position outside the EU but inside Euratom could be an agreed way forward in the longer term, with a Euratom treaty change—and there are good reasons for changing that treaty, given international developments.
Noble Lords could ask why some special arrangement should be made for Euratom when there are many other compelling industry problems. One reason is simply that we have the opportunity because there is the separate treaty. The second and compelling reason already alluded to by other noble Lords is that while loss of trading arrangements in other sectors is economically damaging, it will still be possible to buy things—at a price. But outside Euratom, without a replacement agreement, international trade in fissile material and various other products would be illegal. So exiting Euratom and following up with a subsequent free trade agreement is not a viable option. Nor is crashing out without an agreement.
Presently, there are some 13 EU countries in the UK supply chain of fissile materials, and a similar number in other third countries. As we have heard, some of those will be for medical use and cancer treatments, and others for nuclear reactors with some 20% of our electricity generation being from nuclear. Then there is a whole industry of nuclear components, repairs and auxiliary products, and other more remote industries such as automobile, aeronautics, mining and petroleum, that would be affected. Euratom is a key player in research, including fusion. It is the vehicle for the UK’s participation. Keeping some kind of “same as in” arrangement is important for research both at our atomic energy establishments and at our universities.
Modification of institutional arrangements and Commission permissions will be needed whether we are in or out of Euratom because all EU countries will have to have permission in order to trade with us. Nothing should be dismissed prematurely. Euratom operates on a far more intergovernmental arrangement than the EU, which therefore makes looking for an intergovernmental solution conceivable. The role of the Parliament is smaller—for example, seeking opinion rather than requiring consent—and there are provisions for consulting national parliaments. That could provide openings for negotiating new arrangements.
Finally, not many cases have gone to the European Court on Euratom issues. I found a 2011 post-doctoral paper in the German Law Journal that had managed to unearth only 30 cases that had ever gone to the ECJ, compared with around 700 cases annually for the court. Of those 30, only 15 were Commission versus member-state cases. Most notably, in contrast to the EU treaties, expansion of competence and cross-sectoral applications have not happened under the Euratom treaty to any great extent. For example, when the Commission tried to apply civil rules to the decommissioning of UK submarine nuclear reactors and submarine repair, the court found in favour of the UK on the basis that the matter came under security and defence. The court resisted extending the judgment to civilian aspects, although they clearly existed.
We will never escape the effects of some jurisprudence that comes from the European Court because it governs interpretations that the EU will apply to our new relationship. But Euratom is one area where the court is hardly interfering and could be tolerated for longer, at least in transition. So I urge the Government to think seriously about the additional flexibility that the separate Euratom treaty offers. It would be not only the UK that wished to get some kind of regularisation of the arrangements—but in this we can give ourselves, as of right and under our control, more time, more options and more security.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments. As a member of Cumbria County Council I have an obvious interest in the prosperity of the nuclear industry in our part of the world. I will ask the Minister a number of questions that I hope he will be able to answer.
First, what is the Government’s justification for this policy? All that I have heard so far is something like, “Well, the European Court of Justice has some jurisdiction and we therefore have to come out of Euratom”. Frankly, that is facile. The idea that one would be so ideological as to endanger a major British industry for that reason is extraordinary. What actually is the reason?
Secondly, I would like to see a strategy paper on how the Government propose to manage the new relationship if we are to withdraw from Euratom? How does it fit with the great prominence given to nuclear questions and the priority for the nuclear industry in the Government’s excellent industrial strategy paper? Where is the consistency between this destructive proposal and the priority for the nuclear industry that the Government claim is top of their concerns and work?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, the nuclear industry has been widely mentioned this evening and I should briefly point out that under Euratom and as a nuclear power we have special responsibilities and obligations. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the original Euratom treaty are very closely intertwined. It is not just a question of the nuclear industry. At a point where we are considering building the new generation of Trident, it behoves the Government to give answers on this issue, too.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I was the Lib Dem spokesman on energy for 10 years and was often the lone Peer who was attacking atomic energy as something we should be relying on. Our problem at the moment is that 20.9% of our power—I checked with UK Energy five minutes ago—came from nuclear energy. It is coming from an aged nuclear fleet that is almost past its sell-by date and will be decommissioned. If we are to keep the lights on, we probably will need nuclear power stations. I know that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, thought that he would never hear me say that.
The Minister will come up with an extremely cogent and persuasive argument for why we should leave the Euratom treaty and how everything will work well. I will ask one question, though. Considering that our new power plants will be designed and built by the French, Chinese, Americans and Japanese, we will need some standards—and, of course, Euratom provides them. The Minister will say, however, that we need to move into the new age and will look at this. Can he say—because work must have been done on this—how much the new standards body will cost to run and set up? I very much hope that he can give me a figure, or perhaps write to me on this issue—or maybe not. If he cannot give me that figure off the top of his head, can he say which department will be responsible for setting up this new body? Will it be BEIS—because DECC has gone the way of many great organisations in the past? If it is BEIS, what new funding will be made available to it to meet its new obligations?
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I live in the shadow of Culham. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I am well aware of the problems that this debate is already causing. I met a number of people from Culham last Thursday. A number are already discussing the opportunities that exist outside this country to move away, because they are uncertain. Many are married to EU nationals who do not know what their position is.
Also, from my association with Oxford University, I can assure noble Lords that not only are we in danger of losing some of the best scientists in medical science, energy and technology, but applications for post-doctoral fellowships for PhDs are declining because people are afraid of what is going to happen. Reference was made to our shortage of nuclear technologists: if those who are there at present were to go away, we would be even shorter—almost bereft—of them.
Lord Oxburgh (CB)
My Lords, by now the Minister will probably have got the message that this House thinks Euratom is pretty important for the reasons given. I shall not repeat them, but they are very sound. Indeed, sitting yesterday as a member of the Science and Technology Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, we received evidence on nuclear matters. We raised Euratom. There certainly was dismay among our witnesses at the prospect of the UK leaving it.
Nuclear energy will play an important part in the energy plans of the present Government and, I suspect, any Government we are likely to have in the near future. That said, as my noble friend Lord Krebs pointed out, our expenditure on nuclear R&D is simply derisory by international standards. For that reason, we get enormous benefit from our membership of Euratom—proportionately more than almost any other member.
Probably the most important point to recognise is that Euratom governs not just non-proliferation, but the movement of nuclear materials and, above all, nuclear IP. If Brexit goes ahead on the timetable we have at the moment and nothing is put in place effectively to give us continuing membership of Euratom by some means or other, that occurrence would come right in the middle of the build at Hinkley. It is not impossible that Hinkley would come to a serious and grinding halt unless the Government somehow manage a better arrangement for the future.
Lord Stern of Brentford (CB)
My Lords, we have heard very clear and convincing arguments about the future of Euratom. They are clear and strong. But it is more than that. Science depends on collaboration, mechanisms of collaboration, funding and movement of people. Many of us would see the attitude to Euratom as symbolic of this bigger issue. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, made the point that our academics worry about the mechanisms of collaboration, the funding and the movement of people.
I am a fellow of the Royal Society but I am an economist, so I will give an example from my department. We could replicate them in physics departments and all the others. Half of our professors at the LSE, which has one of the best economics departments in the world and is where I am a professor, are EU non-UK. They come to us because we are outstanding and we are outstanding because they come to us. This could be said about every physics department of the highest quality in this country. Scientists—and I, as president of the British Academy for the humanities and social sciences—will be looking at this kind of example to see whether our collaborations, our funding and the movement of people are secure—or at least as secure as they could possibly be. Through the response on Euratom and more broadly, we would welcome clear statements about the priority of collaboration, the mechanisms of collaboration and the funding.
In putting the question in this way, I salute the Government for the support they have given to research. We are on the way up in terms of funding for research. We have a long way to go, but still, the first derivative is positive. May it keep moving in that direction. But it is not just the funding but the people, the collaborations and the mechanisms. This is why, as well as the arguments in their own right, which are very powerful as we have heard, Euratom is so important.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I do not think I need to declare a particular interest. I happen to be married to a physicist, but he is a low-temperature physicist, whatever that is—he knows. Although his colleagues are at Culham, he is not involved there himself.
A new word entered our lexicon after June, which is Brexatom—the exit from Euratom. I am sure that those of us who campaigned in the referendum had no idea that this would be a result, or of the implication for the nuclear industry and research and technology. However, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, in that lovely understatement, Euratom is “pretty important” for our nuclear industry. Part of its job is ensuring our compliance with the non-proliferation treaty, including inspection, reporting and accounting. As we have just heard, some 20% of our electricity depends on it, as well as 78,000 jobs, a number that is expected to grow.
We have heard some—I hope too alarmist—warnings that power stations could be forced to close if new measures are not in place by the time Britain has to leave Euratom, if we do. In fact, a senior nuclear energy lawyer told MPs yesterday that leaving could see trade in nuclear fuel grind to a halt, as my noble friend Lord Hutton and others said. It is not so much about our standards, but we have to demonstrate that our standards comply with international nuclear standards. That is part of the work that happens through Euratom.
Euratom manages and develops the nuclear co-operation agreements, which we have also heard about, with non-EU countries on behalf of its members. The expectation is we would need our own bilateral agreements with those countries, as my noble friend Lord Hutton and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Rees, mentioned. To go back to the negotiations, I understand that these would take rather longer than two years.
One of the benefits of Euratom has been to establish the UK’s credibility and, indeed, acceptability within the nuclear community. That enables us to have a number of co-operations that we otherwise would not have because they are predicated on us abiding by these standards.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the Office for Nuclear Regulation also rely on Euratom as it has responsibility for the overarching framework for standards. Unsurprisingly, the Nuclear Industry Association is keen that we remain in Euratom or, if it really proves impossible legally, that there should be some transitional arrangement; otherwise, as we heard from my noble friend Lord O’Neill, it is possible that trading not only in nuclear goods but in material and people, and, as we just heard, the new build at Hinkley, could if not grind to a halt be held up. I assume we would also need a whole lot of new staff to do the monitoring, or an intervention from the UN’s IAEA.
On JET, I understand that the funding that comes via Euratom is guaranteed only until 2018. The new work programme has not yet been agreed, but without that funding the whole future of JET is at risk. As we have just heard, that is a great threat to a great swathe of scientists, engineers and experts, not only those who are based here but those come through during the year to work there. I understand that there is also a risk also to our ongoing participation in ITER, which may be one of the places that our scientists move to if there is any question over the future of JET.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, when one lawyer comes face to face with many scientists and nuclear experts and the issue is one of science, I know where my money would be. However, the issue is not one of science at this stage; it is essentially one of legal competence in the context of the treaty provisions that we have to face up to.
I thank all noble Lords for tabling these amendments and enabling a debate on our withdrawal from Euratom. I thank them, too, for raising the critical issues that surround Euratom and our participation in it. We share those interests and we share concerns about our position in Euratom. If nothing else, the amendments give me the opportunity to offer some reassurance—indeed, complete reassurance—that the Government are committed to maintaining the highest standards of nuclear safety and safeguards and to make clear that our aim is to maintain our mutually successful civil nuclear co-operation with Euratom. The issue is how we do that.
Amendments 11 and 23 would exclude Euratom from the parliamentary authorisation to trigger the Article 50 process. The noble Baroness has proposed an amendment that would separate withdrawal from Euratom from that from the EU so that the two could run, effectively, on different timescales.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked whether any of this was required, to which my response is that we consider that it is. Clause 1(2) of the Bill deals with the disapplication of the European Communities Act 1972, which would be required pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Miller. Section 3(2) of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 deals with an interpretive issue and not with an operative issue so far as the European statutory provisions are concerned. It makes the point, as is underlined by other matters to which I will come in a moment, that references to the EU include references to Euratom. As has been noted already, the provisions of Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty were then incorporated into the Euratom treaty by Article 106a, so that we have those side-by-side mechanisms.
Let me seek to explain why, when we trigger Article 50 and start the process of exiting the EU, we will also start the process of leaving Euratom. We clearly recognise that Euratom provides the legal framework for civil nuclear power generation and radioactive waste management for members of the Euratom Community. All Euratom member states are EU member states, and vice versa. Of course, Euratom has relationships with other countries such as the United States, Japan, Canada and so on through the medium of international nuclear co-operation agreements. At the present time, Euratom is a party to those agreements, but it means that that there is an international family of countries interested in maintaining essentially the same standards with regard to civil nuclear generation and related matters concerning trade.
Although Euratom is a separate treaty-based organisation, one that came into existence in 1957 and which we entered in 1972 when we entered the European treaty pursuant to the 1972 Act, it shares a common institutional framework with the European Union. This makes the European Union and Euratom uniquely legally joined. For example, the Euratom Community relies on a common set of institutions provided for under the EU treaties, including the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the Court of Justice. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked whether it was just that we did not want to be associated with the European Court of Justice as a matter of ideology, but that is not the case at all. The two treaties have institutions which are common. The United Kingdom’s participation in these institutions, either as Minister, Commissioner, MEP or judge, currently makes no distinction between EU and Euratom matters.
Reference was made to the referendum—
Lord Lea of Crondall
On the point, often made, that X, Y or Z is not what people voted for in the referendum, did people consciously vote to leave Euratom?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am most obliged to the noble Lord for his second sight, because I was about to address that very point.
In the context of the referendum, people voted to leave the European Union institutions. They voted to leave the European Parliament. They voted to leave the European Commission. They voted to leave the Council of Ministers, and they voted to leave the European Court of Justice. They spoke in terms of reshoring their sovereignty and the supremacy of UK law. You cannot leave those institutions if you remain within Euratom.
It is the Government’s view that, once we have left the European Union, we will seek to engage with the members of Euratom, just as do many other nuclear-enabled countries around the world, by way of nuclear co-operation agreements. However, once we have left the EU, substantive negotiated changes to the Euratom treaty would be needed if we were to continue participating in Euratom, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. Not only is it difficult to see how that can be done given the commonality of the institutions, but it is extremely doubtful that the remaining 27 member states would be willing to take on such negotiations, particularly for a temporary change. Therefore, when we formally notify of our intention to leave the EU, we will also commence the process for leaving Euratom.
Let me be clear: the United Kingdom supports Euratom and wants to maintain continuity of co-operation and standards. As many of your Lordships have quite rightly stated, the nuclear industry is of key strategic importance to the United Kingdom. Therefore, we want to maintain our mutually successful civil nuclear co-operation with Euratom and, indeed, with all of our other international partners, which we do by means of nuclear co-operation treaties.
We maintain that the UK remains a world leader in nuclear research and development, and there is certainly no intention to reduce our ambition in that area. We fully recognise the importance of international collaboration in nuclear research and development, and we will ensure this continues by seeking alternative arrangements for our collaboration in international fusion research and development projects.
Reference has already been made to the JET project, which is based in Oxfordshire. At present, the financial commitment to JET runs to 2018 and there are proposals that that should be extended to 2020. We are committed to seeing that extension.
There is also the ITER project, which is to be based in France and is not limited to Euratom members; it is hoped that that will be operational by 2025. Again, we can foresee a commitment to further fusion research in that context.
Lord Hutton of Furness
I really did not want to interrupt the Minister; he has been very candid and helpful. Is it the Government’s intention to seek associate membership status of the Euratom treaty in order to continue to participate in the research programme at Cadarache?
Lord Keen of Elie
It is not at present, as I understand it, our determined intention to seek associate member status, but that will be a matter for discussion in negotiation.
Let us be clear: this is an area where there is enormous mutual interest. It is not just the UK as a supplicant, putting its hand out. We are one of the world’s leaders in nuclear research and development. We have something to offer our partners, just as they have something to offer us. That is how we see it: a continuing partnership, albeit one in which we cannot credibly continue with the institutions of the EU, which are central to the operation of Euratom itself.
Lord Hutton of Furness
But the only way that non-EU members of Euratom have been able to contribute and participate in the research programmes has been through associate membership.
Lord Keen of Elie
I fully appreciate the noble Lord’s point. That is why we will engage with Euratom and its members in order to determine continuity. Whether it will be by associate membership or by means of some additional agreement has yet to be determined.
A number of points were raised about whether we can maintain trade and standards. We trade, we have safety standards and we intend to maintain them. We had the opportunity to secure mutual recognition of our standards and trade by means of international nuclear co-operation agreements.
