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
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
Almost half the people leaving our prisons will reoffend within a year, with a cost to the economy of £15 billion, and countless costs to victims and society. We are giving prison governors the power to be able to turn people’s lives around, to reduce that level of reoffending.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that prison governors have all the tools at their disposal to get people the education they may not have had—almost half of prisoners do not have basic English and maths—to get them into jobs and training, so that they can go into work and lead a lawful life when they leave prison.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Following the transforming rehabilitation reforms, there has been a 57% increase in the number of offenders being recalled as a result of failure to keep in touch during supervision after short sentences. What action are the Government taking to address this rise in the number of people being recalled to prison, and why is such failure being seen as a result of the reforms?
Elizabeth Truss
It is, of course, important that we recall people who pose a danger to society, but we need to ensure that we are recalling the right people. We are looking at that issue and at wider probation reforms to ensure that we turn people’s lives around not just while they are in prison, but while they are under community supervision.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
One particularly stubborn area of concern has been the above-average reoffending rate of those serving sentences of 12 months or less. Does not that give rise to the need to look again at the effectiveness and use of short sentences as opposed to community penalties, and to look carefully at the way in which the Through the Gate programme operates? There is a real concern that there is not adequate follow-up for people who are released under these circumstances.
Elizabeth Truss
The Chair of the Select Committee on Justice is right that we need to get better at intervening before people commit crimes that lead to custody. As well as announcing a review of probation and the way in which it operates, we are looking at community sentences. We are ensuring that good community sentences are in place and that there is a higher use of mental health treatment orders and drugs desistance orders, which reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to reduce reoffending by domestic violence perpetrators in prisons and in communities?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that, as we have got better at dealing with issues of domestic violence, there is more we can do. That is why I am leading a joint taskforce with the Home Secretary to look at the law around domestic violence. We are also ensuring that domestic violence victims are protected in the family court. Under the Prisons and Courts Bill, abusers will no longer be able to cross-examine domestic violence victims, and that is an important step forward.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am sure the Secretary of State will welcome the fact that companies such as Boots, Barclays, Carillion, Land Securities, Ricoh and many others have “banned the box” to improve the chances of ex-offenders getting jobs. However, does she share my concern that some quite big household names have not yet stepped up to the plate? Will she do her bit to get them over the line alongside those other good employers?
Elizabeth Truss
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he did to get more employers involved in this when he was a Minister. We are following on from his good work by setting up an organisation called the New Futures Network, which will comprise businesses and charities. The network will encourage more employers to take on ex-offenders, who are often very loyal and hard-working employees, and who can help to address some of the skills shortages we face.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Reoffending now costs us £15 billion annually, as the Secretary of State just said. A recent report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation noted that not enough is being done to help prisoners to prepare for life outside prison, due to a
“combination of unmanageable caseloads, inexperienced officers, extremely poor oversight”.
The service was rated as four-star before privatisation. What will the Secretary of State do to address this?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have said, it is important that people are supported to get into jobs once they leave prison. Just as we are establishing metrics for governors, showing how many people are employed once they leave prison, we want to use similar metrics to hold probation operators to account to make sure that they are focused on getting people into homes and into work, which we know leads to a reduction in reoffending.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
On 24 February, we announced changes to improve governance of the youth justice system. We are creating a new youth custody service headed by a dedicated, experienced director who will lead on operational delivery, and we have appointed Charlie Taylor as the new chair of the Youth Justice Board.
Mr Burrowes
Young people in custody now have more complex needs, and more than three quarters of them have been excluded from school. How will we put high-quality education at the heart of the youth justice system, so that young people can have a second chance of getting the skills they need to break the cycle of reoffending?
Dr Lee
My hon. Friend is, as ever, spot on with regards to the importance of education. We are bringing forward plans on secure schools, and we are going to put health and education at the centre of that. I strongly believe that when people leave the youth justice system, they should be fit in body, fit in mind and fit to play a positive part in society.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Has the Minister had a chance to see this morning’s damning report on G4S’s performance at Oakhill training centre? Has he yet made a decision on whether he plans to allow G4S to flog off the centre to an American buyer?
Dr Lee
Yes, I have seen the report. In fact, it confirmed what I encountered myself on a recent visit to Oakhill. We are aware of the difficulties there, and we are also aware that G4S is in the process of trying to sell the youth justice arm of its business. I am keeping a close eye on that process, and rule nothing out when it comes to looking after the children and indeed the broader security of society.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Dr Lee
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the Government strongly believe that we need to create an environment in which young people can learn and be rehabilitated, so that they can play a more positive part in society. Our plans for secure schools—one in the north-west of England and one in the south-east of England—will build on that in the future.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Is overcrowding or understaffing the biggest problem in our youth justice system?
Dr Lee
No, it is not. [Interruption.] The problem is not overcrowding. There are some issues around staffing, which is why we have brought forward our plans on creating a new role for the youth justice officer. Those individuals are going to be attracted to work specifically with children. We are also developing the youth custody service as part of our plans around Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, because we believe that there should be a distinct service to deal with children in the criminal justice system.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Youth reoffending rates are among the highest of all prisoners, and we have just heard that reoffending costs this country a total of £15 billion a year. Surely the obvious answer is to make sure that all prisoners serve their time in jail in full before they are released out into the public.
Dr Lee
Specifically in the youth justice system, I believe that the most important thing is to ensure that when young people are in custody, we take every opportunity to treat them if they have mental health problems and to provide the necessary education for future employment prospects, so that when they leave the institution, they are less likely to reoffend.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It has been reported that Working Links, an outsourcing company criticised for its handling of probation services, including for failures in Wales and the south-west, is the company that it is in talks to buy Oakhill secure training centre from G4S. Is it part of the Justice Secretary’s reforms to youth justice to allow private companies with no experience in youth justice to run our youth custody centres?
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
As Lord Chancellor, I made a decision to lower the discount rate. Not to have done so would have been unlawful. Under the law, I may only consider the impact on victims, not defendants. As I have said, the system needs to be reformed, because I do not think it is right that a discount rate is set on an ad hoc basis by the Lord Chancellor.
Elizabeth Truss
I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary to discuss the implications for the NHS. As I said, under legislation the Lord Chancellor must only consider the impact on the victim. I do not think the procedure works in the right way, which is why I will shortly bring forward a consultation on a better way to set the discount rate.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
There seems to be some element of confusion in the minds of the public. The insurance industry says that car insurance premiums will go up because of the fall in the discount rate, while the Government, quite rightly, say that insurance premiums should come down because of the proposed changes in the Prisons and Courts Bill. Is this a question of netting off, with no change to premiums at all, or can the Lord Chancellor be slightly more scientific?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes the point that there are different issues around the discount rate and whiplash. The measures on whiplash in the Prisons and Courts Bill should reduce insurance premiums by, on average, £40. The issue about the discount rate is very different: it is an independent decision that the Lord Chancellor has to make. I am saying that we need to review the way that decision is made, and I will be bringing forward a consultation on that very shortly.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
Measures to disincentivise minor, exaggerated and fraudulent whiplash claims are being taken forward in the Prisons and Courts Bill and through changes to reduce the cost of litigation by increasing the small claims limit.
Luke Hall
Whiplash claims have increased by 50% over the past decade, at a time when cars are becoming safer and the number of road traffic accidents is falling. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is time for reform? Can he confirm the extent to which consumers will benefit through lower car insurance premiums, and how does he intend to hold insurance companies to their side of the bargain?
Sir Oliver Heald
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the fact that as cars have become safer there have been fewer road traffic accidents. It is shocking that whiplash cases have gone up by over 50% in the past 10 years. The reforms I mentioned will, taken together as a package, ensure that the genuinely injured receive compensation, and fraudulent and exaggerated claims are tackled.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Sir Oliver Heald
I pay tribute to the work of the all-party parliamentary cycling group, which the hon. Lady co-chairs. We have taken account of the overall effect of the measures and looked at the representations made. She will have noticed that some of the original proposals have not been taken forward, and the ones we have taken forward we believe are proportionate.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Obviously, none of us wants fraudulent claims for damages, but have the Government made any assessment of the effect the changes proposed in the Prisons and Courts Bill will have on the numbers of litigants in person?
Sir Oliver Heald
Yes. The Government are keen to change the way in which the courts work to make them not just the best in the world but the most modern. This involves new procedures that use online technology—virtual hearings for some small matters and so on. The overall effect is to improve access to justice and improve life for litigants in person. We also have a special strategy for litigants in person, which helps them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is very important that we keep insurance premium payments low. However, there is also a need for a framework that ensures there is adequate compensation for serious accidents. How can a balance be struck?
Sir Oliver Heald
It is important for that balance to be struck. The whiplash proposals relate to the most minor claims—cases in which the pain and suffering lasts for up to two years. Even then, there is provision for judges, in exceptional cases, to award more than the tariff that is proposed. When serious injuries are involved, however, the system will continue as it is now. It will still be designed to recompense people properly for the injuries that they have suffered.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
A few years ago, I was shunted up the backside—my car was, I mean. Although I was perfectly well, I received a phone call from someone who asked me whether I had whiplash. I said, “No, I do not have whiplash.” The person said, “Oh, go on! Say that you do have whiplash.” I did not do that, because I am an honourable person. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to reduce the number of bogus claims.
Mr Speaker
I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so accident-prone. I remember serving on a Bill Committee with him many years ago, and receiving the distressing news that he had been bitten in a sensitive place in the course of an excursion overseas. He really does seem to suffer a disproportionate share of ill fate.
Sir Oliver Heald
In those circumstances, my hon. Friend showed the strength of character that I would have expected of him. It was, of course, shocking to hear from colleagues, during our Westminster Hall debate, of the experiences that they and their constituents had had of this dreadful cold calling. People are being begged to start proceedings when they have not had an injury.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Minister claims that there is a compensation culture surrounding whiplash when, in reality, the number of claims has been falling for five years. Even if that were true, however, I should like to know why he is penalising workers throughout the country by increasing the personal injury limit to £2,000, rather than focusing solely on whiplash.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman—with his background as a personal injury lawyer—raising those concerns. [Laughter.] I see another one behind him, waiting to ask a question.
The simple answer is that it was right to increase the personal injury small claims limit to £2,000. That just reflects inflation. The last increase was in 1991, so it is time for another. As for the whiplash cases, I stand by the £5,000 limit, which I think will get rid of the exaggerated claims.
Richard Burgon
The Minister has mentioned inflation. In his 2009 review of civil litigation costs, Lord Justice Jackson opposed any increase in the small claims limit until inflation justified an increase to £1,500. The Government now propose to increase it to £5,000. Can the Minister explain, here and now, precisely how that specific figure was arrived at?
Sir Oliver Heald
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are plagued by a series of minor, exaggerated and fraudulent whiplash claims, and we want to tackle that. We believe that the combination of no settlement of claims without a medical report, the tariffs in the Bill, and the raising of the small claims threshold will disincentivise those claims. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that the limit for ordinary money small claims is £10,000.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
In 2015, 52% of appeals against personal independence payment awards heard in Greenock were successful. Between January and September 2016, the latest period for which data are available, the proportion was 57%.
Ronnie Cowan
I thank the Minister for that catch-up on Greenock.
It is clear that a rapidly increasing number of constituents are losing their benefits, and subsequently winning their appeals. My constituents inform me daily that they are without benefit entitlements for eight to 10 weeks, and many are losing their Motability cars as well. Does the Minister agree that sanctions should not be enforced until the appeals process has been exhausted?
Sir Oliver Heald
I think that the hon. Gentleman should view the position in context. The Government are spending £50 billion a year on supporting people with disabilities and health conditions, and the new PIP arrangements mean that 65% of PIP recipients with mental health conditions are receiving the highest rate; the proportion used to be only 22%. Overall, the system works, and the fact that there are appeals and they succeed shows that it works.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The question is about Inverclyde, from which New Forest West, North Swindon and Wrexham are a considerable distance away.
Mr Speaker
Well, all right—if the right hon. Gentleman can focus exclusively on Inverclyde.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Indeed, Mr Speaker. The successful proportion would not matter nearly so much if the Minister could arrange for those appeals to happen a hell of a lot quicker, and if he can fix it in Inverclyde—well, I need not spell it out, Mr Speaker.
Sir Oliver Heald
My right hon. Friend makes the important point that justice delayed is justice denied, and it is important that cases are brought on quickly. We monitor them very carefully and provide extra days to tribunals as required, so he can be assured that we are not complacent about this.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
Prisoners are far more likely to suffer from mental health issues than the general population. From April, we will introduce a co-commissioning approach into prisons in England, with governors making decisions about prison healthcare alongside local NHS commissioners. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are devolved in Scotland.