I have been asked by a number of noble Lords about the question of strategy and consultation. Let me be clear: we are at the beginning of this process, not at the end of it. We appreciate the need to develop a clear strategy in order to implement our desire for continuing co-operation with Euratom going forward.
A number of particular questions were posed with regard to where we were on certain issues of strategy and relationships with other international nuclear partners and how we intended to demonstrate the development of our forward strategy for nuclear research and development. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised the question of how important this was in the context of the proportion of our energy that is actually provided by nuclear installations. I understand that the figure is 17%, rather than the figure he quoted.
Lord Redesdale
If you look at Energy UK, which gives it by the half-hour, it is about 17% at the moment, but it goes up to about 22% and down to about 14%.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am most obliged for that clarification. It will elide the need for me to write any letters.
BEIS has a very direct interest in how its strategy is going to be developed, and here I commit not myself but my noble friend Lord Prior, because, going forward, he would be pleased to meet with any of your Lordships who have particular issues that they want to raise in the context of developing strategy and consultation on this point. At this stage, however, I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to become engaged in that detail.
However, we have come to the very firm conclusion that, if we are to give an Article 50 notice that is effective going forward and that reflects the will of the people of the United Kingdom as expressed in a referendum, it must involve us withdrawing from the institutions of the European Union. Given the inextricable link between the European Union, as properly defined in some quarters, and Euratom, so far as those institutions are concerned, it will be necessary that that notice applies both to the EU as it is generically termed, and to Euratom itself, as defined as part of the EU, pursuant to Section 3(2) of the 2008 Act.
I hope that in these circumstances, the noble Lord will consider it appropriate to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Oxburgh
Twice in his speech, the Minister has commented that the UK was an international leader or a world leader in nuclear energy—I am not quite sure of the words he used—but it would be very unfortunate if our Ministers or officials entered any negotiations in this general area with that belief. There are certain areas in which UK achievements are considerable, but to describe it as such or imply it across the board would, sadly, be misleading.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am most obliged to the noble Lord, because it gives me the opportunity to refine the statement that I made. Essentially, we are world leaders in the area of nuclear fusion.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
I should say that I am also a member of the Science and Technology Committee, which is looking at this issue at the moment. I am also a former nuclear waste regulator. Is it true to say that this caught the Government on the hop as an unintended consequence of leaving the European Union? Will he tell us how many more of these unexploded bombs there are in there?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Baroness. This Government are never caught on the hop.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank everybody for their contribution to this extended meeting of the Science and Technology Committee of the House. I hope that the noble Earl will make sure that we are all on the attendance list next time it meets. Again, I thank the Government and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prior, who is in his place, for the conversations that we have had.
However, what this debate shows us is that this is a hazardous route to go down. It has risk. In my corporate life, we have risk registers, and I suppose that coming out of Euratom would be somewhere up in that top, right-hand red box. It would be right up there. The board of the company would then say, “How do we mitigate this risk?”. The obvious answer would come from the newest non-executive director who had not yet got into groupthink. He would say, “We actually don’t do it”. For the moment, it might be the strategy and objective that we have as a nation and as a Government, but actually, doing this while we are doing all the rest is not a very good idea at the moment.
Furthermore, I was disappointed with the Minister’s response; I find it very difficult tonight and I want to come back on some of the legal arguments, but I do not agree with them. The two are separate institutions.
More importantly, he mentioned the question on the ballot paper. The question was very clear—it gave me no movement to get out of it, as someone who regrets the decision—because it said, “Shall we leave the European Union or shall we remain in the European Union?” Euratom is not the European Union. I take his point about the institutions, but the public did not vote specifically about the institutions; they voted about getting out of the European Union. Using that argument devalues the direction that that argument goes in.
Lastly, sure, staying in Euratom even for just another two years has its challenges organisationally and in trying to make that work, but the point is that those challenges and risks are absolutely nothing in comparison with coming out altogether.
I will withdraw my amendment and thank everybody for debating this issue. I will engage more with the Minister and other colleagues who put forward amendments —in many ways, they are better than mine. I suspect that, together, we will consider bringing this back on Report, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) A notification may only be given under subsection (1) once—(a) Her Majesty’s Government has laid before each House of Parliament a White Paper setting out its approach to any transitional arrangements with the European Union following the expiry of the two-year period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union; and(b) the approach set out in the White Paper has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, Amendment 12 is about transitional arrangements. It would require the Government to set out, prior to triggering Article 50, a detailed plan for transitional arrangements with the EU covering from the end of the two-year Article 50 notification period to the coming into force of a final treaty on the UK’s new relationship with the EU. It would further require that that plan be approved by Parliament.
I very much welcome the White Paper’s recognition that if a final deal with the EU can be successfully secured within the two-year Article 50 negotiation period there will need to be a gradual transition from what we have now to the trading relationship set out in the final agreement. In other words, we will not leave the single market overnight and there will be a phased implementation to give businesses the chance to adapt as necessary. However, that is not the same thing at all as needing a period of transition should, as most experienced observers expect, the two-year Article 50 negotiation period proves insufficient to reach a final agreement.
This simple amendment seeks to guarantee a meaningful transition arrangement to govern UK-EU trade relations during the period, which could of course be as long as a decade, between the UK leaving the EU at the end of the two-year Article 50 notification period and whatever longer-term agreement on the future UK-EU relationship is concluded. Currently, when we hit the two-year mark, which in reality could be as soon as 18 months given the requirement to bring the deal before this House, the other place and the European Parliament, the only option if a deal has not been secured is to send Britain over a cliff edge. We face having to leave the EU effectively overnight, crashing out of the EU on WTO-only terms. The Government stated clearly in their White Paper that they want to avoid cliff edges but it seems at the moment that they have done nothing to stay away from this one. In short, my amendment is a safety net.
Amendment 16 is about employment and equality protections and was drafted in collaboration with the Women’s Equality Party. It would ensure that once the UK had withdrawn from the EU any changes to workers’ rights or equality legislation derived from EU law would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. In recent weeks we have heard repeated very welcome statements by Ministers, most notably the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, that EU-derived workers’ rights are not at risk from Brexit. The White Paper states that the,
“Government will protect and enhance the rights people have at work”.
That is obviously good news. However, the White Paper also says that the forthcoming great repeal Bill —or whatever we will call it—will enable changes to be made to such vital EU-derived law by secondary legislation. Perhaps that would not be by this Government but by a future one.
My amendment simply seeks to write those welcome ministerial assurances into the Bill, with particular regard to equality and women’s rights. Even half a century after the passing of the Equal Pay Act, women working full time still earn 14% less on average than their male counterparts. That is a cause for concern given the segregation of our labour market, the systemic undervaluing of work traditionally done by women and the unfairly shared burden of childcare. According to the disgracefully underfunded Equality and Human Rights Commission, pregnant women and new mothers are now twice as likely to face workplace discrimination as 10 years ago, yet the number of employment tribunal claims for sex or pregnancy discrimination has fallen sharply because of the introduction of hefty fees. We definitely need to retain and indeed work to enhance the legal protections against pregnancy, maternity or sex discrimination currently provided by EU-derived law, as well as similar protections against race, disability, age, religion or sexual-orientation discrimination.
I also support Amendment 29 from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. It is clear that on 23 June last year the British people did not vote to cut the number of EU students in the UK. Why on earth would they? Those EU students bring benefits to our universities, economy and culture. The point of these amendments is to make the Government think again on all sorts of issues and I hope that they will. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I have my name down in support of Amendment 16, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just spoke to. It addresses the key question of ensuring that after Brexit and the repatriation of EU law—whether to Westminster or the devolved Administrations, as the case may be—there is not any erosion of the safeguards in law protecting the rights of workers and the interests of those protected by equality legislation.
My concerns are threefold. The first is the interests of disabled people, for which I worked for four decades and was involved directly in many of the key legislative steps, particularly the Disability Discrimination Act, which, incidentally, Sir John Major did much to facilitate as Prime Minister. Secondly, I am concerned about the safeguards for working people. Much progress has been achieved over the past 40 years and we must not let it be washed away by the Brexit tide. Thirdly, if we are to have unfettered access to the single market for our manufacturing products, as the Government hope, despite their unwillingness to include this in legislation, we must maintain equivalent standards to those on mainland Europe. We cannot allow these groups to suffer in a race to the bottom of that sort.
Amendment 29, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, focuses on the paramount need to safeguard the whole higher education sector before committing to Brexit. In particular, the amendment refers to tuition fees, Horizon 2020 and other EU research programmes, Erasmus+ and,
“continued participation in the Bologna process”.
I hope the Minister will give the Committee some categorical assurances on these important matters, which are all fundamental to our higher education sector. If the Government are not forthcoming, these issues are not going to go away. They may well be addressed by a further amendment on Report for the Higher Education and Research Bill. An amendment has already been tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and others. In other words, one way or another, I am certain that this House will not allow our higher education sector to be undermined by Brexit. I would be very glad to have some assurances along those lines from the Minister.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 33 is in my name. Many women voted in the referendum but few will have done so in the belief that the result could prejudice their rights. Despite assurances from Ministers on employment rights, real concerns remain about the potential negative impact of Brexit on women’s rights. Concerns have been expressed by the Fawcett Society and many other organisations that the commitments from the Government are of a general kind and, when it comes to it, may not be honoured.
Amendment 33 seeks that before issuing any notification under Article 50,
“the Prime Minister must give an undertaking to have regard to the public interest during negotiations”,
in three areas: employment rights derived from EU legislation; violence against women and girls; and protection orders. The EU has proved an important source of rights for women. The rights of part-time workers and pregnant women at work and to equal pay for equal value derive from the EU. The White Paper argues that the UK maternity leave system is more generous than the EU requirement—yes, it is; a Labour Government introduced it—but we cannot assume it is secure.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I speak to the amendment in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. It has the simple objective of ensuring that the Government give high priority to making sure that our fishing industry gets the best possible deal and is not traded away on the basis of some other priorities for the Government. The important thing about the fishing industry is not only its location, obviously, but also the communities that it affects. Its value is about £750 million, but we import about 50% more fish than we produce and export—we are far from being self-sufficient in our fish consumption.
We have to be realistic and say that a lot of our fishing communities voted to leave in the hope that they would get a better deal, and certainly not a worse deal, than they currently have. The point that I would make, coming as I do from Aberdeenshire, is that fishing may not be a large part of the national economy but it is an important part of many communities. In a county such as Aberdeenshire, with the ports of Aberdeen, Peterhead and Fraserburgh, as well as the small ports along the Moray Firth, the future of the industry is a great local concern, as the industry has a significant impact on its economy, its future and its expectations.
We recognise that before we joined the Common Market we were in an era of 12-mile limits and had not moved to adopting the 200-mile economic zones, which have effectively been jointly negotiated and policed by the European Union. It is a major undertaking for the UK, post Brexit, to be able to define its area for fishing and to secure the right balance of protection and conservation to ensure sustainability. Indeed, I am sure that Ministers will still have to negotiate with the UK fishing industry to ensure that the deal that emerges balances those interests.
Given the importance of the industry from Shetland to the Isles of Scilly, communities there and in places in between are highly dependent on it. On that basis, we think that it is also important that any agreement secures the consent of the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, because the impact on those areas is disproportionately large, although that does not in any way mean that this is not of significant importance to the fishing ports of England too—it absolutely is.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that he recognises that the fishing industry has a clear and legitimate interest. The industry has a real expectation that the Government will secure a deal for the future that enables it to thrive and survive and that they will not trade away any existing rights in a way that diminishes the impact of the industry, but if possible get a better opportunity for it across the board.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the last amendment in the group—in fact the last amendment on the order paper, although there is one more that still needs to be addressed. Then we will get into a general debate, when I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will be given his opportunity to speak. I note that the Minister is looking a little weary after a long afternoon, and he is not there yet.
All the amendments address what the priorities should be in negotiations. Amendment 44, in my name, seeks to establish that in negotiating and concluding any agreements in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the Government should have as a negotiating objective continued participation in the EU common foreign and security policy. This was established to seek,
“to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests, independence and integrity of the Union in conformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter … strengthen the security of the Union in all ways … preserve peace and strengthen international security … promote international cooperation … develop and consolidate democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms”.
It recognises that armed conflict, destruction and the loss of human lives in the EU’s neighbourhood calls for such collective action. So of course does the UN, but this brings our geographically close group much closer together to seek to achieve these extremely difficult goals.
The right honourable Malcolm Rifkind, former Defence Secretary and former Foreign Secretary, put it this way in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee last year:
“The irony is, if we were not in the European Union, such are the common strategic interests between Britain and the rest of Europe that a lot of our foreign policy effort would have to be devoted to trying to influence the European Union … There is no geostrategic threat to France or Germany or continental Europe that would not also be a threat to Britain, as we found both in 1914 and in 1939. So we would be in the extraordinary situation of having given up the power to either control or influence policy, but seeking as outsiders nevertheless to influence it anyway, because the outcome would be very important to us”.
Surely, therefore, it is vital that continued participation in the common foreign and security policy should be our aim. The UK Government’s balance of competences review in 2013, in which my noble friend Lord Wallace played a key role as a Minister within the Cabinet Office, concluded that it was,
“in the UK’s interests to work through the EU”,
in foreign policy.
The election of President Trump makes this even clearer. As one former diplomat recently put it to me, “The most important element of the common foreign and security policy is, of course, the unquestioning, underlying support for NATO. And NATO itself is now questioned by President Trump. Uncertainty pervades today’s world with this new US Administration”. Working together on foreign, defence and security policy is now more important than ever, with the rise of isolationist, nationalist populism not only in the US but in continental Europe.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 20, in the names of my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord Lennie and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and also to comment on the other amendments that have been spoken to already. This amendment is on the conduct of negotiations and the key issues on which we believe the Prime Minister should give an undertaking to have regard to the public interest as she negotiates. Those issues are,
“maintaining a stable and sustainable economy … preserving peace in Northern Ireland … trading”—
and tariff-free trading—and co-operating on a number of issues, including,
“education, health, research and science, environmental protection … domestic security, and … crime and … maintaining all existing social, economic, consumer and workers’ rights”.
I suppose it was inevitable that, during the week of the Oscars, there would be one group of amendments that would remind us of a famous film. As much as I would like to cheer the Minister up, I am afraid that I am not going to cast him as some dashing hero in a “Superman” film—I can see the disappointment on his face—but instead refer to the political and satirical comedy, “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”, specifically the “Before the Romans” sketch, which some noble Lords will recall. We can all picture the scene: the People’s Front of Judea is meeting to plot its campaign against the Romans. In a rhetorical question, Reg—otherwise known as John Cleese—shouts, “What have the Romans done for us?” After numerous suggestions of what the Romans had done, he has to conclude, in some exasperation,
“All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”.
One lone hand goes up: “Brought peace”.
So, having listened carefully to our debates so far on this group of amendments, perhaps we should film a new scene: “What has Europe done for us?” We have heard from noble Lords who have spoken and in other debates that we have had on the Bill about the benefits that have been gained through our participation in the Europe Union in education, employment rights, the economy, consumer protection, science, the environment, women’s rights, business, trade, tackling organised crime, and of course—as in Rome—peace and security. But perhaps we will leave filming the scene for another day—I can ask the Minister which character he would like to take the part of.
One aspect of the referendum campaign that always concerned me was the notion that somehow Europe was something that was done to us, almost as if it were without our consent and that somehow we had no say. Yet in so many of these issues, it has been UK negotiators, UK commissioners and UK Members of the European Parliament who have taken the lead and at all times have been fully engaged.
We have already heard some articulate and persuasive speeches on the impact that our participation has had on our citizens, and on wider Europe. Our amendment and the others in the group seek to ensure that in the negotiations that follow invoking Article 50 we do not, as my grandmother would have said, throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is all very well for those who have campaigned for our withdrawal from the EU to claim that we can maintain those protections, but we all heard the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when, speaking of the consequences of leaving the EU on Second Reading, he said:
“First among these is the consequence of the promised great repeal Bill, which will enable us to repeal or amend damaging EU regulations, which is of particular importance to our smaller businesses. I know that the party opposite”—
that is us—
“is concerned that this may adversely affect workers’ rights but less than 10% of the vast corpus of EU regulation concerns workers’ rights. It is the other 90%-plus that needs to be judiciously culled”.—[Official Report, 20/2/17; col 45.]