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, although the Howard League tells us that 2016 was the worst year ever recorded for suicides in prison, with one prisoner every three days across the UK taking his or her life. Does the Minister accept that the earliest diagnosis— and the best diagnosis—will not make much difference if we continue to house prisoners in overcrowded prisons, with the most vulnerable being locked up 23 hours a day?
Dr Lee
Each of those cases is a tragedy and my condolences go to the family concerned. The right hon. Gentleman is right that it is important to hold prisoners in appropriate circumstances. We are working hard to improve the mental health training of staff, and we are in lengthy discussions with the Department of Health about the broader provision of mental health care.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Dr Lee
We are working hard on continuity of care in the transmission of notes from the community into the custodial estate, so that we can improve our pick-up of mental health problems when prisoners arrive. There is ongoing training of staff, so that if mental health symptoms develop within prison they can be spotted and the appropriate care provided.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
When inmates become so acutely unwell that the prison is not equipped to care for them, they should receive appropriate treatment under the Mental Health Acts. In the outside world, this happens within 24 hours; in prisons, the guidelines recommend 14 days. An answer I received to a parliamentary question last year showed that, of 1,141 prisoners, three in four waited more than that two-week window. What action is the Secretary of State taking to rectify this urgent situation?
Dr Lee
The hon. Lady is right that access to secure accommodation can be challenging—not only within the prison system but within the community for those who have not committed offences, who cannot always access it within 24 hours. We are in lengthy discussions with the Department of Health on this, because access to secure accommodation in the circumstances the hon. Lady outlines is very important.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Last year, 2016, was the worst recorded for suicide in prisons. The Secretary of State introduced the Prisons and Courts Bill, but it contains nothing to address mental health issues. Why has the Justice Secretary missed this valuable opportunity to enshrine in law the way in which we treat prisoners with mental health problems?
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
The Government’s court programme aims to deliver a justice system that is more accessible. Legal support needs to reflect the new way in which the justice system will work, so a Green Paper is proposed for early next year. I recently addressed the Civil Justice Council and was able to pay tribute to the work of Mr Justice Knowles and the tireless work of everyone in the pro bono sector that does so much for our country.
Jason McCartney
Will the Minister join me in thanking law students from Huddersfield University law school and local law practices for their excellent work in providing a fantastic Huddersfield legal advice clinic in the Packhorse centre? Does he agree that as constituency MPs we must make sure that we can direct our constituents not only to pro bono legal advice but to affordable and accessible legal advice?
Sir Oliver Heald
Huddersfield University is known as a beacon in this area, and it has done tremendous work. I was pleased to meet some of the students during pro bono week last year. I pay tribute to them and to all the universities and other bodies that set aside time to help people with their legal work.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that much good pro bono work is going on in the legal profession, but does it balance all the crooked, bent solicitors in the insurance industry who are practising in our towns and cities and who are behind the conspiracy over whiplash?
Sir Oliver Heald
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the improper behaviour that occurs in some cases. It is right that the Solicitors Regulation Authority and disciplinary tribunals take a tough line on that. We have seen some recent examples of that.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Barristers and solicitors across the country are making a remarkable pro bono contribution worth around £600 million per annum, but they cannot do it all. Does the Minister agree that pro bono must be an adjunct to, and not a replacement for, a properly resourced legal aid system?
Sir Oliver Heald
I do agree with that, but with the caveat that we are changing the way in which the justice system works, so that it is simpler and more accessible. We are also using modern technology. We should look at how legal support dovetails with all that. So, yes—but we are moving forward with our plans.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
In a report called “Cuts that hurt”, Amnesty International highlights the devastating impact of legal aid cuts on vulnerable groups in England. Amnesty concluded that the cuts had decimated access to justice. What steps is the Minister taking to review the impact of the Government’s cuts to legal aid in England and Wales?
Sir Oliver Heald
When I addressed the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, I was pleased to meet members of Amnesty International to discuss their concerns about particular areas of law. We have announced our timetable for the review of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which involves delivering a full memorandum to the Justice Committee by May and holding a full review going through into early next year, at which point there will be a Green Paper on legal support.
Joanna Cherry
Since 2013, legal aid funding has not been available in England and Wales for many immigration cases, including family reunion cases. Unaccompanied or separated children making applications to stay in the UK have to do so on their own, without legal assistance. Given Amnesty’s findings, will the Minister follow the example of the Scottish Government and provide legal advice and assistance to vulnerable individuals such as those children, who have to navigate a very complex immigration system?
Mr Speaker
Justice questions would be a lot shorter if we did not have quite so many lawyers. They are very clever and eloquent, but they do take up a lot of the time.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am not going to make my declaration about that now, Mr Speaker. This is a complex issue. There is a role for the local authorities to play, and there is some legal aid available, but I am in correspondence with Amnesty and am looking into the matter in detail.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
We are committed to upholding and strengthening the principle of open justice, in which local reporters play an important role.
Mr Whittingdale
Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern that more than half of local newspaper editors have said that they think the courts are no longer being reported properly? Does he agree that justice needs not only to be done but to be seen to be done and that the decline of local media represents a real threat to that principle? What more can be done to address this issue?
Sir Oliver Heald
Yes, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. This is an important area. We are committed to upholding open justice, and local reporting of court proceedings is a key part of that. Under our reforms, we will publish lists of forthcoming criminal cases and their outcomes. We will also allow access to virtual hearings via video screens in local courts, so that reporters can see those proceedings anywhere in the country. We hope that that will make a contribution to the important principle that my right hon. Friend highlights
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Does the Minister support the BBC’s proposals to work with local newspapers and local websites such as the excellent Wrexham.com to improve the coverage of court proceedings and local coverage generally?
Sir Oliver Heald
In fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) was the initiator of that scheme, which we do support.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
In November, we announced a £100 million investment to increase prison officer numbers by 2,500. We are on target with that recruitment, and I can tell the hon. Lady today that 700 officers are currently in training—a record number.
Dr Blackman-Woods
An inspection report on Durham prison published this morning shows that 60% of prisoners report feeling unsafe—up from 37% in 2013. At the same time, the number of staff has reduced from 190 to 159. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is harder for prison staff to keep themselves and prisoners safe when numbers have been so reduced? What is she going to do to improve prisoner safety now?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the concerning report on HMP Durham. We are addressing issues of recruitment in that prison and in prisons across the country. We have created 2,000 new positions at a more senior grade for experienced officers with mental health training and other types of training. Those positions will be available in Durham, which will help us to retain some of our experienced and valued staff.
Graham Evans
Retaining and recruiting experienced staff is crucial to the success of any organisation. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to keep experienced prison officers, particularly in the north of England?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are creating an additional 2,000 positions, which will be paid around £30,000. They will be available in his local area and in Durham, because it is vital not only that we ensure that we have enough staff—we are recruiting 2,500 prison officers—but that we retain our highly valued existing staff right across the country.
Tom Blenkinsop
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Research by the Community union found that the main barrier to retention was not pay but safety. Prison officers in both private and public prisons feel unprepared, isolated and undermined. Will the Government conduct a complete review of the training, support and development given to prison officers and act on Community’s call for a set of adequate minimum safety standards?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that prison officers have raised concerns about safety. We are employing more prison officers, so that one officer will have a case load of six offenders, which will help to keep prisons safe and, importantly, turn people’s lives around. We are reviewing training and the career structure for prison officers, ensuring that there are opportunities for promotion and to take on leadership roles.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Government are closing down old, ineffective prisons and replacing them with modern prisons. In fact, they are building capacity for 10,000 new places on the basis of old for new. Will that not help to retain prison officers?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. I was delighted that we were able to say that Wellingborough will have one of those new prisons. We have just opened HMP Berwyn in Wrexham, which is operating well already and will help us to deal with overcrowding. The new prisons will also ensure that we are able to attract and retain prison officers in places where offenders can be reformed.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise to speak as chair of the cross-party justice unions parliamentary group. As the Secretary of State mentioned, HMP Berwyn opened its doors and accepted its first men last week, but how can she condone paying newly recruited prison officers in north Wales £8,000 less than new recruits in south-east England?
Elizabeth Truss
I am determined to ensure that we recruit the right number of officers right across the country. In the south-east, where costs are high and where there is much competition for highly skilled individuals, we have specific issues with recruiting and retaining people. However, the 2,000 new more senior roles that I mentioned are available right across the country, and people in HMP Berwyn will be able to apply for them with that extra training and get that extra pay.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
There are now 6,000 fewer prison officers on the frontline than in 2010, and they are dealing with more prisoners. The Secretary of State wants 2,500 extra officers by 2017, but officers are leaving the service faster than she can recruit them. When will she come up with an effective plan to turn around that expanding exodus?
Elizabeth Truss
I am afraid that there were two factual errors in the hon. Lady’s question. First, the prison population is exactly the same as it was in 2010—it has not gone up. Secondly, we are recruiting people at a record rate and have a record number of officers in training.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
We are investing £1 billion to reform and take paper out of our courts, and the Prisons and Courts Bill underpins those reforms.
Wendy Morton
The Prisons and Courts Bill clearly underpins the Government’s vision to modernise our court system, but I am particularly interested in the measures to allow victims and vulnerable witnesses to avoid the risk of coming face to face with their assailant. Will my right hon. and learned Friend update me, please?
Sir Oliver Heald
We will obviously have physical measures, such as the use of screens in courts, but we also intend to maximise the use of video links in criminal court proceedings, to roll out pre-recorded evidence and to make greater use of prison-to-court video links. The Bill also helps to protect vulnerable witnesses in family cases by banning cross-examination by perpetrators in certain circumstances, including where there has been domestic abuse.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Victims’ Commissioner’s review of children’s entitlements in the victims code found that the justice system is failing to meet a child’s right to receive information and for that information to be communicated in a timely way. Why does the much-needed update to the young witness pack remain incomplete? When will every child giving evidence get accurate and updated information about the process?
Sir Oliver Heald
We are talking against a background where improvements are being made for victims all the time. I accept that more needs to be done for children, and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are looking to produce further measures for victims in due course, and I will make sure that that is considered.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
We have announced that, in prisons where recruitment and retention are most difficult, we will offer a combination of higher starting pay and an additional allowance of up to £5,000 a year, taking the salary of officers in those jails to up to £30,000. The relevant trade unions were advised in advance.
Mr Cunningham
Good management suggests that we lift up the lower paid in the Prison Service, which will help with recruitment and, more importantly, lift morale.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We want to make sure that our hard-working prison officers are well rewarded. Our announcement on 19 February, to which he refers, was specifically designed to tackle jails where it is very hard to recruit because of the high cost of living in their particular market. This year’s pay award for all prison staff is a matter for the independent pay review body, to which we will submit evidence shortly.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
As at 31 December 2016, there were 2,006 unreleased prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection who had served more than twice their original tariff.
Mr Chope
I thank my hon. Friend for that depressing statistic. My constituent has served not twice but five times the length of his original sentence. Having been sentenced to two and a half years for actual bodily harm, he has been in prison for 12 and a half years. When is he going to be released?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is obviously aware that the IPP tariff was introduced by the last Labour Government, and abolished by the Conservative Administration in 2012. Our efforts are now focused on giving IPP prisoners the support, opportunities and motivation to progress more quickly so that, when they are reviewed by the parole board, they have the best possible prospect of securing release. We are tackling delays in the system and have identified what more needs to be done. A specific unit is looking at individual cases in order to progress them as quickly as possible.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
We are launching new performance metrics that will measure not only the amount of work taking place in prisons but the percentage of prisoners who secure employment on release, and we will use those measurements to hold governors to account. We are also creating new apprenticeships in areas where there are skill shortages, such as construction, retail, catering, logistics and digital, so that prisoners can go into relevant roles.
Huw Merriman
We know that paid work transforms lives. Rather than provide purely menial work or training, will the Lord Chancellor require prisoners to pay their way via skilled employment, which can continue when their sentences end?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is correct. We are taking an outside-in approach: we are finding employers who have jobs to offer on the outside, and they then start to deliver training on the inside, so that the individual goes straight into an apprenticeship or employment on release. We already have a very successful scheme involving Land Securities and Halfords, and we are building up the number of employers that are part of that arrangement.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
There are many great examples of prison enterprises, such as the Freedom Bakery, which is a social enterprise artisan bakery that operates in the Scottish Prison Service at HMP Low Moss near Glasgow. What measures are the Government taking to encourage such initiatives south of the border?
Elizabeth Truss
That is an important initiative. We have several initiatives in our prisons, including the Clink Restaurant and the Bad Boys’ Bakery, which does excellent baked goods—I think I mentioned it last time. There are huge opportunities in catering and cheffing, in which we have skill shortages. We can do a great deal with apprenticeships to make sure that people are trained up to take on those roles on release.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
All prisons, both private and public, face the same challenges to safety and security. We are continually reviewing and supporting prisons across the estate to mitigate and manage serious threats and incidents.