Those are chilling words.
I do not ascribe those motives to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State or even the Minister here, but he will know that that is exactly what many of those who advocate the hardest and fastest form of Brexit seek. When we get to the great repeal Bill process, I trust that the Government will hold to their promises and not seek to weaken existing EU legislation that applies in the UK, including in the areas I have mentioned and all those listed in our Amendment 20. If in the future the Government want to bring forward any such changes, that should be done only in the normal way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, outlined, through primary legislation allowing appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
Meanwhile, alongside that process, the Government will be negotiating with the EU and the other 27 countries, and will need to, in the words of our amendment, “have regard to” these key issues. That is the undertaking that we seek from the Minister. I am not asking for detail at this stage, because all the amendments, like the Bill, are concerned with the process. That is why we are seeking undertakings from the Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Let us look specifically at some of the issues raised. Consumer protection is not even mentioned in the White Paper; it has not been highlighted in any way as a priority for the Government. Yet it is a key issue for many—probably most—of our citizens. It has also been clear since the referendum that trade is a concern. Then there is environmental protection—clean air, clean rivers, clean waters. There is a huge issue about air quality. We appreciate that the Government are not achieving the appropriate standards—but it is not the standards that are wrong, and the answer is not to reduce those standards, or to cease being committed to them, but to do more to meet them.
Another issue mentioned in our amendment is security and peace. On Monday we had a long and fruitful discussion on Northern Ireland, also on one of our amendments. Now we are talking specifically about UK domestic security and tackling serious and organised crime, including terrorism. In some ways, I am surprised that we even need to have a debate on this issue. Some noble Lords will recall—I see the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his place, and he will recall this as well as I do—the many hours that we spent debating this subject in your Lordships’ House, when the coalition Government made great play of the idea that they were opting out of all EU police and criminal justice measures, and would opt back in only to those that were effective and useful.
I thought that was quite a bizarre exercise, and it caused enormous concern—but in the event, quite rightly, we did not opt out of anything that applied to the UK and was in effect. All we opted out of were defunct and non-relevant measures. That is relevant to this debate because even then, the Government’s conclusion was that those measures were important to tackling serious and organised crime, to protecting our national security, and to our role in doing so, both within the EU and more widely.
My noble friend Lady Drake made some powerful comments about violence against women and girls, particularly with regard to trafficking. Those are exactly the sort of reasons why we needed those measures then, and we need them now. We need some assurances about how the Government are going to approach this matter. It has to go beyond mere co-operation.
I do not know whether the Minister has had the opportunity to speak to Rob Wainwright, who I heard on the radio a few weeks ago. He is the director of Europol and was formerly head of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. He has a lifetime’s experience in wider security issues as a civil servant and with the agencies. With his leadership, the UK has been taking a lead on these issues; we have an extraordinarily important role here. In the interview, his comments from a measured and professional position made a powerful and irrefutable case for continued co-operation and engagement, as close to the level we have now as possible. Any reduction of or drawing away from that only goes against what, two or three years ago, the Government said was essential and in British interests.
My noble friend Lady Drake covered the issue of women’s rights particularly eloquently and powerfully. Her speech explained why there are concerns about employment and social protection for women. I hope the Minister will be able to address her questions. In her remarks on transitional arrangements, particularly for trade and business, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, took a reasonable and measured approach. She wisely described a safety net so that we do not have the cliff-edge fall which noble Lords have spoken about in other debates. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that.
I know that the Minister and his ministerial colleagues do not like to refer to “transition” and that the preferred term is “implementation phase”. I do not really care what we call it, but I have an image in mind. Noble Lords of a certain age, like me, may recall the Road Runner cartoons. “Beep beep”, he goes as he runs, hurtling towards the cliff edge. Only when it is too late does he look down and find there is nothing there. At that point, he plummets hard and fast to the ground. I do not believe that the Government want us to replicate Road Runner, but if we are not going to do so they have to have a plan. Whether it is called “transitional” or an “implementation stage” that plan must be brought before Parliament. The Minister may recall that my noble friend Lord Liddle asked a similar question on Monday evening about arrangements for trade. The Minister may not want to respond on this immediately, but I ask him to reflect on it. The consequences of a cliff-edge Brexit—the Road Runner Brexit as it should now be known—are real and dangerous.
To summarise, I have made two key points. First, we need an assurance that, on the key issues in this group of amendments, there is no attempt to use Brexit in any way to water down or reduce benefits and protections for UK citizens. Secondly, that cliff-edge, Road Runner Brexit is to be avoided at all costs.
Lord Balfe
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Member of the European Parliament and all sorts of other things that the Daily Mail gets very worked up about us not declaring. We are debating the negotiating priorities and it is becoming very clear how absolutely complex that exercise is. Whatever people were supposedly voting for, I—who was strongly for remain—interpreted it as voting to take back control. I do not agree with them, or with their definition of control, but apparently that was what was happening. The Bill takes back control because it puts it back into the Government’s hands to negotiate a sensible settlement. Taking back control does not mean repudiating every single international institution and body connected with the EU. Quite apart from the Commission, the Council, the Court of Auditors and all the rest, there are 22 different agencies listed in the amendments, all of them providing specialist functions of one kind or another.
Two of those agencies are based in the United Kingdom and I want to speak about them tonight: the European Banking Authority and the European Medicines Agency. They are different institutions in different fields, but what they have in common is that both of them are here and are EU institutions. I was involved very much—at the margin—with the European Medicines Agency, which was an achievement of John Major. It was not quite as big an achievement as getting written into the treaty that the European Parliament would always meet in Strasbourg—which also came out of that package—or that the Patent Office would move to Munich.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. Is he going to address the amendments?
Lord Balfe
I take the amendments as being about our negotiating stance and, as such, I consider that I am addressing them. Article 75 provides for third countries with concluded agreements to take part in the agencies. I would like to know from the Minister whether we are going to seek to be a third party. If we do, we can contribute to the budget but we will then have to be subject to the rules under which they operate, which, incidentally, are also basically the rules of the ECJ. The point I am making—I am coming near to the end—
Lord Balfe
Thank you very much. I ask noble Lords to understand that we are talking about the future of human beings. This is not something to jeer about. Because of my role in the trade union movement, I have met these people and they are very upset. A few of them will be tuning in to the broadcast of this debate and will hear the jeers.
I just say that we have to be sophisticated in the way we treat these agencies, and we have to be humane in the way we treat their staff. A thank-you would not go unmet by some of the agencies. We have to look at the employment, welfare and pension provisions of these staff. These are people who went to work for Britain. They are British nationals and they deserve our support.
Finally, I ask the Minister two things. First, will he appoint a dedicated civil servant to deal with these agencies so that they have a point of contact, and, secondly, will he meet them, or at least representatives of their staff associations, to hear at first hand what I have reported only as an intermediary?
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe: we are talking about people. The greatest issue arising from the European Union referendum is the uncertainty that it is causing, in every aspect of our lives. Amendment 29 talks specifically about the priorities of the UK’s higher education institutions, students and academics. Our universities are the jewel in the crown of Britain. They are the best in the world, along with those of the United States of America, and international students contribute up to £14 billion to our economy. Yet Cambridge University has just announced a 14% drop in students applying from the European Union. I declare my interests as a chancellor of the University of Birmingham and as chair of the advisory board of the University of Cambridge Judge Business School. I am also president of UKCISA, the UK Council for International Student Affairs, which represents the 450,000 international students in this country, of which 180,000 are from the European Union.
This is not just about the money; it is about what these students contribute to our universities. They enrich the experience of our domestic students and they build lifelong bridges between our country and their countries around the European Union, with friendships that last for generations. Our international students and universities are one of the strongest elements of soft power that exists in this country. It is not only the students but also the academics at our universities, up to 20% of whom are from the European Union.
When it comes to research, the amendment speaks about Horizon 2020 and European research area programmes. A lot of funding comes into our universities from the European Union. For example, the University of Cambridge—at the top of the list, I think—took about £100 million of funding. But again, it is not just the funding that is in jeopardy. The Government might say, “We will replace that funding”. But what is at stake are the collaborations we might lose out on. The power of collaborative research is extraordinary. At the University of Birmingham, our field-weighted citation impact is 1.87 when we do our own research; Harvard University’s is 2.4 when it does its own research. But when we do combined research with Harvard University, the figure is 5.69. That is the power of collaborative research—and I am proud to be an alumnus of the Harvard Business School.
When you put all that together—the students, academics and research funding from the European Union, as well as our collaborative research with the European Union—it is all in jeopardy, all under threat and all uncertain. Could the Minister give us as much certainty as possible about this vital area of our economy?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I very much support what the noble Lord just said, but I am speaking in support of Amendments 16 and 33. My main focus will be women’s rights—covered by Amendment 33—but first I want to mention briefly the rights of disabled people, with reference to Amendment 16. Concerns have been raised by groups such as Disability Rights UK and the Papworth Trust, concerning, in particular, issues around employment, personal mobility and transport, accessibility and health and social care. On this last point, there is a very real concern that, apparently, a disproportionate number of personal assistants to disabled and frail people are from other European Union countries. There is a real worry about what will happen to the caring services. These issues were raised in the recent Lords debate on Brexit and disabled people, but I do not think they were satisfactorily addressed by the Minister responding to that debate.
On Amendment 33, while I value the Government’s commitment to preventing the erosion of equalities protections at the point of leaving the EU, I hope they will take on board a broad warning of the Women and Equalities Committee report, published yesterday, that the process will be complex—as has been said—and that there could be an unintentional regression if the greatest care is not taken. The committee advises on how this could be done and how to embed principles of equality in our own law, mirroring, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998.
It also makes a point I made at Second Reading about what happens in the future. My noble friend Lady Drake pointed out that the EU has been the driver of many women’s rights, not just the principle of equal value but, for example, opposing direct sex discrimination in social security law. I spent many hours campaigning in the 1970s against the very real discrimination that married women faced in social security law and it was thanks to the EU that we got rid of it. It would have taken us a lot longer if it had not been for the EU. At present there are discussions in the EU about, for example, strengthening leave for fathers and for carers. It is important that we are not left behind as the EU itself progresses, particularly—again echoing what my noble friend said—given all the talk about the possible move to a radical enterprise economy if there is no deal. I note what Sir John Major said about the implications of this for our welfare state.
At Second Reading I cited the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has called on the Government to commit to taking on board future rights-enhancing laws emanating from the EU where appropriate. I asked the Minister to clarify the Government’s position on this. I do not know whether the Minister is listening. I understand that he did not have the time to respond then, but I would very much appreciate a response now.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to Amendment 16 in my name and that of others and support all the amendments in this group. I will not delay the Committee for long, but it is important to explain and emphasise why I and parliamentarians across parties and across both Houses wish to pursue this amendment. As previous speakers have explained, the amendment covers protections for groups with protected characteristics who are covered by secondary legislation that arose in the EU. We need these protections built in before Article 50 is triggered because otherwise they could be altered by the Executive and might not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
We are simply asking for oversight by one Parliament, the European Parliament, to be replaced by that of another, the UK Parliament. We believe that women will be disproportionately affected and at risk. Protections already mentioned include: preventing less favourable terms for part-time workers, under the part-time workers’ regulations; the duty of employers to assess health and safety aspects of work for pregnant workers afforded under the pregnant workers directive; the right to return to work to an equivalent post or equally favourable conditions after maternity leave, in the maternity and parental leave regulations; and, perhaps the most at risk—and one over which the Government dragged their heels for two years in implementing—the working time directive, which protects rights to rest breaks, annual leave and not to be required to work excessively long hours.
We are not saying that the Government would use the opportunity to get rid of worker protections in this way, but it would reassure this House if they were not able to do so without scrutiny from both Houses of Parliament. We must not wait until Article 50 is triggered. As soon as it is triggered, these rights become exposed and unprotected. If the Government have no intention of taking the opportunity to change some of these protections without benefit of parliamentary scrutiny, there is no reason why they should not accept this amendment.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I particularly support my noble friend Lady Drake’s compelling case for preserving and improving workplace rights for women after we leave the European Union. That is not least because I, as a former MEP, like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe—or “another obscure MEP”, as the Daily Mail put it—played a modest part in the creation of the maternity leave directive 25 years ago. As my noble friend Lady Drake said, so many British women—hundreds of thousands—have benefited from that EU law in the intervening years.
Maternity rights for British women have indeed progressed—in that sense the Minister is right—and we should be proud of that. But in the early 1990s, they came from a very low base, much lower than the rest of the European Union, and we do not want to go back to that low base. Therefore I call on the Minister to give us what guarantees he can that we will not go back to bargain-basement rights.
In this debate on the importance of securing transitional arrangements, as my noble friend has said, I ask the Minister whether he agrees with his noble friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie—he was in his place but I do not see him now. In our debate on this Bill on Monday, in answer to a question on the EEA from my noble friend Lord Liddle, the noble and learned Lord said,
“I do not accept that we face a cliff edge—there is no cliff and therefore no edge”.—[Official Report, 27/2/17; col. 588.]
Does the Minister agree? That was certainly not the message that the Prime Minister took to the CBI last autumn when it was extremely worried, and it continues to be worried about the need for transitional arrangements.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
This has been a wide-ranging debate. I put my name to Amendment 34. The fishing industry is important; part of the problem is that people have too often tried to shut the fishing industry up, when it has had genuine concerns about the way the common fisheries policy has operated over many years. Indeed, there are concerns now that in the Brexit negotiations it might yet be forgotten about.
I had the privilege of representing for 18 years in the House of Commons and for eight years in the Scottish Parliament a constituency which had many fishing communities. I am aware that there was a concern as to what happened when Britain entered the European Union and that the interests of the fishing industry were sold short. It was a belief that, when the papers were subsequently released under the 30-year rule, was proved to have some substance. A briefing note from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland in the early 1970s warned:
“In short, at present it is much easier to see the drawbacks for our fishermen likely to be involved in the Common Fisheries Policy than to be at all positive that there will be benefits to offset, let alone outweigh them”.
The amendment that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie and I have put forward is intended to try to ensure that some way or other there will be an engagement of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to help allay some of these concerns.
The House has had the benefit of a very good and well-informed report on Brexit and fisheries from the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Teverson. It makes clear the complexities of untangling the United Kingdom from the common fisheries policy and the need for agreement. For example, my noble friend Lord Teverson said in Grand Committee on 16 January that,
“the moment we leave the European Union, the EEZ will become our exclusive economic zone, exactly as it says on the tin. There will be no automatic right for us to fish in other people’s EEZs; nor will there be any automatic right for other nation states to fish in ours. We will be excluded immediately, if we have not renegotiated access, from agreements with Iceland, Norway and the Faroes, which are particularly important to our Scottish fleets”.—[Official Report, 16/1/17; col. GC 1.]
It is not academic. Important negotiations will have to take place about the future of our fisheries, not only in terms of fishing opportunities but in terms of our trade in fish. It is said that we export the majority of fish caught by our UK vessels and import the majority of fish that we eat. Measured by volume, 49% of our domestic production is exported to the European Union and 32% of the imports that we eat are from the European Union. Fishing will be an important part of these negotiations in terms of catching opportunities and in terms of trade, not only for the fishermen in the immediate area but for the fish processors and all who are dependent on the fishing industry.
In terms of our total United Kingdom GDP, the fishing industry does not loom very large, but in terms of the many communities around our coast in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and many parts of England it is important. I remember taking part in the annual debate on fisheries in the House of Commons where it was clear from the wide range of people who took part the importance to many communities of the fishing industry. Therefore, it is important we focus on this and that we give the devolved Administrations, Parliaments and Assemblies an opportunity for involvement.
In replying to the debate on 16 January, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, said:
“Obviously, we must work—and are working—as closely as we have always done with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations and Crown dependencies as we develop our positions, and will ensure that their views are fully taken into account as negotiations move forward”.—[Official Report, 16/1/17; col. 29.]