Mr Gyimah
Mutual assistance across both sectors is in place in the event of an incident to provide immediate support to those prisons in need. Private sector prisons can therefore provide support to public sector prisons—and vice versa—in the event of a serious threat or incident.
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
We are taking urgent action to improve prison safety and security, alongside reforms to overhaul the system to focus on the rehabilitation of offenders. This includes tackling the supply and demand of drugs, drones and phones, which drive prison violence and undermine safety, and redoubling our efforts to address the record levels of suicide and self-harm.
Amanda Solloway
I am the rapporteur to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is conducting an inquiry into mental health and deaths in prisons. Last week, we took evidence from four serving prisoners, including on the issue of safety. One young man told us that he had received only two days’ advance notice of when he was due to be released, causing him great anxiety about accommodation and having a sufficient support network. Will the Minister undertake to look at the resettlement problem?
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
When the Minister replied to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) about safety in prisons, he forgot to supply my hon. Friend with the number. What is the number?
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Staff morale is very important to safety and security in prisons, so I wish to ask the Minister again about the flexibilities that I understand governors will have on pay increases from 1 April. Will that mean that we could end up with prison officers in Hull being paid less than prison officers down the road in Leeds? How will that affect morale?
Mr Gyimah
No. As I said in my answer to a previous question, the matter of Prison Service pay will be decided nationally. The independent pay review body will also submit evidence throughout this year. That will still be the case where we have governor freedoms, but, in giving governors their budgets, they will be able to decide on the mix of staff and how to deploy them.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
It is not possible to isolate cases of that type using the data recorded by the Legal Aid Agency.
Simon Danczuk
Just as McCloskey condemned lawyers from Burton & Burton, which represented members of the Rochdale grooming gang, for gaming the system, he also said that Government should investigate that and other examples. What steps is the Minister taking to look at the bad use of legal aid?
Sir Oliver Heald
As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Legal Aid Agency does investigate cases that are brought to its attention, and there have been recent examples where contracts have been removed. It is also important to make the point that, even where there is the possibility of legal aid and representation for foreign national offenders, it is limited to cases involving the refugee convention or articles 2 or 3.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
We are working on potentially transferring the former Camp Hill site to the Homes and Communities Agency. This is an opportunity to develop the site, build new homes and regenerate the local area.
Elizabeth Truss
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, as indeed would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. As I have said, we are seeking to transfer the site to the Homes and Communities Agency. Yesterday, I had a meeting with officials to urge them to get on with it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Finally, I call Owen Thompson. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) keeps chuntering “Bingo” from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) must be accommodated.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
Human rights have been protected in the UK since long before our membership of the EU, and leaving the EU will not change that.
Owen Thompson
What assurances can the Minister give that any future trade deal that is agreed by the UK Government and the EU during negotiations will contain a commitment to human rights?
Sir Oliver Heald
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Joint Committee on Human Rights is looking at that issue. The Department for International Trade has given evidence on this, saying that it is constructing its approach to such agreements at the moment. This country has always been a strong supporter of human rights, and I cannot see that changing.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
Last month, we introduced the Prisons and Courts Bill. For the first time, as well as punishing offenders by depriving them of their liberty, a key purpose of prison will be reforming offenders. There will be a new framework and a clear system of accountability. I will account to Parliament for progress. We are also putting in a strengthened inspectorate and an ombudsman for sharper external scrutiny. We are modernising our courts system and ensuring that vulnerable victims and witnesses are no longer cross-examined by their alleged abusers in the family court.
Bob Blackman
My Homelessness Reduction Bill reaches its Committee stage in the House of Lords on Friday. One provision is to ensure that prison governors prepare prisoners so that they are not homeless when they leave prison. What action has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that prison governors are aware of their responsibilities under the new law?
Elizabeth Truss
First, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are making sure that we measure how successful prison governors are at getting people into accommodation once they leave prison. The public will be able to see that information, as it will be publicly available. I am also speaking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and working with him on his homelessness plan, and helping ex-offenders get into homes is a key part of that.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Elizabeth Truss
As the hon. Gentleman knows, those issues are being discussed by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is important that we get a deal that is good for the entire United Kingdom.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The measures in the Prisons and Courts Bill will allow the Secretary of State to authorise mobile network operators to block illicit mobile phone signals across entire prison sites. That will allow industry experts to work more creatively and effectively to block signals, which means that we will not require a court order to stop the illicit and harmful use of mobile phones in prison.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughts on this issue. I point out that there is currently an open competition for Supreme Court justices. I want to encourage as many qualified candidates as possible to come forward. The closing date is the 10th, so if any are listening, I want them to apply for the role. It is very important to distinguish between the situation in the US, where there is a written constitution, and here, where we have a sovereign Parliament and the role of the Court is to interpret legislation. The Select Committee absolutely has a role to play, post-appointment, in making sure that it is holding the Supreme Court justices to account, but I think that it would be dangerous to muddy the water with pre-appointment hearings.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman looks cruelly let down, but we will have to cope.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: extremism is a worry in our prisons. That is why we set up the new security and counter terrorism unit in the Ministry of Justice. That unit is progressing with implementing the recommendations of the Acheson review that the Department adopted last summer.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
May I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on the Transport Committee to highlight this important issue? We hope that every motorist will see a benefit of £40. We are certainly pressing hard on the issue.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have expertise in dealing with psychoactive substances. We have rolled out tests across the prison estate, and we are working on prisoner education to deter people from that type of drug abuse. I am very happy to facilitate a meeting with the Prison Service and the hon. Gentleman, so that we can make progress together.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
First, I am very happy to make sure we look into the case my hon. Friend raises. We do have to remember that public protection must always be our priority, so while we are keen to see people get the training and re-education they need to secure a successful parole hearing, we must always make sure the public are kept safe.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Sir Oliver Heald
It is important to do both, and we have a package of measures that achieves that, so I do not think the hon. Lady need concern herself that we are not taking this forward.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As the Secretary of State mentioned, the Supreme Court judges application process ends on Friday. In circumstances where around 20% of Court of Appeal judges and 20% of High Court judges are female, what is she doing to ensure we get more diversity in our highest courts?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We have never had a female Lord Chief Justice or a female Master of the Rolls. Out of 11 Supreme Court justices, only one is a woman, and that is not good enough in modern Britain. What we need to do is make sure it is easier for highly talented solicitors to apply to go on the bench, and Lord Kakkar is looking at that. We are creating direct entry into the High Court for talented individuals, and we are also creating the 100 top recorders competition to encourage more entrants from among good individuals.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Given the 30% cut in prison officer numbers since 2010, and given the poor retention rates among new recruits, at what point will the number of officers reach the appropriate level?
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
The vast majority of successful personal independence payment appeals succeed because of late additional submitted evidence. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department of Health to automatically share supportive medical evidence at the beginning of the process?
Sir Oliver Heald
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the way in which the process should work, and it has been the aim of the reforms to achieve that, but I am happy to discuss the issue further with him.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Does the Secretary of State recognise that current human rights legislation adheres minimally to the provisions contained in the Good Friday agreement for Northern Ireland and therefore that the Human Rights Act 1998 should be retained?
Sir Oliver Heald
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. As she knows, we have made an announcement that there will not be an imminent change, because, although we have a mandate for that, we want to find out what the outcome of the Brexit negotiations is, and that is, in itself, a major constitutional change.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Developing skills in prison is crucial to successful rehabilitation, but it is important that those skills translate into the real world. What consideration are Ministers giving to ensuring that skills development in prison dovetails with the needs in the industrial strategy?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know he is a big supporter of the new Wellingborough prison. In that prison, as well as in others across country, we are looking at areas where there are skills shortages—whether it is in construction or catering—and making sure that we start apprenticeships in prison that can then be completed on the outside, so that we can bring new, skilled people to important industries.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
There are reports today of children being held in solitary confinement in prisons in this country, which is shocking, immoral and probably unlawful. Surely, the Secretary of State understands that, whatever chance these young people have of turning their lives around, they will not find it if they are locked in a cell for 23 hours a day. Will she commit now to ordering an end to this practice?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
I am aware of the reports from the Howard League. The safety and welfare of young people held in custody is our highest priority. I would stress, though, that these cases are extremely difficult. Some of these young individuals are extremely difficult to manage, and governors on the ground have to make decisions that are in the interests of the broader community in prison and the wider security of society.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Given the disturbing revelations this morning relating to Facebook and the use of sexualised images of children online, are we doing enough to protect our children, online and offline?
Elizabeth Truss
I am working on this subject very closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. We need to ensure that more people are brought to justice—in fact, there has been an increase of 140% in those brought to justice for sexual offences—but we also need to make sure that internet companies are doing their bit to crack down on this practice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. If the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) can be as brief as she is illustrious, the House will be blessed.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Ministers have praised the Corston report on women in the criminal justice system and yet are currently planning, I hear, to open specialist units for women as adjuncts to men’s prisons, going in the opposite direction to the Corston report. Can they reassure me that I am wrong?
Elizabeth Truss
I can reassure the right hon. Lady that she is wrong and we are not doing that. In fact, I will be giving a speech this afternoon on the 10th anniversary of the Corston report, and she is very welcome to come along.
Mr Speaker
Put a copy in the Library of the House and we will all be blessed.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Ministry has released figures showing that the number of incidents of drugs being found in prison more than quadrupled from 2,500 in 2015 to 10,400-plus in 2016, yet the National Offender Management Service does not keep a central register of cell searches, which is where many of these drugs are found. Will that change?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
After a constituent of mine residing in HMP Lindholme was seriously assaulted when other inmates had access to keys to their cells while he did not, is it not abundantly clear that the people who are in charge of our prisons are not governors, and certainly not the Secretary of State, but the prisoners?
Mr Gyimah
That is certainly not the case. We do recognise, however, that by recruiting more staff and strengthening the frontline we will make it much easier for staff to challenge and support prisoners. That is why we have announced new investment to recruit 2,500 new officers for our jails, and we are also enabling a caseload of one prison officer per six prisoners, so that they can support our prisoners in the efforts to rehabilitate them.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
While significant progress is being made on foreign national offenders being returned, what analysis is there of foreign national offenders coming into the system—and, crucially, do we monitor whether there is a net reduction in foreign national offenders on the estate?
Mr Gyimah
The number of foreign nationals entering our prisons is monitored by the Ministry of Justice. Our figures indicate that between 30 June 2008—the highest point—and 30 June 2016, there was a 14% decrease in the total foreign national prisoner population. This is good progress, but I acknowledge that there is still a lot more to be done.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
Despite the Government’s attempt to recruit more prison officers, staff rolls at many prisons continue to fall—High Down’s went down by 30. Is this recruitment drive working, or are demoralised prison officers leaving before they can recruit more?
Elizabeth Truss
We have launched a very important prison officer recruitment programme, and we have a record number of officers currently in training. However, we need to recognise that it takes time to recruit and train these officers. That is why we are also making sure that we pay our experienced officers at the right level and creating new, more senior roles for experienced officers as well as getting new recruits in.
Several hon. Members rose—
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I am afraid that the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) was simply not good enough. Can she explain why, after two years, she still has not commenced the law to protect our children from sexual predators?
Elizabeth Truss
I assure the hon. Lady, as I assured the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), that this is imminent.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
With cuts to local government funding and other sources, access to advice on civil matters is being squeezed harder than ever. There are cuts of 50% in York. What is the Justice Secretary doing about this?
Sir Oliver Heald
As I explained earlier, we are re-engineering the system, so that it is much easier to access for members of the public, and we are also reviewing legal aid.
Petition
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is particularly appropriate that, on the eve of International Women’s Day, I present this petition from the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign in Newcastle upon Tyne Central, and many men, calling for fair transitional arrangements for 1950s-born women affected by changes to the state pension age.
In my recent Westminster Hall debate, I highlighted how these changes disproportionately affect working-class women of that generation, who are more likely to have started work at 15, more likely to be in manual trades, which take a greater toll on the body as it ages, more likely to die younger and less likely to have private pensions. There are many such women in Newcastle and across the country who wish to highlight the hardship, stress and worry they face as a consequence.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Newcastle Upon Tyne Central,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002024]
Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds)
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement on the impact on homelessness of the Government’s plans to remove automatic entitlement to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
From 1 April, automatic entitlement to housing costs will be removed for some 18 to 21-year-olds. This is a Conservative manifesto commitment and it was formally announced as a Government measure in summer Budget 2015.
This policy removes a perverse incentive for young adults to leave the family home and pass the cost on to the taxpayer. This is about stopping young people slipping straight into a life on benefits, and it brings parity with young people who are in work but who may not be able to leave the family home, while an unemployed young person can do so.