I do not expect the Minister to have the answer tonight so he can write to me, but can he tell us up until now what discussions have taken place at official and ministerial level on fisheries with the respective devolved Administrations? As I said, it is a small part of our GDP but vital for our many coastal communities and it is vital that their interests are advanced and safeguarded as we go forward into these negotiations.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I think that the view of the Committee is probably that we should continue and that I should try to wrap this up.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that there is a consensus that we should allow the Minister to address the Committee.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Lord and I call on the Minister to speak.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, we have discussed a veritable cornucopia of issues over the past hour and five minutes. Trying to sum up and string them together is something of a challenge, but I will attempt to do so. I fear that I may at this late hour incur the frustration of those noble Lords who put their names to these amendments. I will gently say that while I absolutely agree that we should debate these issues and that they are worthy of debate and scrutiny, the amendments themselves have no place in the Bill. I stress that I am sure that my noble friends on the Front Bench and I will return to the House on many occasions in the weeks and months ahead to discuss these issues in more detail.
A number of the topics that were raised have been touched on and were covered in the White Paper and other announcements that were made before and since the publication of the White Paper. A number of the points raised, especially in Amendment 20, were covered. The Government’s wish to seek a new agreement to enable free and frictionless trade has been made clear, as has our wish to continue to co-operate with Europe where it is clearly in our national interest to do so. On combating crime and terrorism, one of our stated negotiating objectives is to establish a new relationship with the EU to preserve UK and European security— I will return to that point later.
Before I move on, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will forgive me for picking her up on a very small point. I am going to sound pedantic but consumer rights and consumer protection are mentioned. The words, “consumer protection”, are featured in the White Paper, at paragraph 8.36.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The point that I was making was that they are not in the list of priorities. They may feature down the list, but consumer protection is not one of the Government’s 12 priorities.
Lord Bridges of Headley
The rights of consumers are very high in our minds. My noble friend Lord Balfe made an eloquent and passionate speech about the position of UK nationals in EU agencies and about the role of the agencies themselves. I absolutely repeat what I said at Second Reading: the Government would indeed like to thank all those UK nationals for the contribution that they have made and continue to make. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I do not go into great depth and detail now on each of the agencies—there are 16 of them. They are important and are referred to in the White Paper. We will be looking for ways in which our relationship with those agencies might continue in some shape or form.
Ireland was mentioned but not discussed in this debate. Obviously, it was debated on Monday. I shall simply repeat that we will stand by the commitments in the Belfast agreement and its successors.
I will turn first to the issue of higher education and our world-class universities, which is the subject of Amendment 29. In the White Paper, a priority is indeed for us to ensure that the UK remains the best place for science and innovation. With regard to student fee support, we of course recognise the significant contribution that EU students make to the UK’s world-class universities and have already made commitments that we will give existing EU students and those due to start courses in 2017-18 certainty with regard to both their student loans and their home fee status. This is not just for the short term but for the duration of their courses. I can also confirm that research councils will continue to fund postgraduate students from the EU whose courses start in 2017-18. It is worth noting in passing that no similar commitment has been made to UK students currently studying in other member states.
A number of noble Lords referred to collaboration and co-operation in higher education. I entirely endorse the importance of this in the years ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who is not here, spoke about this. I should like to say for the sake of the entire Committee, though, that as regards Horizon 2020 and Erasmus, the Prime Minister has made clear that we will continue an agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science research and technology initiatives. There may be specific EU programmes that we want to participate in.
With regard to the Bologna process, it is important to underline the fact that this is an intergovernmental agreement among countries in the European region and, as such, it is not tied to EU membership. I can therefore assure noble Lords that UK participation will not be part of our negotiations as it will be unaffected by our departure from the EU.
Next, a number of your Lordships spoke about rights, especially on employment and equalities. In a number of areas, the UK Government have already extended workers’ rights beyond requirements set out in EU law. For example, women in the UK who have had a child can enjoy 52 weeks of statutory maternity leave and 39 weeks of pay, not just the 14 weeks under EU law. That said, and importantly, we have already made—as a number of noble Lords have noted—a clear commitment that there would be no erosion of workers’ rights as a result of the UK leaving the EU and to ensure that those rights keep pace with the changing labour market. The great repeal Bill will make provision for this legislation.
Baroness Drake
The hour is late but this is an important point. I have chapter 7 of the White Paper in front of me. I seek clarity because the words in the document are quite general. Can the Minister give an assurance that each and every existing equality and employment right will be protected, not weakened, whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations? Can he give absolute clarity that each and every employment and equality right will be protected and not weakened as a consequence of Brexit?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I totally understand the noble Baroness’s concern and interest in this issue. I will pick my words carefully. The Government’s position is that, through the great repeal Bill, EU law and regulations will be ported into UK law. I will come on to equalities in a moment. If the noble Baroness feels that that does not address the point, I will be happy to discuss this with her more directly. As I said, the great repeal Bill will make provision for this legislation to continue to stand once the European Communities Act is repealed, so the same protections for workers as are currently in place will remain after we exit the EU.
On equalities, as I said on Monday, the Equality Act already provides a strong framework to ensure that the UK is well placed to continue driving equality forward. I assure your Lordships that all the protections covered in the Equality Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2010 will continue to apply once the UK has left the European Union.
On the issue of violence against women, the Government are committed to tackling domestic violence, modern slavery and human trafficking. The UK already has some of the most robust protections in the world to tackle violence against women. To address one of the points that noble Lords made, after we leave the EU the UK will maintain its place as a prominent international actor. We will continue to work with our European partners and globally to promote women’s rights and work towards ensuring the safety of women everywhere.
I turn now to fishing, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, just spoke about. I entirely agree about the importance of the fishing sector and the fishing industry. It is also referred to in the White Paper. It is a matter that my department and other ministerial colleagues across Whitehall are very focused on. I totally heed the points he made about the issues raised. I hope he will forgive me if I do not go into great depth and detail, but there is one point I will focus on, which is the approval mechanism for the negotiations—again, a very valid point.
The Government have made it perfectly clear that we want to come to an agreement that works for the whole of the United Kingdom. We have a created a process to work with the representatives of the devolved Administrations to ensure that their views are taken into account. I certainly commit to write to the noble and learned Lord to set out in more detail what that means, but I need to make clear to him and to the Committee, and to repeat, that no part of the UK has a veto on fishing or anything else.
I turn to another topic of the amendments that is covered in the White Paper—the potential transitional period following negotiations. As noble Lords will know, the White Paper states that we want to reach an agreement with the EU within the two-year Article 50 period. Article 50 states that the process for withdrawal will take account of the framework of the leaving member state’s future relationship with the EU, and there is a clear connection between the terms of our withdrawal and the future relationship we wish to establish.
We do not want to get ahead of the negotiations or set out unilateral positions. How we take the process forward will be a matter for discussion with the European institutions and our European partners. But, given the language in Article 50 and the connection between our withdrawal and our future relationship, it is our intention to seek to deal with both sets of issues together wherever possible—something we believe would clearly be in the interests of the European Union as well as the UK. We believe that both sides would benefit from a phased process of implementation that would allow the United Kingdom and the European Union to adapt to and prepare for any new arrangements. It is in nobody’s interests for there to be any disruption. The implementation arrangements we may rely upon will be a subject for negotiation and their nature will vary considerably depending on the agreement we reach with the EU.
I turn to the common foreign and security policy, picked up in Amendment 44. As I have said before, after we leave the European Union we will remain committed to European security and aim to add value to European Union foreign and security policy. Our objective is to ensure that the European Union’s role in defence and security is complementary to and respects the central role of NATO.
More broadly, although we are leaving the European Union, the UK will continue to be one of the most important global actors in international affairs. Indeed, along with France we are the only EU member state with an independent nuclear deterrent and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Again, as with other amendments in this group, our participation in the common foreign and security policy cannot be resolved through unilateral action. Instead, it must be addressed through discussion with the other 27 members.
This topic and all the other issues that have been raised are worthy of debate—I do not dispute that for one moment. Where I differ from noble Lords who have tabled the amendments is on whether they should be in the Bill, the core purpose of which—indeed, the only purpose—is to enable the Government to deliver on the referendum and trigger Article 50. Therefore, with great respect, I ask that the amendments not be pressed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It has been an interesting debate, ranging widely from women’s rights and the protection of minorities to education, medicine, foreign policy and fishing. We understand about the movement of all such protections straight into UK law. At the same time, we also understand that there could be a steady erosion afterwards by various means. That is why we are asking for corroboration that this simply will not happen. We want to be better than we were in the EU, not worse. A noble Lord on the opposite Benches said that this is very complex. When you do something for the first time, it is always much harder than doing it subsequently, so we are bound to make mistakes. One role of this House is to make sure that we raise issues that we feel will cause problems—and it is for the Government to respond appropriately. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
“Parliamentary approval for the outcome of negotiations with the European Union
(1) No Minister of the Crown may agree to arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union until—(a) Her Majesty's Government has laid a copy of the final draft of the proposed arrangements before each House of Parliament, and(b) each House of Parliament has passed a resolution approving the final draft of the proposed arrangements.(2) The requirements under subsection (1)(a) and (b) must also be met where a Minister of the Crown proposes any separate arrangements pertaining to the future political and economic relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.(3) In the case of a proposed agreement with the European Union setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, any resolution under subsection (1) must have been passed by each House of Parliament before the proposed terms are agreed with the European Council, with a view to their approval by the European Parliament.(4) No Minister of the Crown may agree to the termination, or terminate unilaterally, the negotiations regarding the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union without the prior approval of each House of Parliament by resolution.”
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 17 is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Oates. It would ensure parliamentary sovereignty at the end of the negotiating process for our withdrawal from the EU. Noble Lords will know that the Prime Minister has promised that any draft agreement with the European Union on the terms of our withdrawal and any draft agreement on our future relationship with the EU will be put to both Houses of Parliament for their approval and that, in relation to the withdrawal agreement, this will occur before any such agreement is sent to the European Parliament for its consent. That must be right. This Parliament must have at least the same powers as the European Parliament to disagree with the terms of any draft agreement.
However, the Government are refusing to include that commitment in the Bill. I say that a political promise made by the Prime Minister in good faith is no substitute for an obligation in an Act of Parliament. On a matter of this importance, it is vital to ensure that there is a clear, binding obligation on the Government to return to Parliament at a defined time.
The amendment also addresses what happens if this country and the EU cannot agree on the terms of our withdrawal from the EU. Parliamentary sovereignty should also apply in those circumstances. The Government should be required to seek and obtain the approval of both Houses of Parliament if they decide to reject a withdrawal agreement offered by the EU and to leave the EU with no deal. It must be for Parliament to decide whether to prefer no deal or the deal offered by the EU.
This amendment will not delay the Article 50 notification; it does not constrain in any way the substance of the negotiations. All it does, importantly, is to guarantee parliamentary sovereignty at the end of the negotiating process. I look forward to hearing from the Minister why that is resisted by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Spicer
My Lords, I am going to be very brief, because I have forgotten most of what I wanted to say. This is part of a group of amendments purporting to strengthen the role of Parliament in our affairs. Like other groups, it is pretty well irrelevant to this Bill, but it is there. It is ironic that those who most object to the Bill are also those who are pressing for greater sovereignty for Parliament. It is ironic because the whole purpose of the Bill—of leaving the European Union—is to give sovereignty to Parliament. It is the essence of the whole process. Therefore, it is very ironic that those who do not particularly like this objective are those pressing most for increased sovereignty. One has to assume, therefore, that they are doing it out of some sort of ulterior purpose.
Lord Pannick
I am sorry, but the noble Lord is suggesting that I am bringing forward this amendment for some ulterior purpose. I voted to remain in the EU, but I entirely agree with the Government’s position that in the light of the referendum result, this country has to notify and has to leave the European Union. I am not bringing forward this amendment with any ulterior purpose: my purpose is to ensure parliamentary sovereignty.
Lord Spicer
Of course I trust the noble Lord, but what he is doing is slowing down a process that we should get on with as quickly as possible in order to increase the sovereignty of Parliament. That is the whole purpose. It is the main purpose for those of us—
Viscount Hailsham
The purpose of the new clause that we are discussing is simply to ensure proper parliamentary control at the end of the negotiations. That does not slow down the negotiations; it merely ensures that at the end of those negotiations, Parliament has a proper say as to the outcome.
Lord Spicer
I personally agree totally with anything that increases the sovereignty of Parliament. I only make the point that this is totally unnecessary, because if we got on with this Bill, we would end up having a much more sovereign Parliament than we would have without it. That is the whole purpose of what I am saying. Indeed, it is necessary that we should have greater sovereignty because the powers of Parliament have been eroded ever since the Maastricht treaty, with which I was associated. That has been something that has been going on for some time—ever since there was a single currency. The powers of Parliaments have been reduced because the single currency is irrevocable, and we have a system in this country whereby no Parliament can bind another Parliament. There is no doubt in my mind, at least, that had we not started the process of leaving the European Union, the European court, which the noble Lord will know a lot about, would have moved in on us for not joining the single currency at some point. There is no question in my mind about that.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am not sure what is in the noble Lord’s mind. If he just tries reading the treaty, he will see that there is no basis for proceeding against the Government of the United Kingdom for not being a member of the euro. It is actually written in the treaty that we do not have to be, so perhaps he will clear his mind.
Lord Spicer
I am also sure that the European court would have found a way into this at some point. I have no doubt about that at all. If one really is concerned with the sovereignty of Parliament, we should get on with passing this Bill as quickly as possible and begin the task of unwinding the historic process of eroding the powers of Parliaments, including our own. We should not take too much notice of the amendments coming up: most of them are irrelevant to the Bill.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I support Amendment 17, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which is linked to Amendment 35, standing in my name. Amendment 17 is critically important. If there is no clarity tonight, we should certainly return to this subject on Report next week.
In fact, the amendment arose from the end of one of the banks of debates on Monday night, when I asked the Minister—this is in Hansard, col. 641—what will happen if, at the end of the negotiations, we reach a position where both Houses of Parliament refuse to endorse the basis for Brexit recommended by the Government. Will the Government accept the decision of Parliament as binding or will they under those circumstances allow the voters to decide, either by general election or further referendum? The Minister refused to respond or give any indication of the Government’s intentions. He now has a chance to make clear beyond doubt the Government’s position, which the House has the right to know. The best way to achieve this would be to accept Amendment 17 or, if that cannot be carried, by insisting on Amendment 35 which provides that if the UK Government fail to reach agreement, the status quo would remain in force.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, I oppose this amendment on grounds that are rather different from those advanced by my noble friend. I submit that this amendment is wrong in principle, constitutionally improper and unnecessary. Your Lordships might think that given that it was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am being rather courageous and perhaps foolhardy in suggesting that it is constitutionally improper but I hope to explain to your Lordships why I take that view.
My view is based in particular on subsection (4) of the new clause. That would make possible—indeed it encourages—a never-ending situation in which the Government reach an agreement with the European Union and brings it to Parliament, Parliament rejects it, sends the Government back to the European Union, the Government come back to Parliament and Parliament rejects it again. The only way that process can be ended is by the Government having the power to bring the negotiations to an end. What would happen if the process envisaged by subsection (4) were to take place is the intrusion of Parliament into the negotiating process. That is why I say this amendment is constitutionally improper.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I wonder if the noble Lord is familiar with Article 50, where it is clear that if no agreement is reached within the two-year period the state that intimated its intention to withdraw, if it has not withdrawn that intimation, leaves the European Union at the end of those two years. The idea of the never-ending negotiation is a fantasy. The article is completely clear.
Lord Howard of Lympne
It is hardly a fantasy if the negotiations are brought to an end speedily, as we all hope they will be. If they are brought to an end six months before the end of the two-year period, the process I identified as being made possible by new subsection (4) could well take place. Parliament should not intrude itself into negotiations. It is not the job of Parliament to negotiate. That may seem self-evident but since this amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I thought I had better look for some authority for the proposition I am advancing and went to the supreme authority on these matters— I went to Dicey. Dicey says that Parliament,
“should neither directly nor indirectly take part in negotiating treaties with foreign powers”.
That is what subsection (4) of this amendment would make possible, which is why I suggest that it is constitutionally improper.
Lord Tyler (LD)
I do not think that the noble Lord has followed the process of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which specifically gives both Houses of Parliament a role in the ratification of treaties. That completely updates where Dicey got to.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I am afraid that it is the noble Lord who misunderstands the position. I am not disputing the role of Parliament in ratifying an agreement. That is perfectly proper, but that is different from Parliament refusing the ability of the Government to terminate the negotiations. That is what intrudes Parliament into the negotiations and that is why, in my view, the amendment is constitutionally improper.