We have always been clear that this policy will have a comprehensive set of exemptions, to make sure that the most vulnerable continue to have the housing support that they need, so the policy will affect only those who have no barriers to work and who are unable to return safely to their parental home. In addition, there is a time-limited exemption for those who have recently been in work. The policy will apply only to those in universal credit full service areas who make new claims or whose earnings drop below the in-work threshold after that date.
The policy will be implemented at the same time as the new youth obligation, an intensive package of labour market support for young people from day one of their claim. With new support available under the youth obligation, more young adults will move into work, significantly improving their current living standards and future prospects.
John Healey
My urgent question—this concern is shared by Members on both sides of the House—was: what assessment has been done of the impact of the cuts on homelessness? With respect to the Minister, she has made a statement but she could have given a one-word answer, which is “none”. No impact assessment was published with the regulations on Friday. Why not? How many young people will now be denied all help with housing benefit? There are 1,741 18 to 21-year-olds in the Minister’s county of Hampshire claiming housing benefit. How many of them will still get help next month, and how many will get nothing?
The Minister may not have done an assessment, but the charities that work day in, day out to help the homeless in all our constituencies have done so. Centrepoint says that 9,000 young people will be put at risk of homelessness. Shelter says that
“there is no way this isn’t going to lead to an increase in rough sleeping.”
Crisis, which drafted the very important Homelessness Reduction Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), says that the policy “runs entirely counter” to the aims of that Bill, and that it
“could spell disaster for the many vulnerable young people rightly entitled to help.”
Surely the Minister does not think that those charities are wrong. If she knows they are right, surely the Government are not going to go ahead with these cruel and counterproductive cuts.
Members on both sides of the House have deeply held concerns about the rapidly rising level of homelessness in our country. Will the Minister accept that none of the arguments that she has made today or previously really stack up? She says that this is about levelling the playing field, but these young people, who are old enough to marry, work, pay taxes and fight for our country, will now be denied the same right as other British adults to basic help with housing costs.
Ministers have said that the exemptions will protect the vulnerable, but the National Landlords Association declares:
“Never mind the nuances, all landlords will hear is that 18-21 year olds are no longer entitled to housing benefit…they just won’t consider them as a tenant.”
Ministers have said that this will save money, but once the knock-on costs to other services are taken into account the saving will fall to only £3.3 million.
The Minister talked about the manifesto; it contained a commitment to remove the “automatic” entitlement. Claimants already have to pass multiple checks and tests, so there really is nothing automatic about young people getting housing benefit. Will the Minister recognise that the Government have the opportunity in tomorrow’s Budget to reverse this counterproductive policy? Will she leave the House this afternoon and tell the Chancellor that if he does so, he will have the fullest support not just from Opposition Members but, I suspect, from Members across the House?
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of those across the country—he specifically mentioned Hampshire—who are already in receipt of housing benefit. They will have transitional protections and will not be affected. So when he asks how many in the county of Hampshire will have their housing benefit withdrawn, the answer is none, the same as for every county. He also raised the case of those who are serving in the armed forces, of taxpayers and of couples who have children. If he looked at the list of exemptions that was published on Friday, he would see that those are all included.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in the light of all the exemptions, we are actually talking not about the children, but about the responsibilities of the parents? Are we not seeing here a reassertion, rightly, of the responsibilities of parents for unemployed young people under the age of 21?
Caroline Nokes
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. This is about encouraging family responsibility. It is about enabling and helping young people who have the choice to remain at home to stay there. For those who cannot stay at home, a very significant exemption is written in; those for whom it is inappropriate to stay in the family home will be exempted from this policy.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Yesterday, SNP MPs joined others to try to annul this ludicrous legislation. The Government seem to be working on the incorrect assumption that young people can simply stay at home, when parents have no obligation to house their adult children. The SNP has consistently opposed the withdrawal of housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds, but under the current powers of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government cannot reverse the cut or provide an exemption for Scotland. Does the Minister agree that it is simply ridiculous that young people should suffer purely because the Government are obsessed with imposing austerity? Can she tell us how many young people will be affected who do not qualify for an exemption? Does she think that an unemployed young adult is more likely to get a job if they have a stable address, or if they are living in a hostel or sleeping on the streets? Will the UK Government exempt Scottish young people from the impact of the regulations and allow the Scottish Government to provide the housing support on their behalf?
Caroline Nokes
The Scottish Government already have a wide range of powers that would enable them to alleviate the proposed changes. Our Government are committed to working with the Scottish Government on a whole range of issues in the DWP portfolio, to make sure that they have the power and the strength to implement those powers.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
What are the Government doing to ensure that this policy supports young people who are in work?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is right to mention young people who are in work. Anybody who is working 16 hours a week or more at the national minimum wage equivalent will be exempt.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I think we should call this what it is: a nasty, vindictive policy that will make injustice worse, from a Government who said that they would tackle burning injustice. Will the Minister now answer the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) asked? No impact assessment has been published for the measure—inexplicably, in my view. Will she tell the House what advice she has received from her officials about the impact on homelessness of this proposal?
Caroline Nokes
The Department has, of course, met all its requirements under the public sector equality duty. Equality assessment information has been received and shared with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which chose not to consult on this.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Young people in their first jobs cannot afford their own accommodation, so they share with other young people or they stay at home. Why should it be different for people who are out of work?
Caroline Nokes
My right hon. Friend makes exactly the point that underpins this policy. We want young people in work and young people out of work to be making the same choices about where they are going to live.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I think that anyone listening to this urgent question would, frankly, be appalled by the responses that we have had thus far from the Minister. She has not answered any of the questions that were rightly asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). Will she tell us why the equality impact assessment has not been published and when she will bring it forward, so that we can all see exactly the rationale behind this ridiculous policy?
Caroline Nokes
I think I have answered that. The Department has engaged extensively at ministerial and official level with stakeholders. We announced this measure in the summer Budget. There is no duty on us to share the impact assessment with the House, but we did share it with the Social Security Advisory Committee.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that care leavers will not be affected by these changes?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about care leavers. Absolutely, they are exempt from this policy.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
One of the exemptions in the regulations where housing benefit can still be paid is if
“in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is inappropriate for the renter to live with each of their parents”.
Does the Secretary of State assume that this exemption will automatically apply where the parents refuse to have their child living with them?
Caroline Nokes
Absolutely. That is a point. A very important exemption is included, so where that is inappropriate—where a parent cannot or will not accommodate their child—such people will be exempt from the policy.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
The key point is that nipping the dependency culture in the bud at the earliest opportunity is very important, because once it takes hold it can be very damaging to the interests of those concerned. I must say one thing, however: young people may well think this is fair, but when we do this and protect every single penny going to pensioners, including the winter fuel allowance for millionaires in mortgage-free mansions just because they are over 65, they can be forgiven for thinking that we are not playing fairly by everybody. That would be my observation.
Caroline Nokes
We are trying to play fairly by young people who are in work but have to make the decision that they simply cannot afford to leave the family home and stay living with their parents.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Will the Minister explain the rationale for denying young adults access to housing and support, while providing it for older adults? On the face of it, and from the Minister’s comments so far, it appears to be nothing other than the demonisation of young people.
Caroline Nokes
This is not about the demonisation of young people; it is about encouraging young people to make sensible and rational choices about where they are going to live, whether or not they are in work.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
As a parent of two children between 18 and 21, I would be appalled if I felt that they had left home to live a life on housing benefits while they still have a bed in my house. Will the Minister confirm that support will be made available for those who are vulnerable or have complex needs?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and absolutely yes. Those who cannot live with their parents and those in receipt of the main disability benefits will be exempt from this policy.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Further to the question from the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), will the Minister confirm what I believe she said earlier, which is that the only thing necessary for a young person to demonstrate before being entitled to the housing element of universal credit is that their parent has said that they cannot live at home?
Caroline Nokes
Yes, and I think I have made that very clear. If it is inappropriate for a young person to live at home with their parents, they will be exempt from this policy.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The YMCA tells me that, from April, it may not be able to house young people with the most complex needs, those with addictions and mental health conditions, those who may not be able to learn or earn, and those who cannot or will not stay at home or, indeed, access temporary accommodation. In relation to supported housing for vulnerable people, which is at stake, will the Minister clarify the scope of the exemption in regulation 4B(e), and defer the application of the impact on those at most risk of homelessness until we know the outcome of the supported housing review?
Caroline Nokes
The YMCA has been involved in the consultation process. As I believe I said at an event downstairs last night, it is always a trusted adviser that provides excellent advice and information. Absolutely: those with complex needs and mental health conditions will be exempt from this policy.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell me whether she has made any assessment of the impact of these changes on excellent small charities, such as Doorstep in my constituency, that help young people who find themselves unable to continue to live at home?
Caroline Nokes
I have received a great deal of information from and had roundtables with a number of providers and charities, including some of the smaller ones. We have been very clear: those for whom it is inappropriate to live at home will be exempt from this policy.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The principal reason why young people become homeless is a relationship breakdown with their family. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State, not by local decision makers who may discriminate against young people when they cannot live with their family?
Caroline Nokes
I commend my hon. Friend for his excellent work on the Homelessness Reduction Bill. Absolutely: it is a question of young people informing a work coach, somebody in the local authority or a trusted medical professional of their inability to live at home because their relationship with their parent has broken down, and in those cases they will receive the exemption.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Given that the Minister has conceded that there is an impact assessment—she said that she has not published it because she does not need to—and in view of the concern that exists, would she care to think again and publish the impact assessment?
Caroline Nokes
We looked very carefully, under the public sector equality duty, at the impact this policy would have and we have shared that information with the Social Security Advisory Committee. I am under no obligation to publish it.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Will the Minister explain how the policy will apply to young people on apprenticeships, who may be earning below the national living wage?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend makes a really important point in apprenticeship week. Absolutely: apprentices will be exempt from this policy.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
Last Thursday, as part of the work I am doing on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on homelessness in Greater Manchester, I went around the streets of the city centre of Manchester and was shocked to see the risk that young people face from the dealing of psychoactive substances and the threat that they face from violence. Does the hon. Lady not understand that this will force significantly more young people in our country into rough sleeping and make them increasingly vulnerable? Is this not the personification of the return of the nasty party?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman makes the assumption that this will increase homelessness. In fact, we expect there to be behavioural change and that young people will, where they can, stay living with their parents. Where they cannot stay living with their parents, they will be exempt from this policy.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
At a time when the public is increasingly fed up with politicians who do not do what they say they will do at election time, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on the audacity of sticking to a Conservative manifesto commitment? Will she confirm that youth unemployment actually continues to fall and that, week by week, more and more young people have the security and dignity of taking a wage back home?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are 197,000 more young people in work than there were in 2010. He is right: this policy was a manifesto commitment and it was in the summer Budget of 2015, and we are delivering on that commitment.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The vast majority of my young constituents who need to access housing benefit are doing so in the private rented sector, which means that they already face crippling costs and great insecurity. Why can the Minister not see that, across the board for young people, this policy simply makes precarious situations more precarious, stigmatises young people and is nothing short of a kick in the teeth? Why are the Government ignoring the overwhelming evidence from those who work with young people showing that this policy will make homelessness worse, and why will she not drop it?
Caroline Nokes
As the hon. Lady will have heard, we have put in place a long list of exemptions to protect those who are most vulnerable and to enable those who need the support to continue to receive it. She makes the really important point that we are there to support the most vulnerable and also to ensure that there is an even playing field between those in work and those who are not. One of the most straightforward ways in which to be exempt from this policy is to be working for 16 hours or more a week.
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
Like the Minister, I am a great supporter of the YMCA. Will she confirm what impact the measures will have on all these young people, who benefit in so many amazing ways from organisations such as the YMCA?
Caroline Nokes
The YMCA is among the best and leading training providers in the country, and it is also a significant housing provider. We are determined to work with such stakeholders to make sure that young people who are exempt from the policy receive that exemption and are still supported to make sure they are in training, so that they can move into the work they need.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My constituency has full service before most other constituencies. The Highland Council’s temporary homeless accommodation framework is £175 a week. Before universal credit, my constituent Gavin was awarded £168 a week, leaving £7 extra to find from other entitlements. Now, it is £60, meaning £115 extra, which is much more than he gets, even before he pays for his food, light, heat or anything else. How is that fair?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman did not say how old his constituent is. It is really important that we are focusing support on those who need it most. When it comes to young people, we are obliging them to make the same sort of choices that his constituents who are in work for 16 hours or more a week are making.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the Government are doing everything possible to prepare young people for the world of work, so that fewer young people are at risk of falling into a life on benefits?