The amendment is also unnecessary, for one very simple reason. If at the end of the negotiations—I devoutly hope that this will not occur; I do not believe that it will occur; I do not think that there is much chance of it occurring—the Government find themselves completely at odds with Parliament, in particular with the other place, it is always open to the other place to pass a Motion of no confidence in the Government. Clearly, that would bring matters to a head and perhaps achieve the result that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, seeks to achieve. Parliament is always supreme in that respect. Parliament can always pass a vote of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Pannick
If all this is unnecessary, why was the Prime Minister asked for, and why did she give, a specific undertaking that this matter will be brought before both Houses of Parliament at the end of the process? Surely that shows that in relation to this vital constitutional issue it is not enough to rely on the possibility of the House of Commons exerting its power and, if an undertaking is given, why is it not in the Bill?
Lord Howard of Lympne
I think that I have already answered that question. I quite accept, as I said to the noble Lord, that it is proper for Parliament to ratify an agreement that has been reached—or, indeed, reject it. That is what Parliament’s role should be. That is in accordance with what the Prime Minister has said. What I am objecting to is subsection (4) of the proposed new clause, which could have the effect that I have identified and would lead to an extremely unsatisfactory and unconstitutional position.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Has the noble Lord given proper consideration to a circumstance in which the Prime Minister and the Government wish to throw in the towel in the negotiation? It cannot possibly be ruled out because, as I understand it, his right honourable friend the Minister responsible for Brexit has just told the Cabinet that it might well happen. So why on earth is it wrong to put in the Bill that Parliament should have the right to say yes or no to such a decision?
Lord Howard of Lympne
Well, for all the reasons that I have given. I do not want to repeat my speech to the noble Lord. The effect of the proposed new clause, the effect of giving Parliament the ability to say, “You cannot bring the negotiations to an end”—not just once, but twice or three times, or four times or any number of times; that is all in the proposed new clause—is to intrude Parliament into the negotiating process. It is wrong, it is improper and it should not be in the Bill.
Lord Oates
My Lords, I support Amendment 17. Given the late hour and the clarity of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in moving the amendment, I will not detain your Lordships for too long, although I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has shown very little faith in the sense of Parliament, which slightly surprises me, from the side of the argument that has stressed parliamentary sovereignty so much.
At Second Reading I expressed my concern that the Bill, unless amended, would provide a blank cheque to the Prime Minister to negotiate an exit deal on any terms whatever or, indeed, to return with no deal at all. The Government intend that at that point—when the PM returns with a deal or no deal at all—both Houses of Parliament will be given a vote. The Prime Minister made that pledge in her Lancaster House speech. Effectively, Parliament would be given a choice of the deal or not the deal. But I think that noble Lords do not have faith in the Government, given some of the undertakings that they have made in the past, not least, as was mentioned in an earlier debate, in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
We want something more secure in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has pointed out, is to ensure that both Houses of Parliament are able to have a meaningful say once the final draft of the proposed arrangements for withdrawal from the European Union is produced and that this must be before the proposed arrangements are agreed with the European Council. As we have heard, it would also prevent the Government from terminating negotiations for withdrawal from the European Union without the express consent of both Houses of Parliament. In short, the amendment will ensure that with regard to the most—
Lord De Mauley
If what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said earlier is correct, and I think it is, how does subsection (4) work?
Lord Oates
I am not quite clear to which point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Lord is referring.
Lord De Mauley
If at the end of the two-year period we are out anyway, what is the impact of the Minister’s decision on termination?
Lord Oates
The point of subsection (4) is that,
“No Minister … may agree to the termination”,
prior to that point. Clearly, that is the point of it.
Lord Pannick
The answer to the noble Lord’s question is that surely Parliament should decide, not the Government. Parliament should decide whether we leave the EU with no agreement or whether we leave the EU with whatever agreement is being offered to us by the EU that the Government think is unacceptable. That will be the choice and Parliament should make that choice.
Lord Oates
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his clarity on that matter. In short, the amendment will ensure that Parliament will have a proper and meaningful oversight of the most important decision that the United Kingdom Government will have made in my lifetime.
Lord Faulks (Con)
The noble Lord will probably remember that at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, indicated that he thought that the Europeans negotiating would give us an extension of the two-year period and, furthermore, that they would probably allow us to withdraw the Article 50 notice altogether. If that is so, would he agree that subsection (4) together with the extension would result in our negotiators being locked for ever in a room labelled Article 50 until we give up?
Lord Oates
No, I would not agree with that. Fascinating as it is for me to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said at Second Reading or otherwise, I will leave it to him to comment, but I do not agree that that would be the case.
Those who argued that the purpose of Brexit was to take back control and restore parliamentary sovereignty should have no problem with this at all. I would say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, that the real irony is that people who talk so much about parliamentary sovereignty want to surrender it so easily to the Executive.
As the House will be aware, while the Liberal Democrats fully support this amendment and its objective of giving Parliament a real and meaningful say, we believe that, once Parliament has spoken, the people should have the final word in a national referendum. Noble Lords have different views on this subject but, whatever one’s view on the referendum, this amendment will ensure that we make real the promise to take back control and that our Parliament has real and meaningful oversight of the outcome of negotiations. I am very pleased to support the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I can make my position clear. I think that we have four different attempts to find a solution to a problem that we are all looking for. For me, it would be neater if I made my points on Amendment 17, before others introduce their solutions. I am very much in sympathy with most of what appears in Amendment 17, but I share quite a lot of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, expressed, although perhaps not exactly for the same reasons. I will explain myself a little more.
At Second Reading, I made the point that there was a respectable argument that only Parliament has the constitutional authority to authorise the act of concluding an agreement with the EU or the act of withdrawal, if that is what the Government seek to do. For that reason, I respectfully suggest that it is in the Government’s best interests, for their own protection, to look for a form of words that will provide them with the answer to any possible challenge that might be made along lines that would impede progress towards a final agreement. It was with that view that I was searching for some kind of solution to the problem. I said at Second Reading that I would not seek to put forward an amendment myself and that it was more for the Government to try to find a way of doing it, which it is perhaps still open to them to do.
I will explain my views on proposed new subsections (1) to (3). As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has explained, the Government have given an undertaking. David Jones said in the House of Commons:
“First of all, we intend that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union. Furthermore, I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 264.]
There are three elements in that undertaking, all of which find their place in subsections (1) to (3) in the proposed new clause. However, I have to say that I have a quarrel with the wording. Clause 1 of the Bill, as I mentioned at Second Reading, is beautifully crafted in the simplest possible language. I am troubled by the fact that, if you cast the undertaking in the framework that you find in Clause 1, you can produce that undertaking in four lines instead of 16. Just from the point of view of the aesthetics of drafting, I would have thought that it would be proper to try to use the undertaking as a basis for an amendment. The amendment would be very simple: another four- line amendment, which would fit neatly into the character of the Bill. It would provide the Government with the protection that I suggest they need and would produce the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with which I entirely agree, about the sovereignty of Parliament. I believe that the sovereignty of Parliament is absolutely paramount in reaching an agreement.
I do not want to elaborate on this point because I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, apart from the wording, which I suggest might be more attractively put. As he might recognise, I am adopting a tactic that advocates adopt in court: if you are addressing a judge, trying to find a way of formulating your proposition, and the judge comes out with some form of words that is not exactly in accordance with it but is in accordance with what you are driving at, it is quite a good tactic to pick up his words, as it is more likely that he will accept your answer. I am just adopting that tactic, as we have this there on a plate before us. You draw together the two things: the language of the undertaking and the interest that the Government have in getting the thing in the Bill for their own purposes. The undertaking that the Minister gave in the House of Commons was not given lightly. We can all understand that it would have been carefully worded and approved by somebody a good deal higher up the line of government than the Minister who was giving it. It really is a gift to adopt those words and get it into the Bill in that language.
I respectfully suggest that it would be wiser to detach subsection (4) from subsections (1) to (3), because we can grapple with subsections (1) to (3) for the reasons that I have given, but subsection (4) raises problems. I do not want to go over all the ground but, through a simple reading of the wording, you can see immediately the difficulty that it runs into. First, it tries to combine two different situations, in that it talks about “the termination” or termination “unilaterally”. I presume that when it talks about termination the first time, this is where both sides are unable to reach an agreement and there is a complete breakdown between both sides. If that is the situation, I, for the moment, cannot understand what can be done. There is no point in coming to the Government and asking for it to be approved, because you cannot get back to the negotiation table. It is a Humpty-Dumpty situation: Humpty-Dumpty has fallen off the wall and you cannot put the bits together again. So I cannot understand that part of the amendment.
The second part talks about terminating unilaterally. Although I can understand what that situation might be, the problem is that subsection (4) requires the Government to come to both Houses for prior approval before they can do that. You can imagine a situation where the Houses say, “We are not satisfied, go back and have another go”, and then we have the neverendum situation that has been referred to—going round and round in a circle with no way out.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I was following with great interest his ratiocination until he got to the point about neverendums. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has made clear, there cannot be a neverendum, because the two-year guillotine comes down. The only way to get beyond the two-year guillotine—and this answers the point that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, made—is by the agreement of all 27 member states and the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom refuses a prolongation of the two-year period, then it cannot be prolonged. So can we please drop the references to neverendums and just address whatever problems the noble learned Lord has with the wording of subsection (4)?
Lord Hope of Craighead
I entirely understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but the trouble with subsection (4) is that it does not mention the two-year period—we do not know what period we are talking about. That is one of the problems with it. It does not think through to the factual situation that would arise in the situation that is being addressed.
I do not at all underestimate the importance of finding a solution to the point that this subsection seeks to address; I am in sympathy with it. I just say that it is not suitably worded and it should be rethought. It is for that reason that I suggest that we should not try to struggle to put the two things together. We should separate out subsections (1) to (3) and adopt my solution, which I need not repeat, as to how they might be simplified and made more attractive and then think again about subsection (4). We can find a way to address exactly the particular situation that it seeks—of separating out the unilateral termination from the bilateral situation—and then try to find ways of meeting that. I do not need to elaborate, but these are the points that I wish to make in broad sympathy with what Amendment 17 is seeking to achieve.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I am aware that we have not heard from the Labour Benches at all in respect of this group of amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has her name attached to one of the amendments.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
I am grateful to the Minister and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will not mind my stepping in here. I have my name attached to Amendment 31, but I really support Amendment 17 as it has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As an advocate, I would always follow the indications given by a judge such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, whose advice is very useful, given that he is by and large in sympathy with what is being sought here.
I remind the House of a question that was asked previously by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill—I can see her sitting on the Cross Benches—on what happens if there is an agreement that is really a bad agreement, a bad deal, or what happens if there is no deal at all. We did not hear a proper answer to that question, and I think that it is one that we sought to answer in Amendment 31. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and—to spare his blushes—he did not make mention of the judgment in the Miller case, in which he was counsel. In that case—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said something about this on Second Reading—a very important matter of principle was involved. It was not just that the Supreme Court made the decision that Parliament’s approval was necessary for the triggering of Article 50. What was also dealt with there was the principle at the heart of this—the principle that when it comes to fundamentally changing law, or removing rights from our domestic law, Parliament has to be the place that authorises and approves such matters.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I shall come at the amendments from a slightly different angle. It seems to me, listening to the debate, that those who have tabled them may not fully understand what goes on in the House of Commons, or what the nature of parliamentary sovereignty really is. As we know, and as Bagehot reminded us 150 years ago, it is actually the majority in Parliament at the time—or whoever can muster a majority—and the managers of the party or parties behind that majority, who seek to maintain the majority, get the Government’s business through and carry out the Government’s intentions.
I am totally in favour of maximum parliamentary involvement in this process, and I have been from the start. I am sorry that it had to go to the Supreme Court; I thought the Government made a mistake in not putting it openly and fully to Parliament from the beginning. I am glad the case went as it did and, peering into the next two or three years or however long it takes, I welcome the fact that all along the way Parliament will be heavily and continuously involved—particularly the Commons, but ourselves as well, of course. That is my forecast.
People say that Parliament should not involve itself in negotiation. I hear my noble friends say that, and it sounds very sensible. In practice, the daily newspapers, the media and Parliament will all involve themselves in negotiations. There will be leaks in every direction and constant debates. Motions will be moved in the House of Commons. The Government may deplore that or try to avoid it; the Whips may manoeuvre to try to suppress it but that will not happen. There will be a massive and continuous debate about this matter over the next two years. When we eventually get to the point where there is some kind of resolution—whether it is the divorce papers; the new relationship; a bundle between the two; or a single core of views with a long trail of dozens of different sectoral views and arrangements and complex and numerous regulations—Parliament will be deeply involved. Whoever has the majority in Parliament will be in a position to assert their will over it, to reject or accept it. It needs no statute law whatever in practice and Parliament will not need to authorise, criticise or reject any arrangements for the divorce and new relationships that Her Majesty’s Government seek to put before it. They will have to do that; the Prime Minister has undertaken to do so and it will happen. The arrangements will be extensive and complex and will have numerous bilateral elements.
This is where the puzzle grows greater. If, at that point, the Government cease to have a majority, lose control or there are too many rebels and a majority is formed against the proposals, which are then rejected, arrangements leading to a general election will be triggered. I am not sure how that works with the five-year rule but the rejection would be a vote of no confidence in the Government and would trigger, one way or another, a general election. So the people would have their say and that is what will happen. The supporters of the amendment seem curiously unaware that MPs, including Back-Benchers in all parties—both official and minor opposition ones—are perfectly capable of bringing whatever the Government agree to the Floor of the House of Commons and voting on it. Votes can be engineered on crucial aspects which, if they were central enough, could destroy the Government. They can bring matters to Parliament by well-tried procedural devices at any time during the negotiating period.
The elaborate amendments, which distinguished lawyers around me are discussing, are totally unnecessary and do not fit in with the way in which Parliament has evolved and worked over the last 200 years. We have the doctrines of Bagehot, the realities of parliamentary manoeuvres and Governments being brought down by people switching sides. All this has happened and may well happen again. To put it on the statute book is to create an absurdity. There is no need for any statutes to tell Parliament how to behave.
Lord Hope of Craighead
One of the points made by the Supreme Court is that it is legislation that provides the authority for the kind of exercise we are talking about. It is all very well having Motions on the Floor of the House, but legislation is the key. That is why I suggest the Government need legislation for the protection I mentioned at Second Reading. If it is in the Bill, we get legislative authority.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, if Parliament voted to bring down the process—the whole confection the Government had worked on and negotiated over two years—it would not need a law, just a majority. Three or four years ago, Parliament voted against the Government’s wish to mount military action against Syria. No one wrote a statute saying that we must not fire cruise missiles at Bashar al-Assad and no one needs a statute here. A majority may well move against this. It is quite possible that, over the years, the media view may build up that this is unacceptable, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others have rightly reminded us. Some reversal may happen half way through. The Governments of France, Germany and Italy are all likely to change and turmoil is about to take place in the European continent. The people we are negotiating with may well change completely in the next 18 months. All this could happen and would change the approach totally. At that point, whoever can muster a majority in Parliament and form a Government—until they are overthrown—can and will have their say. That is called the sovereign role of Parliament. That is the reality. We are moving around ideas of statutes, which belong nicely in the world of law but not in the world of reality—of parliamentary procedure, parliamentary history, parliamentary action or parliamentary will when MPs really get going. It is a different world down there and that should be understood by the supporters of these amendments, which are unnecessary.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, this is not a debate which will be solved on the basis of this group of amendments. It is quite clear that we have to make an amendment to ensure parliamentary sovereignty. I remind your Lordships that we are only having this debate now because we had to go to court to insist upon having it. I remind your Lordships that it is not a proper way for Parliament to proceed via the courts. This happens in other countries without our history and without, I am afraid, the intrusion of Parliament. That phrase should be remembered. Parliament does not intrude when it makes a decision about the future of this nation.
We need to say to the Government that they cannot make a decision without it being put before Parliament in circumstances where Parliament is empowered to make that decision. It is perfectly happy for my noble friend to say, “Well, Parliament will do that anyway”, and “My goodness, we have been doing it all over the years” and all the rest of it—but we have not made a decision of this kind in these circumstances which can possibly be brought forward as a parallel. We have for the first time invented a system whereby we have asked the people for their decision. They have made a decision, but we do not really have a system by which we can naturally enforce and carry it through.