Caroline Nokes
The Government are bringing forward the youth obligation in April, which is about making sure that young people who are not in work are undertaking the appropriate training or apprenticeship they need to put them in the best position to move into work.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
May I return to the definition of “inappropriate to return”? Would that include a case that I have heard about: a young man who was kicked out by his stepfather for being gay, but was told he could return home if he denied his sexuality?
Caroline Nokes
Yes. We have been very clear about that. If a young person would find it impossible and inappropriate to return home, they would receive the exemption. The situation outlined by the hon. Lady is absolutely one that we have considered.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Drilling down into the exemptions, who will make the decisions about cases such as the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue)? Similar exemptions exist for victims of domestic violence to access legal aid—they need a letter from a doctor or from a specialist agency—but 37% of women still report that they are not able to access legal aid. How does the Minister propose that the policy will work, how much will it cost and how much will it save?
Caroline Nokes
The anticipation is that the policy will save in the region of £105 million over the period of this Parliament. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that victims of domestic violence are exempt from the policy. We recognise the impact on young women who have been victims of domestic violence and the importance of supporting them.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The young people the Minister describes bear no resemblance to the young people I used to work with at the youth homelessness charity Centrepoint, many of whom had experienced horrendous physical, mental and emotional abuse, which meant that they understandably no longer had a relationship with their families. How does she expect those young people to prove that they cannot return home? They cannot simply pick up the phone to their parents, and they should not be forced to recount to a stranger again and again the stories of what had happened to them. What will the Minister do to make sure that young people are not subjected to reliving the horrendous abuse that they have already suffered?
Caroline Nokes
Those who have reported abuse to a stakeholder or a trusted professional will be exempt from the policy. It is our intention to ensure that we establish a long list of stakeholders who can take on that reporting. It should, of course, be the case that they should only have to report it once.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Yet again, for ideological reasons the Tories have identified a problem that does not really exist. Less than 1% of 18 to 21-year-olds claim jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit at the same time. We have heard that the policy will only save £105 million if it actually works as planned. Will the Minister tell me one non-Government stakeholder that agrees that it will help young people into long-term, stable work?
Caroline Nokes
We put the policy in our manifesto for the 2015 election and included it in the summer Budget 2015. We have been really clear that it is about providing fairness for those who are in work as well as those who are out of work, and ensuring that young people have the same decisions to make about the affordability of their housing.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
There has been a war on young people by this Government for seven years, and this is the most shameful policy they have brought forward affecting the most vulnerable. Not to produce an impact statement is an absolutely disgrace. The Minister talks about getting people back into work, so let us talk about what the Government have done for young people’s wages. An apprentice wage is £3.50 an hour. How on earth can that person get to work if they are denied the assistance they need for housing and they cannot work near their home?
Caroline Nokes
As I said earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), apprentices will be exempt.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I have come across many reasons that 18 to 21-year-olds have left home, but I have never seen claiming housing benefit as an incentive. Given the long list of exemptions, would it not just be easier for the Minister to scrap the policy altogether?
Caroline Nokes
The Government included this as a manifesto commitment, and we are determined to deliver it.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Minister talks about an even playing field. If she is so confident that the policy is fair, why will she not publish the impact assessment? What does she have to hide?
Caroline Nokes
There is absolutely nothing to hide. I have considered my public sector equality duty carefully. As I said, the assessment was shared with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which chose not to consult on this.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I would like to help the Minister. She is almost there. She said that this policy will save £105 million. We can work out how many people will be affected when we leave the Chamber, but will she confirm whether it is in the region of 10,000? Is the figure higher or lower than that?
Caroline Nokes
The policy is expected to affect 5,000 young people in the first year, and 10,000 a year in steady state.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Given that the number of people rough sleeping has more than doubled since 2010, does the Minister think that the policy, which singles out young adults, will make that shameful statistic better or worse?
Caroline Nokes
As I have said repeatedly, we have put in place a long list of exemptions precisely to prevent homelessness. Those who are unable to return to the family home will be exempt from the policy, so we do not expect it to increase homelessness.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The lack of a published impact assessment is simply scandalous. Will the Minister tell us the measured impact on a vulnerable young person who has had to leave home because of difficulties or abuse, and who is now being asked to prove that abuse just so they can get the housing support they need to live away from their family?
Caroline Nokes
A vulnerable young person who has had to leave home because of abuse will, of course, be exempt.
Queen’s Sapphire Jubilee
Tuesday 7th March 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Queen's Sapphire Jubilee Bill 2016-17 View all Queen's Sapphire Jubilee Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a national public holiday marking the Queen’s Sapphire Jubilee in 2017 and to establish a framework to ensure that the United Kingdom, its overseas territories and Crown dependencies appropriately commemorate this occasion; and for connected purposes.
The 65th anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen’s accession to the throne was marked on 6 February this year. This is a truly remarkable milestone for the longest-serving monarch in the history of our proud nation and peoples. Her Majesty the Queen’s sapphire jubilee must surely be a cause for great celebration across the British Isles, in all corners of the kingdom and, indeed, throughout Her Majesty’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies, her other realms and across the Commonwealth of nations.
During Her Majesty’s reign, there have been three royal jubilees: the silver jubilee of 1977, the golden jubilee of 2002 and the diamond jubilee of 2012. In each case, the British people paid tribute to Her Majesty for her service to the nation with spectacular events in counties, cities, towns and villages throughout these islands. There were parades, street parties, church services, fêtes, cultural events and school assemblies, and beacons were lit up and down the land.
National celebrations took place, usually in June, with services of thanksgiving at St Paul’s Cathedral, combined with military parades through the streets of London and, for the diamond jubilee, a flotilla along the River Thames. Her Majesty, the Duke of Edinburgh and other members of the royal family have appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace while the spectacle of a fly-past by the Royal Air Force and the Red Arrows took place. Indeed, in the case of the golden jubilee, Concorde flew overhead. Millions of people filled the streets of London, gathering on the Mall to cheer the Queen, celebrating with flags, singing and dancing. On each occasion, the nation’s spirits were lifted. Come rain or shine, the people rose to the occasion the length and breadth of the nation.
The silver, golden and diamond jubilees brought the entire country together in nationwide displays of affection for the Queen, and the sapphire jubilee must surely do so again this year, reminding us of our rich heritage and cultural identity as part of a Great British family, sharing a union of the Crowns unbroken since 1603. Whether we consider ourselves to be English, Scottish, Ulstermen, Irish, Welsh, Manx, Jerseymen, Guernseymen, Gibraltarian, Falkland Islanders, Bermudian, Montserratian, Caymanian or, indeed, whichever identity within the British family we happen to call our own, the celebration of the Queen’s sapphire jubilee must be a cause that brings each and every one of us together in honour of Queen and country.
We only need to look around the world today to see politicians as Presidents, Prime Ministers and leaders of nations who come and go, but how fortunate we are here in the United Kingdom to have such a dedicated, neutral head of state as a constitutional monarch who defends our laws, upholds our democracy and is the guardian of our constitution, providing the foundations for stable and accountable government.
Just as previous jubilees have been celebrated far and wide, it must surely be right that the sapphire jubilee is, too. In fact, Her Majesty’s sapphire jubilee should be the greatest of all, as no other monarch has reached 65 years on the throne, and it is inconceivable that any other future king or queen will accomplish such an achievement for centuries to come. We must not allow this year to pass by without a celebration befitting the occasion, saluting Her Majesty for all she has done for our nation and the wider Commonwealth, but also to prove to ourselves once again that what unites our country and people is much greater than what divides us.
Her Majesty the Queen is undoubtedly the most unifying figure of our nation; indeed, she is the fundamental component of our common British identity. As a people, we share common beliefs, principles and obligations, so let us cherish our common heritage, and in so doing ensure our common destiny.
It is my fervent belief that the Queen exemplifies all that is great and good about our nation and represents the continuity that our forebears did so much to hand to us, most especially the freedom of our island home that we cherish so much today. As our queen and sovereign, Her Majesty brings steadfastness and stability to our constitution, our parliamentary democracy and throughout our society. The importance of this steadfastness cannot be understated. Her Majesty is the single greatest flagbearer of stability and continuity.
The Queen’s sapphire jubilee must be a time for everyone to celebrate this great milestone in the history of our island people, whether they be from England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, the Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark or the Isle of Man, the sixteen overseas territories or in the communities of people of British ancestry scattered across the globe.
The United Kingdom, in taking the lead, will also encourage Her Majesty’s other realms to celebrate the sapphire jubilee—after all the Queen is also Queen of Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; the Bahamas; Barbados; Belize; Canada; Grenada; Jamaica; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; the Solomon Islands; and Tuvalu. Our friends in these nations must also have the chance to celebrate, as the sapphire jubilee is as much their celebration as it is one for the British Isles.
My Bill will ensure that all the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies will be able to mark the occasion of the Queen’s sapphire jubilee with a celebration that such a significant landmark deserves. It will give councils the authority to make plans now for local celebrations, providing for street parties, carnivals and special events to take place without the tiresome bureaucracy that can so often get in the way.
One weekend in June could be designated “sapphire jubilee weekend” with an additional bank holiday immediately afterwards, which could be a national day for a thanksgiving service. The “weekend of trooping the colour” might also be an option for the official sapphire jubilee celebrations. As this is first ever sapphire jubilee of a reigning British monarch, we cannot allow this great occasion to go uncelebrated. On the contrary, Her Majesty’s 65th anniversary as our sovereign and Head of State must be an opportunity to unite all British people, together with those of other nationalities who have made Britain their home and who might also wish to celebrate with pride and patriotism.
In presenting the Bill today, my hope is that it will draw attention to this highly significant event. Time may be short to arrange celebrations for June, but I believe the spirit of our nation will inspire the people to make Her Majesty the Queen’s sapphire jubilee a spectacular occasion that will be remembered for generations to come, as we demonstrate our heartfelt thanks to Her Majesty for what she has done for our country and for what continues to be a truly glorious reign. I commend the Bill to the House.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Although I have no objection whatever to the people of the United Kingdom, and those more widely, celebrating the Queen’s sapphire jubilee, I feel that, as with most proposals, the devil is in the detail. That is why I am forced to speak against this Bill.
I would like to press for greater detail so that we may learn from the problems created for UK workers from the most recent extra public holidays, which were held on 29 April 2011 to celebrate the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, and on 5 June 2012 to celebrate the Queen’s diamond jubilee. On both those occasions, I was working for the NHS and I was also an elected workplace trade union rep for Unite the union. As I am sure all Members will appreciate, not everyone in the NHS was able to enjoy those public holidays. Essential public services still have to be provided and many staff were required to remain in work on those days, to provide emergency and urgent care.
Problems arose with how these staff were to be remunerated, because NHS terms and conditions under “Agenda for Change” specify that staff are entitled to eight bank holidays per year, and those extra holidays counted as the ninth bank holiday. My NHS trust refused to pay staff who were working on those days at the bank holiday rate and instead paid them at the normal daily rate. I was trying to negotiate a better rate of pay for these staff, my union members, but I came up against a blanket refusal from management to recognise those days as bank or public holidays that would therefore qualify for the higher rate of pay. Before the diamond jubilee holiday, I even wrote to the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. His reply, unfortunately, was unhelpful, merely re-stating the NHS management view. We were left with a situation in which hard-working, dedicated NHS staff who gave up their days off to provide a vital service were not adequately remunerated—and I do not want to see that happen again under this Bill.
Unite revealed that 113 NHS employers in the UK treated the diamond jubilee as a normal working day, denying staff the normal bank holiday pay and time-off- in-lieu arrangements. Unite had even written to the Queen on behalf of its 100,000 members in the health service on this issue—alas, to no avail.
Additionally, in April 2011, prior to the royal wedding, the Daily Mail reported that, according to a poll by the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals, more than a tenth of employers said that they would not be giving their workers a paid day off. Employment law experts said that workers were the victims of a lottery that depended entirely on the wording in their contract. For example, if a contract states that the employee is entitled to 28 days’ holiday, including all bank and public holidays, the worker would be entitled to paid time off. However, if the contract stated that the worker was entitled to 28 days’ holiday including eight bank and public holidays, that would not confer the right to be off, because the royal wedding constituted a ninth bank holiday.
On that day in 2011, all 163 Debenhams stores were open, but the staff did not receive extra pay. Conversely, and showing better practice, Tesco stores said that staff who worked the public holiday would be paid at up to three times their normal rate. Following the royal wedding holiday where some employers failed to give their staff the day off, the TUC wrote to the Government to add a provision to holiday entitlement to take account of any special bank or public holidays, but sadly no such provision was made.
With that in mind, one way to avoid the situation arising every time an extra public holiday is announced would be to increase the number of bank holidays from eight to nine per year, with the extra bank holiday to be used to celebrate a significant occasion that year—the occasion to be determined by Parliament.
As I stated when I rose to speak, it is right that we should celebrate the Queen’s record of an amazing 65 years’ long service, but I ask for more clarity to enable employers and employees to reach a better understanding of the practicalities of arranging an extra public holiday, most importantly the rates of remuneration for the emergency workers who give up their time, so that others may enjoy the day off and the celebrations.
I will conclude by asking three questions. Will the Bill specify how the holiday should be characterised and the rates of pay for those who have to work on the day? How will the Bill ensure that all employers participate and give staff the day off without resorting to the use of loopholes? Will the Government now take heed of the TUC recommendation that provision should be made for workers’ holiday entitlement to take account of additional public holidays?
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Rosindell, Sir Julian Brazier, Mr Douglas Carswell, Tom Elliott, Michael Gove, Kate Hoey, Daniel Kawczynski, Norman Lamb, Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, Albert Owen, Gavin Robinson and Michael Tomlinson present the Bill.
Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2017, and to be printed (Bill 151).
Points of Order
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Luciana Berger
I would like to raise my concern that Ministers of both the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice appear to be evading my very serious named day questions. As colleagues well know, it is intended that named day questions receive an answer within three sitting days, yet I can recite countless recent examples where that timeframe has not been observed—and often completely disregarded.
I am particularly troubled by an answer I received from the Secretary of State for Health to one question. Last year, I submitted a question to ask how often the transfer time for prisoners experiencing an acute mental health crisis exceeded the two-week guidance period. I found that in 2015-16 three out of four cases took longer than two weeks. When I submitted an identical question last month, to get hold of the most recent figures for 2016-17 to date, I was told that the data are not held in the requested format. When I tabled a subsequent question to inquire whether the data collection had changed, I was told that it had not.
I have started to receive a number of answers from the two Departments stating that the data are not held in the requested format. How can the Department of Health possibly defend avoiding answering these questions and withholding vital information it clearly has access to?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. My response is as follows. First, as has been said on innumerable occasions, there is a responsibility on Ministers to provide answers to parliamentary questions that are both timely and substantive. I cannot comment on the question whether the material the hon. Lady sought is held in the form she had in mind, but the central point is that Ministers are supposed to attend to both the letter and the spirit of the inquiry from an hon. Member and to seek to accommodate that Member by providing, as I have said, a timely and substantive response.
Secondly, over a period of years, as Members on both sides of the House will be keenly conscious, it has become commonplace for the record of individual Government Departments on these matters to be published. It seems to me to show very considerable discredit on the part of a Government Department persistently to fail, in a timely and substantive way, to respond to hon. Members’ questions. The hon. Lady’s point of order will have been heard on the Treasury Bench.
The Leader of the House has traditionally seen it as part of his or her duty to persuade Ministers to up their game in these matters. My clear understanding is that the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) recognises his responsibility in these matters. I hope it will not be necessary for this matter to be raised continually on the Floor of the House. An improvement is required.
My final observation is that if this problem persists I urge the hon. Lady to write to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chair of the Procedure Committee, who, on behalf of the House, will, I think, be only too happy to chase progress in this matter.
If I may, perhaps on behalf of the House, I would like to offer good wishes to the hon. Lady for her own health and progress in the next few days. We all wish her well and we look forward to seeing her return to her place in due course.
Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that, for the past two years, Members of this House have been in correspondence with the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, raising concerns about its investment approach, especially on the long-term financial risks associated with fossil fuel assets, as well as on the fund becoming more transparent and open with Members and former Members of this House. In its 2016 annual report, published just last week, we learned that the fund invested in tobacco, fossil fuels and large-scale tax avoidance, raising a reputational risk for Parliament.
Mr Speaker, can you clarify what MPs might do, using proper procedure, to take this matter forward with the trustees who have so far refused to meet Members? Might you also help to allay the concerns of many Members, perhaps through the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, that the pension fund is leaving this House open to reputational damage and legal challenge?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for notice of what I hope she will forgive me as describing as her attempted point of order. Unfortunately, the fact of that notice, which is extremely courteous of her, does not of itself convert the attempt into an actual point of order. However, I do not in any sense mean to be dismissive. This is a very important matter, even if it is not principally a matter for the Chair. The Chair has, frankly, no responsibility for the parliamentary contributory pension fund, let alone the investment policies its trustees pursue. That said, I acknowledge that the hon. Lady and all colleagues, as well as retired Members, have a legitimate interest in this subject. They are, as she indicates, properly pursued with the trustees. I am sure the ever-alert secretariat of the fund will be reading our proceedings—they certainly should be.
My concluding observation for the hon. Lady is that, although there is no ministerial responsibility for this matter, she might wish to bear in mind the interest of the Leader of the House in the subject. I was somewhat perturbed to hear the hon. Lady say that her pursuit of meetings has so far been unsuccessful. I have come to know the hon. Lady over the past seven years and she is, in the very best sense of the term, an extremely persistent Member. People who think that if they forever and a day refuse to meet the hon. Lady she will go away and drop her point of concern are probably guilty of a triumph of optimism over reality.
Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceeding |
|---|---|
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the welfare of children, except any relating to the subject-matter of Chapter 3 of Part 1; amendments to Part 1, except any relating to Chapter 3 of that Part. | One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject-matter of Chapter 3 of Part 1; amendments to Chapter 3 of Part 1; remaining proceedings on Consideration. | Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. |
Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 7th March 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Children and Social Work Act 2017 View all Children and Social Work Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 March 2017 - (7 Mar 2017)
14:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 267 / Noes: 287 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 299 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (b) to new clause 15, in subsection (2), leave out “from time to time” and insert
“at least once in every three year period”.
Amendment (a) to new clause 15, in subsection (2), leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
“(d) to allow a parent of any pupil receiving relationships education or relationships and sex education to request that the pupil be wholly or partly excused from receiving that education and for the pupil to be so excused.”
Amendment (c) to new clause 15, in subsection (2), at end insert—
“(e) about arrangements for inspecting the quality of teaching of relationships and sex education at schools in England.”
Amendment (d) to new clause 15, in subsection (4), at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must review the regulations at least three years after they come into force and once in every three year period thereafter.”
Amendment (e), to new clause 15 in subsection (4), at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must review the regulations from time to time.”
Government new clause 16—Other personal, social, health and economic education.
New clause 1—Safeguarding: provision of personal, social and health education—
“(1) For the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children a local authority in England must ensure that pupils educated in their area receive appropriate personal, social and health education.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “personal, social and health education” must include but shall not be restricted to—
(a) sex and relationships education,
(b) same-sex relationships,
(c) sexual consent,
(d) sexual violence,
(e) online and offline personal safety, and
(f) domestic violence and forms of abuse.
(3) Targeted inspections carried out by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) under section 136 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 shall include an assessment of the provision of personal, social and health education under subsection (1), including whether the information provided to pupils is—
(a) accurate and balanced,
(b) age-appropriate,
(c) inclusive,
(d) factual, and
(e) religiously diverse.
(4) Assessments made under subsection (3) must include an evaluation of any arrangements for pupils of sufficient maturity to request to be wholly or partly excused from participating in personal, social and health education.
(5) For the purpose of subsection (4) “sufficient maturity” shall be defined in guidance by the Secretary of State.
(6) Withdrawal from personal, social and health education by pupils under subsection (4) shall not be considered a breach of the safeguarding duties of a local authority.
(7) This section comes into force at the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 3—Sibling contact for looked after children—
“(1) In section 34(1) of the Children Act 1989, after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).”
(2) In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).””
This new clause would ensure that children in care are allowed reasonable contact with their siblings.
New clause 4—Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain—
“(1) Schedule (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) ends at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would revoke provisions in the Bill that enable local authorities in England and Wales to place children in secure accommodation in Scotland, and vice versa, two years after the Act comes into force.
New clause 7—Post-removal counselling for parents and legal guardians who are themselves looked after children or care leavers—
“Where a child is permanently removed from the care of a birth parent or a guardian further to any order made pursuant to—
(a) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision orders),
(b) section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (placement orders),
(c) section 46 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (adoption orders), or
(d) section 14A of the Children Act 1989 (special guardianship order)
a local authority must, so far as is reasonably practicable, provide a counselling service and commission specialist therapeutic support for the parent or guardian where—
(i) the parent or guardian is a looked after child, or
(ii) the parent or guardian is a care leaver.”
This new clause would provide post-removal support for parents who are themselves a looked after child or care leaver.
New clause 8—Former relevant children: provision of sufficient suitable accommodation—
“In the Children Act 1989, after section 23C insert—
“23CA Duty on local authorities to secure sufficient accommodation for former relevant children
(1) It is the duty of a local authority to take reasonable steps to secure sufficient suitable accommodation (whether or not provided by them) within their area to meet the needs of former relevant children, where “former relevant children” has the same meaning as in section 23C(1) of this Act.
(2) In taking steps to secure the outcome in subsection (1), the local authority must—
(a) produce, and make available to all former relevant children, information about the providers of accommodation and the types of accommodation they provide,
(b) be aware of the current and expected future demand for such accommodation and consider how providers might meet that demand, and
(c) have regard to—
(i) the need to ensure the sustainability of the housing market, and
(ii) the need to encourage providers to innovate and continuously improve the quality of such accommodation and the efficiency and effectiveness with which it is provided.””
Local authorities already have a duty to ensure that sufficient accommodation is available for looked after children in their area. This new clause would introduce a similar duty on local authorities to ensure sufficient, suitable accommodation is made available for all care leavers up the age of 21.
New clause 10—Benefit sanctions for care leavers—
“(1) The Universal Credit Regulations 2013 are amended as follows—
(a) in regulation 102(2)—
(i) in paragraph (a) after “18 or over” insert “and paragraph (b) does not apply”;
(ii) in paragraph (b) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2(7) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and is under the age of 25”;
(b) in regulation 103(2)—
(i) in paragraph (a) after “18 or over” insert “and paragraph (b) does not apply”;
(ii) in paragraph (b) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2(7) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and is under the age of 25”;
(c) in regulation 104(2) after “18 or over” insert “and section (3) does not apply”.
(d) in regulation 104(3) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2(7) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and is under the age of 25.””
This new clause will ensure that the maximum sanction for a care leaver under the age of 25 can be no more than four weeks whilst under the age of 25, in line with 16 and 17 year olds.
New clause 11—National offer for care leavers—
“(1) The table in regulation 36 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 is amended as follows—
(a) in column one after “single claimant aged 25 or over” insert—
“or former relevant child as defined under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 aged under 25”
(b) in column one after “joint claimants where either is aged 25 or over” insert—
“or either are a former relevant child as defined under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 aged under 25”
(2) The Secretary of State will make provisions for bursaries to be available to all care leavers, who are undertaking their first year of a statutory apprenticeship, as defined in the Enterprise Act 2016 (the “care leaver apprenticeship bursary”)—
(a) in this section “care leavers” has the same meaning as section 2(7) of this Act.
(b) The bursary will be administered by local authorities on behalf of the Secretary of State in line with their corporate parenting responsibilities defined in section 1 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017.
(c) The value of the bursary will be of equivalent value to the Higher Education Bursary outlined in The Children Act 1989 (Higher Education Bursary) (England) Regulations 2009.
(d) Bursaries under this section will be disregarded for the purposes of calculating a claimant’s Universal Credit entitlements.
(3) The Housing Benefit Regulations 2009 are amended as follows—
(a) in regulation 2, in the definition of “young individual”, in each of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), for “22 years” substitute “25 years”.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
The National Offer will uprate the financial support available to care leavers under the age of 25 by: (1) extending the over 25 rate of standard allowance of Universal Credit to all care leavers under the age of 25; (2) placing a duty on the Secretary of State to make provisions for all care leavers under the age of 25 and in the first year of an apprenticeship to be paid a £2,000 bursary, which will be distributed by local authorities on her behalf; and (3) delaying the transition onto the Shared Accommodation rate of Local Housing Allowance until the age of 25.
New clause 12—Duty to maintain and report a local safeguarding and welfare capacity register—
“After section 16(E) of the Children Act 2004 (inserted by section 16 of this Act) insert—
“Duty to maintain and report a local safeguarding and welfare capacity register
(1) The safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England must assess, and maintain a register of, capacity to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the area.
(2) The assessment must include, but shall not be restricted to, an assessment of the number of additional children, including unaccompanied refugee children, that could be fully supported by children’s social care services in the area.
(3) At least once in every twelve month period—
(a) the safeguarding partners must report the capacity assessment for that period to the Secretary of State, and
(b) the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a single report setting out the information provided under paragraph (a) and any relevant information that may be provided by the devolved administrations.””