It is therefore perfectly proper for this House to seek the way that most defends parliamentary sovereignty. We do not work on the basis of “one man, one vote, once”. We try to accept what happened in the referendum. I admit, as this House knows, that I am a fierce opponent of Brexit—but that is not the point of this debate. The point of this debate is to stand up again for parliamentary sovereignty. My noble friends can say what they like about the details of the law, but they have to accept that we had to go to court to have the discussion. Therefore, they must also accept that this House ought to ensure that there is a copper-bottomed statutory protection for what the Prime Minister has promised in all good faith.
We also have to take seriously the issue of what happens if the Government decide that they do not like the solution that they have come to and therefore want to relapse into a WTO arrangement, or whatever it may be. If that happens, we will have to have a procedure by which both Houses of Parliament are able to make the decision. Why do the Government not want to do it? I do not understand this. I would have thought that the Government would have wanted to make sure that everybody accepts that this very difficult decision, based on a 52-48 vote and a good deal of misunderstanding on both sides, needs to have proper parliamentary procedure.
The only people who really oppose it—it is very difficult for me to say this, because I am always against lawyers, but I am much attracted to the proposals which we have just heard—and are really pressing for this not to happen are those newspapers that are determined to press their case, irrespective of what we will think in two years’ time. All I want to say is that I do not want to reverse, or fight, or stop what was in my view an entirely wrong decision. It has been made. But I remind us all that we are a parliamentary democracy and that it is necessary for Parliament to be sure that it has a proper say.
Finally, if we insist on this, we will also strengthen the hand of those who are trying to reach a solution which we can all accept and win the best solution for Britain, and will strengthen the hand of those who get up in this House and argue the case for it. We strengthen the hand of moderate, sensible people against those who appear to think that it does not matter how you do it as long as you do it. In that sense we will be asserting not only parliamentary sovereignty but the right of Parliament to insist that the case is put to Parliament and that Parliament is enabled to answer it.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, I hope that this is not too legalistic an intervention but I wish to seek some clarification. There have been a number of references to the Miller case. In paragraph 36 of its judgment, the Supreme Court said:
“The applicants’ case … is that when Notice is given, the United Kingdom will have embarked on an irreversible course that will lead to much of EU law ceasing to have effect in the United Kingdom, whether or not Parliament repeals the 1972 Act. As Lord Pannick QC put it for Mrs Miller, when ministers give Notice they will be ‘pulling … the trigger which causes the bullet to be fired, with the consequence that the bullet will hit the target and the Treaties will cease to apply’”.
I may be being obtuse, and of course there is an important difference between the role of the applicant and the role of the legislator, but I am curious to know whether the amendment would, if enacted, provide a bullet-proof jacket to the bullet which my noble friend Lord Pannick so effectively deployed in argument in the Supreme Court.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, I support Amendment 31. I realise that I am feeling a bit fractious, which is probably because I have not had my dinner. I cannot answer for other noble Lords’ fractiousness this evening but I imagine that it is for similar reasons.
I have no legal training but I think that the situation is perfectly logical. We had to have an Act of Parliament to go into the EU, and therefore surely it is completely logical to have an Act of Parliament to enable our withdrawal. To those people who keep on about taking back control, I say that if we do not have that Act of Parliament and that scrutiny, we will be giving the European Parliament or the EU more control over the terms than we have ourselves. So I commend Amendment 31.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have a slightly different point to make. I do not want to repeat what I said to your Lordships on the first day of Committee but perhaps I may again read the Long Title of this legislation. It is a Bill to:
“Confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU”,
and that is followed by one clause.
We have had a most entertaining disquisition and a whole series of teach-ins on various aspects of what the nation will be debating over the next year, including tonight from some extremely eminent lawyers and diplomats. It is clear to me as the Bill advances that the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Pannick and Lord Kerr, are emerging as the Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus and St Bonaventure of the details of this argument—the scholastic philosophers of what is before us. Unfortunately for the scholastic philosophers, the Christian communities involved did not accept that they had a monopoly of wisdom, because brilliance has to be tempered by practicality and practical wisdom. The problem that Parliament in its entirety has to wrestle with is how we respond to a vote by the British people with a majority of one and a quarter million to leave the European Union. That will exercise us for some time, but I do not think this is the time for scholastic argument. I take the same view on this amendment as on many others: it is an unnecessary obstruction—not in time or in practice, but we should focus on the purpose of this Bill.
I make a further point, which we should wrestle with over the next few months with some care. A great deal has been said about parliamentary sovereignty. I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Howard and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on subsection (4). But there is a deeper difficulty in this talk—and it is good talk; I am a devout parliamentarian—about parliamentary final say. In our parliamentary system there are two Houses. There is a House of Commons, which is elected and which can ultimately enforce its will, if need be through the Parliament Act—as is envisaged in one of these amendments—and there is another House, your Lordships’ House, which is unelected.
Today we established a new fact. We had a vote. In that vote, which is the second highest vote ever recorded in the House of Lords, 614 Peers voted. The result was, I believe, 356 to 258, or it might have been the other way around—
Lord True
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. So it was the other way around—358 to 256—which strengthens my argument. There is—if those 358 care to unite again and again—an insurmountable wall in your Lordships’ House, an unelected House, against the will of the other place, Her Majesty’s Government. I will not use the phrase “the will of the people”—we are acting on the instructions of the people, but I know it offends some. There is an insurmountable wall. It is inconceivable that the Government could form enough people in this place to overcome it. So when I read these amendments, which, effectively, have said that nothing can proceed and nothing can be terminated without the consent of your Lordships’ House, I see them as effectively giving your Lordships’ House—an unelected House, with a force that the world out there sees today—a veto on the procedure to take this forward. I give way to the noble Lord—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I wonder whether he has had a word with the Prime Minister, who basically coined this approach. She put in the Lancaster House speech a statement that both Houses should have their say. She then replicated it in the White Paper. So, rather than addressing people like myself and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Pannick, about this, could he perhaps have a word with his right honourable friend?
Lord True
It may be that the noble Lord has more access to my right honourable friend than I do. My right honourable friend is perfectly capable of forming a judgment and I have no doubt we will hear from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I do not resile for a moment from the advice that I am giving. I would give that advice to my right honourable friend as well. But it would be a strange place to put this country, at this time, on this Bill, at this stage of these proceedings, if we pass legislation that effectively gives a veto to a House that has voted with 358 Members against the request of the Front Bench to allow this Bill to proceed unamended as the House of Commons did. This is a major issue that needs to be addressed and it is one to which I hope the country and this Parliament will turn its mind.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I have now served in Parliament for over 25 years—roughly half that time in each House. I do not think the noble Lord who has just spoken has had experience of the House of Commons.
I want to address two insidious arguments. One argument—which we have heard often over recent days and the noble Lord has repeated it—is that somehow, the House of Lords should not intervene because the House of Commons has already spoken. If we take that argument to its extremity, there is no point in your Lordships’ House. It is simply giving ammunition to those, who are now increasing in number, who want a unicameral Parliament, who want to abolish this House, not just to reform it or to make it an elected Senate, as I do. I am very firmly in favour of a bicameral Parliament, as are my noble friends on these Benches, but there are now more people, many more people, who wish to abolish this House than want it to retain its present, appointed basis. That is very dangerous. If the noble Lord, Lord True, wants to persuade your Lordships’ House that we do not have a status on an issue as important as this, that we do not have a perfect right to tell the other place to think again, then I do not agree with him. It was evident from that very considerable vote on the earlier amendment that that is not the majority view in your Lordships’ House.
The other insidious argument which I think is really dangerous is to say, as many Members of your Lordships’ House seem to be saying, “Yes, we are very keen on the sovereignty of Parliament, but we are not prepared to reiterate that point now”. If not now, when? The Minister has on several occasions—he is persistent and sometimes persuasive—made a good point about some of the amendments that have come before your Lordships’ House about the process of negotiation; there will be other opportunities. There will not be another opportunity to set out a simple and sensible process within Parliament —both Houses—for the way we decide the outcome of the negotiations.
I was very impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. He and I used to have discussions in the other place; I used to have to try to shadow him. He and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, are the true Thatcherites, because they helped the great architect of the single market to make real sense for Britain of the single market, as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who was here earlier. But I do not think that we can really wait for the end of the process to decide how Parliament is going to take the process. That is why I thought the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was so helpful. If the Government cannot, between now and Report, find a way of setting before our House and, in due course, the other place, a process that we can all agree is one that defends the sovereignty of Parliament, defends our rights, in both Houses, to take these important decisions, then the Government are seriously at fault and may well find themselves losing a vote in your Lordships’ House, albeit perhaps not with the same majority as on Amendment 9B.
This is an extremely important moment, not just for the future of our country—of course it is—but for the future of our Parliament. If we effectively tie one hand behind our back, in either House or both Houses collectively, then we are doing a great disservice to the whole principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is going to follow me but he is the ideal person to spell out the importance of defending Parliament against an elective dictatorship. It is clear from the attendance at this late hour, nearly 10.45 pm, that many in this Committee share these concerns about how we are approaching this issue. We have not got it right yet. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made a very valid point about the way these amendments have come forward. It is the Government’s responsibility to find a better solution to what I think we all agree is a very serious problem.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I think we would serve ourselves a little better if we did not focus on this as an issue between this House and the other place, or, indeed, between the Executive and Parliament. We need to think about this as a matter which is between all of us, whichever House we sit in, whichever side of the argument we were on during the referendum campaign, and the people who are outside. It is important that we reflect on something that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said on Monday during the debate on the single market. She quoted Lampedusa, saying that for things to stay the same, we have to change.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 17 is tremendously important because it seeks to assert that the decisions on these matters should be taken by Parliament. I have great difficulty understanding why the Prime Minister and, apparently, the Government have seemed so determined to avoid that happening, to the extent of bringing a totally unnecessary court case. They could have gone back right from the start on the procedure we are now going through at considerable public expense. Against that background, it is very important that we should get this amendment right. We must have an awful lot of thought between now and next week to ensure that the amendment we actually pass is the right amendment.
The other point that one needs to take into account is the situation likely to arise towards the conclusion of the negotiations. It seems to me essential that Parliament should decide whether it does or does not accept those negotiations. The difficulty is that if no deal is reached, the whole deal is off and we are back to the situation before we joined the European Union. The interesting question is: if the deal is clearly worse than remaining in the European Union, what happens then? At that point, Parliament needs to consider whether it has accepted the result of the referendum. If it has done everything possible to bring it about but now finds itself in the situation where it is blatantly obvious that the deal is worse than remaining in, it ought to make that decision. Those who voted in the referendum in favour of leaving should realise that that is a sensible solution for us to adopt.
There is one further point that we need to consider before next week and we will need to read very carefully everything that has been said this evening. We may find at the end of negotiations that we would like to change our minds and it would be better to go back to the situation before the referendum. A committee of your Lordships’ House dealt with that issue very clearly having taken expert advice from, I am assured, some very good lawyers, who said that we could change our minds. That possibility was disputed by a number of other lawyers, not least international lawyers. It would be extremely helpful if we could have a definitive view from the Government next week on what the situation is.
We have a lot of work ahead of us for the next few days, but this has been an immensely helpful debate. There is a problem with proposed new subsection (4) of the amendment. I interpreted that as being enormously pro-Brexit. It states that Ministers are not allowed to stop the arrangements if they want to. Having said all that, it has been helpful to have this debate this evening and I look forward to hearing my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who was kind enough to give way to let me speak before him.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will be kind enough to allow me to interpose very briefly. I support the thrust of Amendment 17 and certainly the aim that it seeks to achieve, but I have a couple of questions about the mechanisms that it proposes to do that. It proposes proceeding by resolution of each House. There are two issues. First, what happens if a straightforward approval Motion is amended and the final result is a resolution that overall approves an outcome but contains some sort of rider or condition? Regulating parliamentary proceedings by statute, in my experience, generally ends in some sort of tears. A question of whether the outcome met the requirements of the legislation could be resolved only by the courts, and that might not be a welcome result.
Secondly, what happens if one House comes to the required resolution but the other does not? Perhaps the solution is one that would endorse the sage advice given earlier by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead which is to employ primary legislation, because that contains very well-understood mechanisms for securing agreement between the two Houses.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I know the hour is late so I will be very short; I will confine myself to making three points. The first is to adopt the language of my noble friend Lord Deben. This House must recognise that, ultimately, the decision has to be made by Parliament. Historically, there has always been tension between the Executive and Parliament and I happen to be a Roundhead on this matter. Let us not forget, as my noble friend pointed out, that we would not be debating this Bill had the courts not intervened. The truth is that Governments always seek to advance ministerial power at the expense of Parliament and we must push back. The historians among us will remember John Dunning saying that,
“the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished”,
and, with suitable alteration, that is where I stand.
My second point refers to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said a propos the risk of there being no agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, assessed that risk as being higher than 30% and I entirely share that view. We need to address that in statutory language. That is what I tried to achieve in the new clause that would be introduced by my Amendment 32.
My final point, turning to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—I know it is the view of the noble Baroness as well—is that assurances are well and good and I do not at all doubt the good faith of the Ministers who give them. But I prefer to see assurances in statutory language. Prime Ministers can go, Ministers can be sacked, Parliaments can change and Governments can cease to exist. One needs to enshrine assurances that stand against those changes in circumstances. Therefore, whenever we come to divide on this group of amendments, whichever is chosen, I shall support it because I stand in favour of parliamentary government.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, it is very late. We are tired. I do not know about the rest of your Lordships but I certainly am. I have sat here for four hours, a speech burning in my head, but listening to the speeches that have been made, I would not make any point that has not been made already, particularly in regard to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which were probably better than any I could ever have made. I am content to leave their words as mine on the record, in the hope that we may hear from the Minister fairly soon.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I, too, am not going to repeat the arguments put so succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, nor the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—although my noble friend Lord Lennie said at one point, “Oh dear, it sounds like a redrafting of Clause 4”. A certain group would understand that.
The agreement that the Government negotiate, or fail to negotiate, has enormous implications for this country. As has been said from the Dispatch Box many times, the referendum gave the UK a final say: that we should leave the European Union. That is the destination. However, it said nothing about the route or the pace of that change. As someone said to me, it is a bit like deciding to jump out of an aeroplane. You know exactly where you are going, but doing it before you have learned how to use the parachute could be troublesome. You could have a hard landing—that was the wrong phrase—if you do not know about the wind, the altitude and particularly the position of the ripcord.
The referendum gave no hints about any of the trade-offs that will come in what I hope will be a harmonious partnership that we will be able to negotiate with the EU 27. The Government will negotiate that, but Parliament must agree it. The agreement will have to go to the Council and the European Parliament; that is written in law in Article 50. It is therefore mandatory in law that the European Parliament will have to give its consent. But there is nothing in law that states that this Parliament must give its consent.
Although assurances have been given and the Prime Minister has said that there will be a vote in both Houses, it is not good enough. That is partly because it is a vote rather than legislation and partly because the same protection that the European Parliament has is not written in statute. That is all we are asking for. There must be equal legislative requirement on the exit deal for this Parliament to cover all eventualities. The debate has been on whether we have just the divorce, the withdrawal, or we have the withdrawal plus the framework, or the withdrawal and even a treaty—I doubt it will be within two years—or whether we get nowhere. Surely, as has been said by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, only this Parliament can decide on that. That is all that we are asking. The drafting can improve.
The most interesting questions were asked by the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Higgins: why do the Government not want to do this? What is troubling them? They are going to have to do it at some time. They can either bring forward another piece of legislation later, which I think was the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, or they will be taken there by a court—but get there we will. That is another part of the destination; there will have to be legislation and this sort of amendment, tweaked if necessary, is one that this House will want to support.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, this has been an excellent and interesting debate, and I am slightly wary at this late hour to be inserting myself between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who, as I said at Second Reading, is such a worthy adversary.
What everyone, myself included, clearly shares is the sentiment and perfectly legitimate intention to ensure that Parliament is able to hold the Government to account as we leave the European Union. But there is one fact of brutal simplicity that towers above this whole debate. Much though it may bore or irritate some noble Lords, I fear that it is one we cannot and must not ignore. It is simply this: the majority of people voted to leave the EU. I know that a number of your Lordships have argued with great passion that this was the wrong decision, but the decision has been made and we are going to withdraw from the EU.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the Minister, although I am disappointed that he did not give the undertaking that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked of him: that he answer definitively by next Tuesday complex questions of EU law. I look forward to seeing that.
The mood of the Committee tonight has been broadly supportive of writing parliamentary sovereignty into the Bill. I say to the Minister that Amendment 17 is concerned not with whether we withdraw from the EU but with parliamentary sovereignty over the terms of our withdrawal.
However, valuable points have been made from around the Committee as to the drafting of Amendment 17. I for my part want to reflect on those points before we bring back the amendment, as we will, on Report on Tuesday. I see the considerable force of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to whom I am grateful, that the amendment should be kept as simple as possible, mirroring the undertakings already given by the Prime Minister. However, it must also address the real possibility—and it is real—that the Prime Minister may decide that we should leave the EU without an agreement on terms. That also, surely, must be a matter for Parliament to decide. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Involvement of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
(1) Within six months of exercising the power under section 1(1), the Prime Minister must publish a document setting out arrangements that have been agreed between the Prime Minister and the devolved administrations for the Secretary of State to—(a) consult the devolved administrations on the matters referred to in subsection (2), (b) specify how their views on those matters will be taken into account, and(c) seek to reach a consensus on those matters.(2) The matters are—(a) the terms proposed for withdrawal from the European Union (including the initial negotiating position), and(b) the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union.(3) The arrangements referred to subsection (1) must make provision for statements to be published setting out the extent to which consensus has been reached.(4) The arrangements may make provision for functions to be exercised by Joint Ministerial Committees.(5) Before concluding an agreement under the process set out in Article 50 with any institution of the European Union, the Prime Minister must consult the devolved administrations on the terms of any proposed agreements, and specify how their views have been taken into account.(6) For the purposes of this section, the devolved administrations are—(a) the Scottish Ministers,(b) the Welsh Ministers, and(c) the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, Amendment 21 would underpin the involvement of devolved Administrations in the Brexit process. It would both formalise and strengthen the arrangements that the Government have already put in place through the joint ministerial committee, whose terms of reference commit the Government to seek to reach consensus on their negotiating position with the devolved Administrations. The amendment does not ask for the Government to do anything more than they have already undertaken other than to report on what is going on to Parliament, but we need it in the Bill, not least because the undertakings given by the Government have already been honoured more in the breach than in the observance.
Neither the content of the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech nor the White Paper was discussed at the JMC; indeed, the devolved Administrations were given virtually no notice that either was imminent. This is particularly regrettable given that the Prime Minister convened a full JMC at heads of government level on 30 January, just three days before the White Paper. The gentle encouragement and legal requirement in the amendment are, therefore, needed.
Amendment 21 also requires Ministers to consult the devolved Administrations on any agreement, both on our exit from and on our future relationships with the EU, and to report on such discussions. That is the least that this House would expect before we form our own view of those agreements. As the Supreme Court recognised in the Miller case, leaving the European Union has profound implications for the devolved Administrations, because they have direct responsibility for some of the areas—such as agriculture, fisheries, the environment and economic development—that are most regulated or influenced by the EU.
This has been explored helpfully in relation to the environment by our Select Committee on the EU in its thoughtful report Brexit: Environment and Climate Change, which devoted a whole chapter to devolution. While acknowledging Andrea Leadsom’s admission that, in relation to the great repeal Bill, perhaps a third of the environmental regulations will not be easy to transpose, our committee considered that, in the absence of an overarching EU framework, the four parts of the UK could see considerable divergences in their environmental law. As we know, rivers flow, winds blow and the sea covers many shores, so it will be essential that the Government’s negotiations in this area are completely harmonised with the thinking in the devolved Administrations.
Furthermore, changes relating to non-devolved policies will have huge significance for devolved Administrations, particularly if the Government whisks the UK out of the customs union. Needless to say, any such decision could threaten the open border in Ireland, as we discussed on Monday. With the UK Government free to develop their own trade policy, that could undermine key policies of the devolved Administrations. As the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs pointed out, a free trade agreement with New Zealand that permitted tariff-free imports of lamb could completely undermine Welsh hill farming and, with it, the environmental well-being of the Welsh uplands. I just realised that I lost my daffodil, today of all days.
This modest amendment, asking the Government to commit to consult the devolved Administrations and report on that, is wholly in the spirit of the Sewel convention, which requires Parliament to consult those bodies on legislation that affects their competences. I understand from the somewhat weasel words of the White Paper that the Government believe that they should take powers currently exercised by the Commission to themselves over areas that are wholly devolved, such as agriculture and environment. Needless to say, that would be absolutely unacceptable to the Scottish and Welsh Governments, as well as inconsistent with devolution legislation, because that qualifies the devolved legislatures’ freedom to act only by requiring them to do nothing that conflicts with EU legislation. Clearly, that is going to be meaningless post our exit from the EU.
This was recognised by the Supreme Court, which said:
“The removal of the EU constraints on withdrawal … will alter the competences of the devolved institutions unless new legislative constraints are introduced. In the absence of such new restraints, withdrawal from the EU will enhance the devolved competence”.
Should the Government, however, wish to introduce such constraints, this could provoke—as it was kindly called in one of the meetings that I went to—a constitutional fracas, which we can ill afford just when Brexit provides the most significant political challenge in a generation.
The White Paper Securing Wales’ Future, issued jointly by the Labour-led Welsh Government, which includes the Liberal Democrat from my home seat of Brecon and Radnor, and Plaid Cymru, sets out an alternative, which would both preserve the devolution settlement and recognise legitimate concerns about potential market distortions if each part of the UK acts independently on things such as farm subsidies, emissions or pollution once they are no longer regulated by the EU. The Welsh White Paper argues for a new set of constitutional arrangements based on voluntary agreements in devolved areas between all four Governments, supported by independent arbitration. There would be similar structures for the non-devolved issues such as trade agreements and state aid, which have major implications for devolved polices.
We on this side have not had time to consider these matters in detail, but the Government should now turn their attention to them. Amendment 21 therefore suggests joint ministerial committees only as one vehicle. Another constitutional settlement looks to be necessary and there may be another way forward. I urge the Government both to prove that they are earnest in their commitment to working with the devolved Administrations on the many complex issues and to look forward to how in future they can all work together. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, as the noble Baroness mentioned, it is still St David’s Day—just. I have my name on Amendment 21 and support what was said about the absolute need to ensure that the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are at the centre of reaching a consensus—meaning, of course, some give and take—across the UK on what will be the proposed terms of withdrawal from the European Union and the future frameworks for our relationships with the EU.
As the noble Baroness mentioned a moment ago, the National Assembly for Wales already indicated its good will in this matter by publishing the White Paper, Securing Wales’ Future. It is an excellent and very constructive White Paper and I invite the Minister to endorse the positive approaches taken in it as a basis for the co-operation and consensus the Government pledged to seek. I hope that they can do that either by accepting Amendment 21 or in other ways.
If the Minister cannot or will not do so, that will undoubtedly be seen as an indication that, although warm words may be said about securing a UK consensus, it will not be underpinned by a legislative guarantee. In those circumstances, the provisions of Amendment 36 would be needed, preventing the Government from exercising the powers of this Bill until all devolved Administrations have agreed. However, if the Government can move along the lines of Amendment 21, I would see that as a positive way forward.
The noble Baroness also referred to the powers that, post Brexit, should be transferred to the devolved Administrations. Clearly, if Brexit goes ahead and powers are repatriated from Brussels, some will deal with matters that are totally devolved, such as agriculture. To my mind, these functions should immediately be directed to Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast as appropriate. Clearly, there needs to be some mechanism to resolve any disagreements about what should be passed on to the devolved Administrations. In that context, I await the words of my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan, whose Amendment 43 possibly addresses that.
In conclusion—these will probably be my last words in Committee—what matters so much is that, in Edinburgh as in Belfast and Cardiff, there is a feeling that the Government are working with them as partners in this project. Clearly, the power rests in London, but if it is a question of “London knows everything better” and if it does not take on board the objectives and tactics put forward by any of those devolved regimes, and does not give them serious thought, then it creates problems for itself in its relationship with these organisations.
I seriously suggest to the Minister that he please consider this White Paper as a basis. It has cross-party agreement in Cardiff and it is not impossible also to form a cross-party basis here.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, in proposing Amendment 43, I accept totally everything that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Wigley in respect of their amendments. Those amendments are social and political in their nature. They constitute an overwhelming case for why, in order to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom, the reality of devolution and the harmony between the various constituent parts of the United Kingdom, respect should be shown by the mother parliament to the parliaments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Those are political and social considerations; the matter that I wish to propose is in no way contrary to that but runs parallel. It is a constitutional point. It is a marvellously simple constitutional point, and I think I can deal with it in very short compass. It concerns the reserved powers constitution that Wales achieved under the Wales Act which became law a few weeks ago. The purpose of that Act was to change the whole pattern of devolution for Wales from a conferred pattern of devolution—bit by bit over the years, a confetti type of development—to a reserved powers constitution.
It is axiomatic as far as a reserved powers constitution is concerned that two matters should be dominant. The essence of a reserved powers constitution, as we appreciate, is that there is a transfer in the first instance of the totality of power from the mother parliament to the subsidiary parliament, but that at the same time there should be a reservation of a strict number of exceptions and reservations. It is axiomatic, therefore, that two conditions must prevail. First, the mother parliament must be seized of all the legislative power and authority that is relevant to the situation. That is obvious. Secondly, the mother parliament must be cognisant of the powers that it has and must be in a position to know exactly where to draw the line between that which is transferred and that which is reserved. Neither of those conditions exists in this case.
Why is that so? I remember a piece of dog Latin that I learned many years ago when I was a law student in relation to the sale of goods: “nemo dat quod non habet”—no man can give that which he does not have. Nobody can transfer that which they do not have. When it came to the question of deciding what powers Wales should have, the mother parliament did not have a mass of those powers that are relevant to the situation. There is a huge area that is missing. It may be 25%; it may be 30% or 40%. It is massive in relation to the totality of legal authority. That authority was missing from 1 January 1973, ever since the European Communities Act 1972 came into force. It never was with the mother parliament to dispose of. It could not possibly give it to Wales, or to Scotland for that matter—in Northern Ireland, the situation was entirely different, because its constitution goes back to 1922.
What, therefore, is to be done? The following matters have some relevance, broadly. Of course, there is the question of the Sewel convention, which has been written into both the Scotland Act and the Wales Act. That will have its effect gradually over the years. There is also the question of the joint ministerial committee, which meets in confidence and is able to discuss in a situation of total secrecy matters which are of the utmost importance to the mother parliament and the devolved parliaments. There is also the question of protocols, which was greatly promised in the late 1990s when legislation in relation to Scottish and Welsh devolution went through but has been as dead as the dodo, I am afraid, and should be revived.
I think—this is where we have the amendment—there is the necessity for something that is much more focused. That is why I have proposed that the Prime Minister and the First Minister for Wales should be responsible within a period of two months for forming a body that will look carefully at the situation to determine: first, what is the scope of legislative authority that is missing here; secondly, what is the nature of that authority; thirdly, what entrenched rights—what established rights—have come into being in relation to that since 1 January 1973; and, lastly, what situations are there where there has been legislation under the 1972 Act which has been deemed to be incompatible with the European instruments. That is a very substantial job, and I suggest that the period that I have nominated of 12 months is not unreasonable in the circumstances.
Many people will say that this is not necessary and that Wales from Cardiff and the Westminster Parliament from here can negotiate at arm’s length. I do not believe for a moment that that is possible. We have seen exactly over the last few months when we were dealing with the Wales Bill how almost impossible it was to persuade Parliament that much of what had been reserved was utterly trivial and was an insult to the Welsh nation. Things such as sharp knives, axes, dogs, licensing, prostitution, hovercrafts—all those matters which scream for domestic consideration—had been reserved.
Years ago, a very famous Welsh statesman said, “Why look into a crystal ball when you can read the book?”. We know exactly what happens when Wales and England deal with each other in that way. It is not the basis of partnership and equality at all. The cobwebs of colonialism still exist in the relationship between Wales and England, I am afraid. Something better has to be done, and I believe that my amendment can bring that about.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the first point in my notes is to remind your Lordships that today is St David’s Day. There have been moments in the last couple of hours when I wondered if I would have to scrub that bit, because it would no longer be St David’s Day. However, I maintain that discussing these things here on St David’s Day is the best possible way of celebrating it.
St David’s Day and its celebration emphasise the point that the UK is a voluntary association of four nations bound together by tacit consent. With that comes the obligation to mutual respect. I acknowledge that the Government are grappling with a very complex picture. Scotland voted to remain but has a Government who wished to remain. Wales voted to leave, but has a Government who wished to remain. Northern Ireland voted to remain, but has a pro-Brexit First Minister and faces elections this week. England voted to leave and that vote has dominated and outweighed the size of the votes in all the other nations. The UK Government’s determination to take a strict and harsh interpretation of the Brexit vote has made that more obviously difficult for the other nations to accept.
I added my name to these amendments because they express, in very clear terms, the need for formal structures for consultation with the devolved Administrations. Mere informal assurances of consultation will be totally inadequate; there must be formal structures.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly make three points about Amendment 21. I should say that I am a member of your Lordships’ European Union Committee, and that I am a great fan of devolution. I am certainly a fan of onward devolution, such as that of the Crown Estate, which has not taken place yet in Scotland.
Recently, the European Union Committee was in Edinburgh and in Cardiff, and I was part of the delegation. We were taking evidence because we are preparing a report on the devolved Administrations in the context of Brexit. My first point is that interestingly we heard in those meetings, which were only two or three business days apart, different takes on the JMC meetings that had just taken place a few days beforehand. The Welsh take appeared to be very much that it was a good start: there could perhaps be some greater level of detail, but it was a start and they were certainly engaged in the JMC process, were grateful for the investment of time and felt that they had traction.
The Scottish team had a very different feeling, and gave us quite a negative report. The reports were so diametrically opposed that one could not help but feeling it was odd that they were talking about the same meeting. I cannot speak for my fellow delegation members, but I left with a feeling that a lot of the Scottish problem was driven by an SNP agenda and trying to drive a grievance, and that they were deliberately setting off to try to persuade the world that the JMC structure—which I think is a good idea—is not working, right at its birth. I think that is unfair, and should be noted.
Lord Wigley
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Far be it for me to try to defend the SNP; I have no authority to do so and probably no ability or knowledge either. But is not one of the factors that the outcome of the referendum in Scotland was a yes vote and, therefore, any Government in Edinburgh will clearly be coming to it from a different viewpoint from that of a Government in Cardiff or the UK as a whole?
The Earl of Kinnoull
I am grateful for that point but, as we sit here tonight, we have heard a lot of very different views; it does not mean that we do not sit down, discuss things and try to persuade people to come round to our view. My impression was that there was a lack of engagement on the part of the SNP in the JMC, which is regrettable because, if the SNP does not engage, it cannot represent its own view successfully with the United Kingdom Government. I really wish it would engage; I felt that was a problem.
As I begin to look at Amendment 21 carefully, two areas concern me. The first is in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, where the words “agreed between” arrive, because if my analysis about a grievance agenda was right, the prospect of there being an agreement between all the parties would seem likely to be bloody difficult and possibly impossible. Accordingly, it is almost like handing a whip to a hostile SNP Government to try to cause difficulties. I do not think that is wise in what will be a jolly difficult set of negotiations with masses of countries; I do not think we need to create another whip.
The second area, on which I have a more general, final point, is to do with the Sewel convention itself. In many ways, we have been quite lucky that the Supreme Court has said that the Sewel convention within the Scotland Act and, I presume, the Wales Act, is exactly that—a convention and not a statutory power. I worry that if we start putting more Sewel convention-type language into statute, we might damage that and end up with a Wallonia-type situation in the UK, which would be problematic. I am afraid I cannot really support Amendment 21 and I, for one, feel that the JMC arrangements should be given a chance to work. I hope that others also feel like that.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, we might still get the opportunity to wish our Welsh colleagues a very happy St David’s Day. As somebody who has a maternal name of Owens and a fraternal name of Morgan, I suppose there might be some fellow feeling there— I do wish noble Lords a very happy St David’s Day. That is probably the departure point of any agreement there might be between the noble Lords who proposed these amendments and me.