This new clause would require local safeguarding partners to assess their capacity to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. This assessment must include the number of additional children the area could support, including unaccompanied refugee children. Local safeguarding partners would be required to report this information to the Secretary of State annually, who in turn would publish and lay before Parliament a single report, which may include any relevant information received from the devolved administrations.
New clause 13—Strategy for safeguarding of unaccompanied refugee children—
“(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must develop and publish a strategy for the safeguarding of unaccompanied refugee children living in the United Kingdom (“the strategy”).
(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the progress of the strategy’s development at least once in every four week period prior to publication of the strategy.
(3) The strategy must include, but shall not be restricted to—
(a) information clarifying the roles and responsibilities towards unaccompanied refugee children of any public agency the Secretary of State considers relevant, including in particular—
(i) the European Asylum Support Office,
(ii) local government service providers, and
(iii) the Children’s Commissioner;
(b) information clarifying how safeguarding practices should differ for those children covered by the strategy who—
(i) have family members in the United Kingdom, and
(ii) do not have family members in the United Kingdom; and
(c) recommendations on how to ensure full cost reimbursement to public agencies required to provide services under the strategy.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish a strategy for safeguarding unaccompanied refugee children.
Amendment (a) to new clause 13, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must consult with devolved administrations before publishing the strategy.”
New clause 14—Local arrangements for reporting on capacity to provide children’s safeguarding and welfare services—
“After section 16E of the Children Act 2004 (inserted by section 16 of this Act) insert—
“Local arrangements for reporting on capacity to provide children’s safeguarding and welfare provision services
(1) At least once in every 12 month period, the safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England must report to the Secretary of State on their capacity to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
(2) The report must include, but shall not be restricted to, identification of capacity to provide safeguarding and welfare services to children who could be resettled in the area, including unaccompanied refugee children who could be transferred to the area from abroad including those with existing or current applications for transfer.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the information received under subsection (1) in a single report.””
This new clause would require the local safeguarding partners in an area to report annually to the Secretary of State on what capacity they have to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in that area. This includes what capacity they have to resettle children, including unaccompanied refugee children, in the area. The Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament the information received from local authorities in a single report.
Amendment (a) to new clause 14, after “(1)” insert—
“and any relevant information that may be provided by the devolved administrations”.
New clause 20—Review of access to education for care leavers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an annual review on access for care leavers to—
(a) apprenticeships,
(b) further education, and
(c) higher education.
(2) The first review must take place by the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) A report produced following a review under subsection (1) must include, in particular, an assessment of the impact on care leavers’ access to education of—
(a) fee waivers,
(b) grants, and
(c) reduced costs of accommodation.
The report must be made publicly available.”
Amendment 12, in clause 12, page 10, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) At least one member of the panel appointed by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) must—
(a) be independent from Government, and
(b) have relevant specialist expertise in tackling domestic abuse.”
This amendment would require that at least one member of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel has specialist expertise in tackling domestic abuse.
Amendment 1, in clause 16, page 13, line 34, at end insert—
“, including unaccompanied refugee children once placed in the area, and unaccompanied refugee children who have been identified for resettlement in the area.”
Amendment 3, page 13, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) The safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England must conduct and publish a review of the steps taken by that local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children since 1 June 2010, including an assessment of the impact of Government policies since that date.
(1B) The Government policies to be considered under subsection (1A) are those deemed by the safeguarding partners to be relevant to the safeguarding and welfare of children.”
This amendment would require the safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England to conduct a review of steps they have taken to safeguard and promote the welfare of children since 1 June 2010, including an assessment of the impact of Government policies since that date.
Amendment 2, in clause 22, page 17, line 30, at end insert—
“(3) Guidance given by the Secretary of State in connection with functions conferred by section 16E in relation to unaccompanied refugee children must be developed in accordance with the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
Edward Timpson
I shall deal first with new clauses 15 and 16, which relate to relationships and sex education and personal, social, health and economic education. I shall then respond to key points raised in other new clauses and amendments. I shall ensure that they are covered within the time that is available under the now agreed programme motion, as I am conscious that many other Members wish to speak.
Many Members on both sides of the House have worked hard for some years to increase awareness of the issues to which new clauses 15 and 16 refer and the case for statutory underpinning of relationships and sex education and PSHE, and I thank them for their efforts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), along with the Chairs of the Health, Education, Home Affairs and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committees and the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), have been particularly strong supporters of that approach.
Relationships education, RSE and PSHE can help to ensure that pupils are given the knowledge and skills that they will need to stay safe and develop healthy, supportive relationships. That is particularly important when they are navigating the new challenges of growing up in an online world. Parents, of course, are the primary educators and guides of their children, and we should not forget that: they play a central role both in helping their children to grow up into successful adults and in protecting them from harm. However, parents are telling us that they want schools to help them to deal with what are complex and fast-moving issues to ensure that their children grow up equipped with the knowledge and skills that they need to be safe and successful. Our proposals to make these subjects compulsory are supported by professionals working in the field, by parents and carers, and, importantly, by children and young people themselves.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I warmly welcome these vital and long overdue new clauses, but it would be helpful if the Minister could provide some reassurance that relationship education in primary schools will not exclude key age-appropriate information that relates to physical health, wellbeing and the safety of children, because that is an area of concern that is still outstanding. I am thinking of, for instance, the difference between safe and unsafe touch, and the naming of body parts that are private.
Edward Timpson
I can reassure the hon. Lady that the whole purpose of bringing relationships education into primary schools is to start creating the all-important building blocks that will make children resilient enough to deal with the pressures and risks that the modern world throws at them. The new clauses are intended to allow a period after the Bill has gone through both Houses during which we can draw on the greatest possible expertise to establish how we should go about teaching these subjects in an age-appropriate way, so that by the time the children leave school they have all the knowledge and skills that they need to make good choices in their lives as they grow up.
Edward Timpson
I will, but I should make it clear to Members that I do not want to curtail the opportunities for others to have their say, and I want to deal with other aspects of the Bill as well.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister will remember what we discussed in those happy days when we served together on the Education Committee. It is all very well to have an obligation, and this is a real step forward, but the fact is that if we do not give the people in the schools real professional training, it will not work.
Edward Timpson
We served on that Committee such a while ago that it was then called the Children, Schools and Families Committee. In 2013, Ofsted acknowledged that the teaching of these subjects was still not as good as it should be. We shall be working with teachers and schools so that they understand how to develop their understanding of and ability to teach these subjects, so that there is consistency throughout the education system.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Will the Minister include the Church of England in his list of organisations that support the Government’s proposals? Despite its support, the Church seeks reassurance that relationships education will be respectful of the ethos of the schools where it is taught.
Edward Timpson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clear indication of the Church of England’s support for the step that we are taking. Having engaged with the Church and with representatives of other faiths throughout the process, I am aware of that support. The religious faith that brings many people into the education system will be respected as it has been in the past: that is reflected in the Bill, and will be reflected in the regulations and statutory guidance that will follow.
Edward Timpson
I will give way briefly, but then I want to try to make some progress.
Dr Lewis
New clause 15 draws a distinction between relationships education provided for primary school children and relationships and sex education provided for secondary school children. Can the Minister confirm that that does not mean that sex education will be smuggled into primary schools under the label “relationships education”?
Edward Timpson
A clear distinction is drawn by the very name of each of those subjects. The new clause makes plain that sex education will not be a statutory part of primary school teaching. Of course, if primary schools choose to teach sex education in an age-appropriate way, as they can now, they will be able to do so, but the right to withdraw from that will still apply, as it does in secondary schools.
Edward Timpson
I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I must make some more progress.
Dr Poulter
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State on new clause 15, which is long overdue, but may I ask a specific question about faith schools and other schools of that type? New clause 15(3)(b) states that it must be ensured that
“the education is appropriate having regard to the age and the religious background of the pupils.”
Will my hon. Friend confirm that that will not allow faith schools to avoid providing such education because they consider it to be inappropriate?
Edward Timpson
The education will become a statutory part of the curriculum, so schools will have to provide it. The duty and the power that we are creating will enable schools to teach the new subjects in an age-appropriate way that is commensurate with their religious faith and will best suit their pupils in the setting in which they happen to be, but what my hon. Friend has said is absolutely correct.
Edward Timpson
I will, but I shall then impose a moratorium on any further interventions.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Who will decide what is age-appropriate, and where is there any reference in any of these provisions to the moral dimension of this very important issue?
Edward Timpson
The moral aspect is already covered by British values and the teaching of citizenship, and that is in no way curtailed by these provisions. As for the question of what is age appropriate, the concept already exists in the current system. I repeat that the Bill will be underpinned by regulations and statutory guidance, which will set out in more detail exactly how it will be translated into reality. That is a strong and consistent approach, which we think will strike the right balance between enabling children to develop the resilience and skills that they need and ensuring that that is done in an age-appropriate way.
We know that many schools are already teaching these subjects, and that some are doing so very well, but we believe that it is right for us to do all we can both to provide universal coverage for all pupils and to improve quality. Given the increasing concerns about child sexual abuse and exploitation, and the increased risks associated with growing up in a digital world, there is a particularly compelling case for action in relation to pupil safety. New clause 15 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make relationships education in primary schools and relationships and sex education in secondary schools statutory by means of regulations. We believe that that is the right approach because it will allow us time to engage with a wide range of interests and expertise. The outcome of that engagement will feed into the legislative process for making these subjects statutory, as well as the guidance that will help schools to deliver high-quality, inclusive relationships education and RSE.
New clause 16 creates a regulation-making power to enable the Secretary of State to make PSHE statutory. We are aware that the most pressing safeguarding concerns relate to relationships and RSE, but it is evident that wider concerns about child safety and wellbeing relate to the life skills that the subject can cover, such as an understanding of the risks of drugs and alcohol and the need to safeguard physical and mental health. We therefore believe that it is important that we are able to make PSHE, or elements of it, statutory as well, and have the time to consider carefully the fit between the content of relationships education and RSE and what might be included in the PSHE curriculum. The work to consider content will begin this spring, and we expect that it will result in draft regulations and guidance for consultation this autumn. Following consultation, regulations will be laid in the House, alongside final draft guidance, allowing for full and considered debate, and we expect that statutory guidance will be published in early 2018, once the regulations have been passed and at least one full year before the academic year 2019-20.
We do not think it is right to specify in primary legislation the exact content of the subjects, as this would be too prescriptive and would remove freedom from schools and run the risk of the legislation quickly becoming out of date as the world changes ever more quickly. The Department’s external engagement will determine subject content, working with a wide range of experts and interested parties. We will ensure through careful review and consultation that our work results in a clear understanding about the full set of knowledge and skills that relationships education, RSE and PSHE should provide.
Our proposed legislation is also clear that subject content will be age appropriate. We expect the new subject of relationships education for primary schools to focus on themes such as friendships, different types of family relationships, bullying, and respect for other people. We see this as vitally important in laying the foundations for RSE at secondary school.
Across relationships education and RSE, we expect to cover in an age-appropriate way how to recognise and build healthy relationships, and how they affect health and wellbeing and safety online. This can include dealing with strangers, respect, bullying and peer pressure, commitment and tolerance, and appropriate boundaries. I want to emphasise again to hon. Members that our priority will be to ensure that content is always age appropriate. In RSE at secondary school, content would also include sex and sexual health, all set firmly within the context of healthy relationships. In relation to online issues, internet safety is a cross-Government agenda, so these plans are closely aligned to the internet safety Green Paper due later this year.
In addition to relationships education and RSE, we acknowledge that pupils need to access other key knowledge and skills for adult life, and those are generally covered in PSHE. For PSHE, we want to take the time to consult widely, as I said, on what the subject content could best look like, respecting what our engagement process determines as the right content for relationships education and RSE. We will be looking at what might be needed under the broad pillars of healthy bodies and lifestyles, healthy minds, economic wellbeing, and making a positive contribution to society. We would expect this to include issues such as keeping safe, puberty, drugs and alcohol education, mental health and resilience, and careers education.
Schools will, of course, continue to teach in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty. This means that schools can consider how best to teach subject content taking into account the age and religious backgrounds of their pupils and any other relevant factors, but not whether to teach the content.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that 45% of primary school children have experienced, or are aware of, homophobic bullying, can the Minister clarify how that fits into the curriculum at that age?
Edward Timpson
I have indicated that we expect bullying to be covered in primary school, and of course we have to cover all facets of bullying, as it comes in many forms. Of course, it will be a matter for the school to make sure that that is age appropriate, and it will start to put in place the building blocks of the development of that child’s understanding, ensuring that by the time they move on to secondary school they are well placed to move on to the next level of subject matter that they will need to understand.