Let me say at the outset that I fully accept the principle that every effort should be made to engage the devolved Administrations. Anybody who has been in this House, even for a few years, knows how things across the United Kingdom are terribly London-centric. Indeed, that was part of the reason for the upsurge of negativity at the time of the referendum; people rejected the “London bubble” approach. We have seen that repeated on a number of occasions.
The Prime Minister has indicated that she has been trying to engage, but there is a big difference between making a genuine effort to engage with the Administrations and putting things in the Bill. Amendment 36, for example, states:
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1(1) until at least one month after all devolved administrations have agreed a United Kingdom wide approach”.
I can assure noble Lords that we would then never trigger Article 50, because there will never be agreement. Why would there be? Why would Nicola Sturgeon agree to participate in something to which she is opposed? Sadly, in my own circumstances in Northern Ireland, we are on the eve of elections and the Assembly —the Executive—has effectively imploded. The two parties leading the outgoing Executive could not agree on anything except a two-page letter last August, which has been their sole contribution since we took the decision to leave the European Union.
Unless there is a very significant change in voting patterns—which could happen, and I hope it does; there would then be the outside chance of getting an Administration we could work with—things will be the same. We will know by the weekend if that is not true. If patterns are repeated, we know what will happen. The Brexit Secretary came to Belfast in September and instead of meeting an Administration to hear their views, he had to have two meetings in the First Minister’s office, one with one party and a separate meeting with the other party. They could not even meet him together, so how could the Prime Minister conduct any business on behalf of the Government if such an amendment were made?
As for the powers that would be repatriated from Brussels, may I just remind the Committee that in agriculture, for instance, there has been nobody in the United Kingdom with any policy-making capacity for 40 years? There is nobody. We have not been doing it. The policy has been made in Brussels. We do not even have this in Whitehall, never mind in the devolved Administrations. We would have to consider issues such as a national food policy and various other things. These are complicated issues, but they are not for putting in the Bill.
Lord Wigley
I understand that in broad agricultural terms there is a European policy, but the agricultural policies followed in Wales at the micro level have been very substantial. Some of the powers being repatriated from Brussels would undoubtedly fit in with the powers that have been exercised on agriculture in Wales over the past 18 years. It would be ludicrous if they were not there.
Lord Empey
I am not disputing that. We have had agricultural powers in Northern Ireland for even longer, but they are confined within a broad policy set by the CAP. Yes there is micro stuff, and I am 100% for that; I am simply saying that there is a big gap. However, we are talking about putting these amendments into the Bill, and that is a different matter entirely. This is a perfectly sensible discussion to have, and I totally support the idea that there has to be real and meaningful engagement between the Government and the devolved Administrations. I have sat on the JMC, and there are all the players on it that we need—provided that they are prepared to work with each other. Sadly, the evidence is that they have not done so.
I hope that the Prime Minister persists, and however she has to do it—through informal mechanisms, or whatever—I would be 100% in favour of that. However, I come back to the point that we are talking about a Bill to trigger Article 50. The idea of handing things over to devolved Administrations that are hostile to the very concept and expecting them to go along with it is totally unrealistic. I therefore oppose the amendments.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I want to add the support of my Front Bench for the amendment and the words written by my noble friend Lady Randerson. Not only do I personally not come from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but I am a Londoner, and I want to make it clear that it is not just the people represented by the devolved Administrations who care about diversity and plurality in this nation. Frankly, none of us, even Londoners, can be at ease if the union does not work properly.
In discussions on the Bill I have heard a lot of people say that they agree with the substance of what is being proposed, but that it must not appear in the Bill. I think it is about time to put some things in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said something on this subject. Amendment 21 is only about arrangements for consultation and how views are to be taken into account; it is about mechanics. So some of his criticism was not quite justified.
The Earl of Kinnoull
I was referring to subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, where it says that the arrangements “have been agreed”. The word “agreement” surely means agreement.
Baroness Ludford
It is agreeing on arrangements. It does not mean that you agree on the outcome. It is agreeing arrangements for consultation and how views will be taken into account. It does not specify that everyone will agree on the final outcome. All I wanted to do was put down a marker. You do not have to be from a devolved region or nation to support this amendment. Even a dastardly Londoner can do so.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this part of the debate. The lateness of the hour does not reflect the importance of the issues being considered. I recognise the power of feeling in the House with regard to the issues being debated and the amendments that have been proposed, and acknowledge the interest that various Members have in maintaining and promoting each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, including London, and the contributions they have made.
As the Prime Minister has said, it is more important than ever that we face the future together, united by what makes us strong: the bonds that unite us. The Government are determined to ensure that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom are fully taken into account in our negotiations with the European Union. We recognise the importance of engaging closely with the devolved Administrations as we embark upon the forthcoming negotiations with the European Union, and we welcome the input of the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive. As the Prime Minister has said, consideration of the proposals of the devolved Administrations is an ongoing process. Work will need to be intensified ahead of triggering Article 50 and continued at the same pace thereafter.
We have to remind ourselves that it was a United Kingdom referendum and the United Kingdom that voted to leave the European Union. The legal and constitutional responsibility for the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU lies with the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. We have been clear that no part of the United Kingdom can have a veto over that process. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, observed, aspects of these amendments could ultimately constitute an exercise of veto by the legislature in one of the devolved areas.
Lord Wigley
We have heard that there are problems in Northern Ireland and, perhaps, an unwillingness to accept some of the attitudes taken by the Government in Scotland. However, the Government have an agreed White Paper from Wales. Will the Minister—and, perhaps, his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—undertake to study this very carefully indeed to see whether there is a basis here for policy which is not just acceptable in Wales but may also be relevant in other parts of the United Kingdom as a positive way forward.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I can absolutely assure the noble Lord that we are taking into consideration not only the White Paper from Wales but the submissions prepared by the Scottish Government. All these matters have been taken into consideration in the context of our negotiating position following the triggering of Article 50. All the proposals outlined in these papers will be the subject of keen scrutiny by the Government. What we are considering today is a Bill to implement the referendum result and respect the judgment of the Supreme Court. We are not engaged in considering a vehicle for determining the terms or shape of the broader negotiations that will follow the triggering of Article 50. As has been said on many occasions, that will be a hugely important milestone for the United Kingdom but it is only a milestone, not a cut-off point. It is not the end of the process—it is merely the beginning.
Since the referendum result there has been regular and ongoing political engagement. I noticed that the Prime Minister’s very first visit following the referendum result was to Edinburgh, quickly followed by Cardiff and Belfast. I remind the House that the principles which underpin relations between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations are set out in a memorandum of understanding. There is the joint ministerial committee which should operate—I say should—by consensus, because as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Earl have observed, it is not always possible to achieve consensus, but these bodies have that aim.
At the plenary session of the joint ministerial committee in October last year, the four Governments agreed to create a Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations, chaired by the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. Under that structure, Ministers and officials from the UK Government and the devolved Administrations have engaged closely in the process of considering our exit from the European Union. That committee has been meeting monthly and a wide range of matters has been discussed on each Government’s requirements for the future relationship with the EU, and the future relationship between the devolved Administrations and this Government.
Over the autumn, we also undertook important work with the devolved Administrations to fully appreciate their priorities and interests. In that context we have taken account of the publication that the noble Lord referred to—namely, the White Paper from the devolved Administration in Wales, and the Brexit papers published by the Scottish Government—which was submitted to us for consideration in the context of that process.
Outside the formal processes that I have described, we have also engaged extensively with stakeholders in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to try to ensure that the interests of all these areas are reflected in our negotiations with the European Union. Ministers have regularly visited the devolved constituent nations of the United Kingdom on numerous occasions for the purposes of those discussions. They have met with a whole variety of stakeholders from SMEs to multinational companies. We have met with MSPs as well. We have tried to engage right across the areas of interest that will be touched upon by our departure from the EU.
A point that was alluded to by a number of noble Lords was how the devolved Administrations will be engaged in determining where repatriated powers should sit in the future. It is a matter of interest to all of us. We must work carefully to ensure that, as powers are repatriated from Brussels back to Britain, the right powers are returned to the United Kingdom Parliament, and the right powers are returned to the devolved Administrations—whether in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
This will be a matter for further discussion. The Prime Minister has been clear that no decisions currently taken by the devolved Administrations will be taken from them. That is not the end point, but the starting point for this form of negotiation, and we appreciate and understand the importance of addressing how we deal with the repatriation of the acquis in due course. It is important to have these debates, but it is equally important not to tie the Government’s hands as they approach the forthcoming negotiations. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response. My only response is to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, where I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. The only agreement was about the way to talk and that wording is the JMC’s terms of reference at the moment. The Minister said the Government are trying to engage—I say let us try a little harder. The lack of pre-information, before the White Paper, caused a slight frisson, but maybe that is well behind us. I hope that we are marching forward on slightly firmer ground. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall
“Report on co-operation with European technical agencies
(1) Before exercising the power under section 1(1), the Prime Minister must publish a report detailing the United Kingdom’s intended approach, during negotiations under the process set out in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, to ensuring the United Kingdom’s continued co-operation and participation with the work of the European technical agencies listed in subsection (2).(2) The agencies are—(a) Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER),(b) Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC Office),(c) Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO),(d) European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex),(e) European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA),(f) European Asylum Support Office (EASO),(g) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),(h) European Banking Authority (EBA),(i) European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC),(j) European Chemicals Agency (ECHA),(k) European Environment Agency (EEA),(l) European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA),(m) European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA),(n) European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA),(o) European Medicines Agency (EMA),(p) European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA),(q) European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA),(r) European Police Office (Europol),(s) European Union Agency for Railways (ERA), (t) European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA),(u) European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), and(v) the (European Atomic Energy Community Treaty) EURATOM agencies.”
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, this is a Cinderella amendment—it seems to have been difficult to find the right place for it. This is an interesting list of bodies. It reminds us that Europe, the economy and society have lots of bodies that are in a grey area between public bodies, industrial bodies, research bodies and so on, yet they are very important in making the economy work. There are shades of Euratom as the people associated with all these bodies are increasingly saying, “Where is the template for our future relations?”.
I remind noble Lords that this amendment calls for a report on co-operation with the technical agencies. It contains the words:
“Before exercising the power under section 1(1)”,
so that it can be debated under this Bill. But in practical terms one is looking for the Government to focus on all these bodies. They have something in common. They are all technical bodies and agencies of the European Union of a decentralised character, but it is fair to say that in some way or another UK co-operation on all these subject areas will not cease as soon as Article 50 is triggered.
In the internet age, one sees a privation in our new arrangements, whether in relation to Amazon or Apple or whatever, so here we have what looks like a rather sheep-and-goats sort of list—but all the bodies need to be the subject of some analysis. My noble friend Lord Berkeley, who has very kindly put his name to this amendment, will add a couple of points based particularly on his expertise on railways.
We are looking for some sort of commitment from the Government to think of a process by which there can be a Green Paper on, or some sort of analysis of, the role of these bodies and the options for continuing our involvement with the substance of what they discuss. I do not think that the Government want to give out the message that we are walking away from them with enthusiasm. It is a question of how we can co-operate with them and whether, in some respects, it is necessary to walk away from them at all.
I go back to the beginning. There are lots of arrangements in society where people learn from each other through benchmarking, but in all these various industries and bodies it is not always necessary to rely on public funds to do the work. This is all speculative but we now have the opportunity to say that within a certain timescale—by the summer, for example—there will be a paper of some sort and the Government will then commit to having discussions with people, perhaps beginning with parliamentarians, to see how best this sort of interface can work. With that request I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be as quick as I possibly can in supporting my noble friend’s amendment. As my noble friend said, this a disparate group of agencies with different structures. Many of them do not even need funding, but they are necessary for the ongoing business that I hope the UK will continue to do. As chairman of the Rail Freight Group, I attended a meeting today with Brexit Ministers and transport Ministers to talk about how Brexit would affect the rail sector. It was very interesting and very nice of the industry to invite us. They were seeking our advice and our concerns so that they could formulate their policy.
This amendment asks for a report before Article 50 is triggered. It will not happen because they are still looking for ideas—but at least they are asking us. I will give a couple of examples of our concerns. I had three. The first was about what happens at frontiers. Most of our freight these days comes across the Channel from Dover or through the Channel Tunnel and 80% of the drivers are non-British citizens. Will they all have to fill in this 84-page document that we heard about earlier? I hope not—but this is something that has to be recognised.
Secondly, if customs procedures are so long and complicated—I understand that if the port of Dover and the Channel Tunnel were closed for a day, the traffic jam would extend beyond Stansted Airport, which would be a bit of a blockage on the motorway—this, too, must be recognised.
Thirdly, the European Railway Agency sets standards and enforces them. I have worked very hard over the years to make sure the agency does its job properly, because it helps our industry quite dramatically. It means that there is one standard for railways across Europe and, as some noble Lords will know, the railways across Europe are incredibly old-fashioned. It was only recently that they managed to standardise the red lights on the back of trains. Otherwise, when a train got to a frontier, the driver had to walk from the front to the back and change the light—which is ridiculous in this day and age.
The European Railway Agency has stopped all that. We recently had some rail wagons that were manufactured and designed in this country and the company wanted to operate them in France. The French regulators said that they could not come because they did not comply with their regulations—which were probably created especially to keep out other people’s equipment. That kind of thing still goes on until the European Railway Agency gets involved—so if we want to export our equipment to other member states, we will somehow have to remain involved.
I hope we can continue to do so. An awful lot of jobs will be at risk if we do not—in the railways and other sectors. I am sure that a way can be found of doing it—not necessarily in the way that the Minister talked about in the earlier debate on Euratom, but I hope it will happen. I hope that at some point in the summer, as my noble friend said, we will have a report from the Government on their plan for what they intend to do. The industry at our meeting today told us that they needed to plan ahead and needed information. We need to find out what we should do in the future to make sure that we can preserve our jobs here and preserve our export opportunities. I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort on this. I am sure he did not mean to make a derogatory remark on Monday about the Community Plant Variety Office. I do not know anything about that, but some of these other agencies are extremely important for the future of trade with the rest of Europe, however that will be achieved.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, very briefly at this late hour, I want to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, for raising the list that he has produced for us. On behalf of these Benches, I would say that this emphasises the complexity of what the Government are entering into. We would, of course, like to know exactly how the Government will respond, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Bridges of Headley
Good morning, my Lords. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this amendment again, as I did on Monday night.
Let me start by saying that these agencies are important and I was not wishing in any shape or form to be derogatory about any agency. The Government dispute the suggestion that we have to wait before triggering Article 50 to publish a report on all these agencies, but I think that the noble Lord made that point in his own words.
The list, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, pointed out, covers a range of different policy areas: aviation, fisheries, justice and home affairs, banking and customs. Our approach to a lot of these policy areas was, of course, covered in the White Paper. There is a lot of analysis going on.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I entirely concede that point. Forgive me: I have obviously not expressed myself well at this early hour of the morning. What I am saying is that those agencies touch on different areas of policy.
I entirely understand the noble Lord’s wish for greater clarity and his need to scrutinise our proposals. As I have said before at this Dispatch Box, and I will go on saying it, when we can provide further information we will.
Consequent to that, the noble Lord rightly says that industry and the sectors look for more certainty. I am very aware of that. I, too, have had excellent meetings with, for example, the freight industry, with those involved in ports and so on. We are fully aware of that. It is in our interests, it is in their interests and it is in Parliament’s interests to provide as much detail as we can when we can. I am very sorry to say that I am not now going to be committing to do so at a certain juncture or in a certain format, but I can assure the noble Lord that we are analysing all these points and we will keep the House fully up to date.
I have very little further to add to this. Given the range of policy areas that this touches on, I could talk for a long time—but I do not think that noble Lords would want me to—about banking, about the chemicals agency or such things. Now is not the time for me to do that, so I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I thank the noble Lord, but I hope that he will reflect on one point. It is not the case that there is legal clarity at the moment about the legal status of some of these bodies and about what is consequential and what is not consequential on our leaving the European Union. That is the de minimis requirement, surely, of HMG in responding to this. There seems to be an extreme reluctance to do what would be normal in any parliamentary Select Committee —just examining the facts on all these bodies, how they are affected and what we are going to do as a model to inform our people in the negotiation.
I am not suggesting that the noble Lord should speak again in the next five seconds, but I conclude by saying that I think there is some work to be done in government with a view to a publication before very long. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.