Schools will need to ensure that RSE is inclusive and meets the needs of all young people.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am yet another Select Committee Chair who very much welcomes this development and the courage with which the Government are putting it forward, but there is a point to be made about what is allowed to be taught in primary schools and the fact that children’s experiences start well before they leave primary school. They are learning about these things and asking questions about them long before they leave primary school, and there is nothing in this Bill that will prevent teachers from responding to curiosity and dealing with these issues as they arise in the normal course of any other part of their education.
Edward Timpson
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s indication as a Select Committee Chair that he joins the club of Chairmen who support this important move. He is right that there is scope within these measures for schools to tailor their response to this subject matter in a way that best meets the needs of their pupils. There is already some excellent material available from the likes of the PSHE Association that sets out how they can do that in an age-appropriate way and in a way that meets the challenges that we know the modern world throws at children at an ever more tender age.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The Minister is making a strong case, but is he not asking us to enter into an incongruous position, as we do not yet know what the regulations will be in respect of relationship education, but at the same time he is asking the House to support removing the capacity of parents to remove their children from relationship education in primary schools? He is asking us to support something although we do not know the true details therein.
Edward Timpson
What I am asking the House to do is support these new clauses that maintain the right to withdraw from sex education that currently pertains, but the House will also have an opportunity under the regulatory process to scrutinise, and take part in addressing, what those regulations should look like and approve them or not, and I am sure my hon. Friend will want to play a part in doing just that.
We will commit to reviewing the statutory guidance on RSE within three years of its publication, and to a regular timetable after that, set out following our engagement process. This will help to ensure that it stays relevant as the world changes. We will also ensure that the regulations are regularly reviewed to ensure they continue to be fit for purpose. Specifying the timetable for review on the face of the Bill is not necessary as we are already under a public law duty to review the powers we take in legislation, but I can assure hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), that the statutory guidance will make clear how regularly this guidance will be reviewed, balancing continuity for schools with the crucial need to keep content up to date.
I recognise the deep concern in the House about the safety and welfare of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children. I should emphasise, however, that my ministerial responsibility extends only to children who are in England. The new local safeguarding arrangements that will be established through the Bill will apply to England only. I accept that other jurisdictions ought to pay equal attention to the safeguarding of children who reside within their borders, and I accept that we should share details of our plans and best practice.
The Government have committed to publishing a safeguarding strategy for unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children by 1 May 2017 by virtue of the written ministerial statement that I laid on 1 November last year. As part of this, we have been consulting local authorities about their capacity and we will set out plans to boost capacity for foster carers and supported lodgings in that strategy. We will continue to consult local authorities about their capacity to support unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children, to help us to identify those authorities that are most able to support unaccompanied children and those needing support through the national transfer scheme. To that end, we are happy to commit to updating Parliament annually on delivery against the safeguarding strategy and to publishing regular updates on the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children transferred to or resettled in the UK, by country of transfer.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Minister is making a powerful case. On that specific point, it is necessary to record not only how many children go into local authority care but how many are retained there and how much they keep in contact. If we put children into care and they are subsequently trafficked, we are not protecting them.
Edward Timpson
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we have worked hard to try to improve how we manage, understand and curtail the number of children who go missing while in care. Some of them have come from overseas, including France, and many are from our own country. We should use the Bill as an opportunity to improve the data so that we have as contemporaneous a picture as possible of where those children are, not only to inform us of the capacity in the system but to allow us to help them better.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
It has occurred to me as the Minister has been talking that we already have 3,000 or so unaccompanied asylum-seeking children coming to the United Kingdom and that the burden of caring for those children is falling disproportionately on a few local authorities. Is he planning to say a little bit about how the information that he will publish on local authorities throughout the country will help the national transfer scheme to operate to enable that burden to be more fairly distributed across our constituencies?
Edward Timpson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He touches on a key part of how we can improve the system through the national transfer scheme. We know that Kent and Croydon in particular have taken a disproportionate number of children, and we have been working with local authorities to find a better way of ensuring that we find a safe, stable home for them while more effectively starting to spread them across the country.
In making the commitment I have just given, it is important to note that local areas already have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is welcome that the Minister will publish information on each local authority. Will he publish the number that each one will be prepared to take from abroad, including from Europe? That is the content of new clause 14, which refers to
“unaccompanied refugee children who could be transferred to the area from abroad”.
Does this also mean that the Government will continue to take children under the Dubs scheme after the 350 that they have specified? Yes or no?
Edward Timpson
The Home Secretary has set out the Government’s position in relation to the Dubs scheme. What we are trying to do is look at the overall capacity within local authorities, not just for specific groups of children but for all children, whatever route they have used to come into England and across the United Kingdom. Yesterday, I sent the first quarterly update on progress on the development of the strategy to all the UK children’s commissioners. Last Friday, the Department published for consultation draft statutory guidance for local authorities on the care of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and trafficked children. I believe that these actions demonstrate our continued commitment to those children, and we want to carry on working with local authorities and all those who work with them to ensure that we can give every child who comes to these shores a safe and stable home.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Building on the question from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I appreciate that my hon. Friend is an Education Minister, but will he consider extending the safeguarding strategy—which sounds very attractive, as does the regular consultation with local authorities, which should be available to Parliament—beyond the Syrian region, beyond children arriving on trucks and beyond children who are already in the UK care system? Would he consider extending these services to children coming from Europe?
Edward Timpson
We have made it clear how, through the national transfer scheme, we want to ensure that we help the children we have identified as requiring help the most, including those who fall out of the Dublin scheme. We are trying to understand exactly what the capacity is in the system. I am not in a position to say any more than the Home Secretary has already said about the Government’s commitments, but we have clearly made a strong commitment to utilising any latent capacity in local authority children’s services, so that we do not miss an opportunity to help the children who need it.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Would the Minister accept that many local authorities in Wales are anxious to play their part in helping refugees, and indeed have been doing so for a number of years? They include Plaid Cymru-led Ceredigion. It is important that the Government are aware of the capacity that exists outside the usually recognised areas.
Edward Timpson
My understanding is that Wales took part in the consultation and, as I said a few moments ago, I have written to the Children’s Commissioner for Wales to update her on the progress we are making. Of course we want to work with local authorities to ensure that as many children as possible can benefit, through our combined efforts.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I welcome what the Minister is saying, but I am struggling to find anything in it that is inconsistent with new clause 14. Can he point it out to me?
Edward Timpson
The hon. Gentleman is going to have to be more specific about what his objection is. I would be happy to take it up with him at another time, but I am not in a position to answer a question that has not been formulated in a way that allows me to provide an answer.
I want to turn briefly to the question of sibling contact for looked-after children. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) is not here today, and I am sure that the whole House will send her their best wishes. We both agree that allowing reasonable contact between looked-after children and their siblings is absolutely right, where that is in the best interests of the children involved. This is reflected in the current law. However, the hon. Lady has helpfully pointed out an anomaly in the current legislation whereby the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 provide for sibling contact with a sibling who is also looked after but do not refer to contact with siblings who are not looked after. I will therefore ask my officials to start the work needed to amend the regulations to address that question, and I will happily keep the hon. Lady informed of progress.
Finally, I should like to mention the support provided to care leavers who have their own children removed from them. Hon. Members are right to emphasise how important it is to support young parents who have had a child taken into care. They need the right kind of intervention to help them to cope with this challenging situation, so that they can be effective parents to any children they might have in the future. Statutory guidance is already clear about the arrangements that must be followed to ensure that the needs of children in care and care leavers are assessed and that appropriate support is put in place. The statutory guidance includes the need for comprehensive assessment of a young person’s needs in relation to their emotional and mental health, including whether they need access to specialist health and therapeutic services. So, given the existing statutory guidance, I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to incorporate the proposed new clause into the Bill. I do, however, understand the importance of the issue, and I can confirm that I will ensure that the statutory guidance is strengthened to make clear the importance of providing appropriate support in the specific circumstances when a looked-after child or care leaver has a child of their own taken into care.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I have never seen the House so crowded to discuss amendments, which shows the importance that we attach to the Bill. I fear that we may not get to my amendment about the welfare of all children, so may I come and talk to the Minister at some point? It deals with compelling local authorities to carry out an audit of all their policies and of Government policies on the welfare of children.
Edward Timpson
I am happy to commit to meet the right hon. Gentleman to see what we can do on that.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s comments on new clause 7, which has cross-party support. There is welcome investment from the Department in Pause and other programmes that provide support to vulnerable young women, but I want to check that the statutory guidance will ensure that such schemes get further cover. Those who have lost a child and are at risk due to vulnerabilities need therapeutic care support, so will this extra statutory guidance ensure that they get it?
Edward Timpson
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We want to ensure that every care leaver, whatever their circumstances, gets the support that they need. That particular group is often very vulnerable, and we must respond to that in the best possible way.
I am grateful to hon. Members for raising important issues, and I look forward to hearing more from them during the debate. If I get the opportunity at the end—I fear I will not—I will respond more fully, but I am always open for business if anyone wants to speak to me after the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), I will point out what is demonstrably obvious: more than 10 Members wish to speak. The programme motion that the House has passed—it is not a matter for the Chair—is extremely tight, but I want Back Benchers to be heard. The Minister has set out the Government’s position and the hon. Lady will set out the Opposition’s position, but Back Benchers must be heard.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me reiterate that point and say how disappointing it is that the Government have allocated just 90 minutes to discuss all the issues relating to the welfare of the most vulnerable children, particularly when Back Benchers on both sides of the House contributed so much to the Bill.
Edward Timpson
I am sorry to have to rise again, Mr Speaker, but I should point out that the programme motion was agreed across the House, so it should not be a surprise to the Opposition.
Angela Rayner
I thank the Minister for that point, but there was dialogue about that before we came to the House, so he knows exactly where we stand.
I thank the Minister for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). She cannot be here today because she is on compassionate leave, but she put in a tremendous amount of work to take the Bill through the Committee. I will try to be brief and will put a limit on the interventions that I take.
First, and most importantly, I want to make it clear that we will support new clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen). My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and I were happy to add our names to it and will add our votes to any Division on it. It is similar to our new clause 12, so I would like the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire to clarify whether “capacity” in her amendment has the same intention as it does in ours: an assessment of the extra numbers that a council would take. New clause 13 complements those new clauses by ensuring that the Minister reflects those numbers in the national strategy. The Government have committed to provide that, but new clause 13 puts it on a statutory footing. It also provides for progress updates in the meantime, and I understand that some of those who should have received quarterly updates from the Government have yet to receive them. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the new clause, I hope that he will commit to come back with an update. However, I reserve my right to press our amendments to a vote if the Minister does not address those concerns.
Given the time available, I will not rehearse the issues at length, but I echo the points made in recent days by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I hope that we will hear from them in today’s debate. Our care for child refugees says something about us as a country. I hope that we take a lead from the example set in the debate in the other place and can hold our heads up high at the end of today.
I turn now to our amendments about vulnerable children already in our care, who should not be overlooked in this debate. New clause 3 requires local authorities to allow children in care reasonable contact with their siblings, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to future dialogue on that. New clause 4 has arisen because, quite simply, we have been sending our most vulnerable looked after children to Scotland due to the lack of specialist provision closer to their homes, families, schools, and local services. New clause 4 gives Ministers two years to sort out secure accommodation in England and Wales, so that any future secure placements in Scotland are made through choice, not constraint.
Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 was changed in Committee so that children looked after by English or Welsh local authorities can be detained in secure accommodation in Scotland. As the Minister said, that was a recognition that it is already happening. Vulnerable children are being sent to a different country, with different legal and education systems, because we have failed to provide for them close to their homes and communities. Changes in Committee also removed the requirement to obtain the consent of the parents and the child. Is it right not to get a child’s consent before they are moved to Scotland? They will also lose their right to independent periodic review, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument from the Minister as to why. The High Court suggested a joint review by the Law Commission, which would surely be better than a fix behind closed doors, and I hope the Minister will consider it.
We offer our support to the hon. Members on both sides who tabled new clause 7, a version of which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields tabled in Committee. I hope the Minister will indicate that he will take up the issue through statutory guidance if he cannot accept the new clause.
New clause 8 would establish a clear statutory duty on local authorities to secure sufficient, suitable accommodation for all care leavers up to age 21. I am sure that I do not need to tell the Minister why that is important, but Government figures show that too many care leavers are in unsuitable or unknown accommodation. All of us who are parents of young adults are aware of the modern challenges they face and of the fact that they need support beyond their teenage years. In Committee, the Minister referred to the care leavers accommodation and support framework developed by Barnardo’s and St Basil’s, but funding for that ends next month. He referred to care leavers as a priority group for social housing, but that is not the same as a legal duty and does not mean that it happens in practice. If he cannot accept new clause 8, perhaps he will agree to meet to discuss how we can achieve its basic aim.
New clause 10 seeks to reduce to four weeks the maximum level of sanctioning for care leavers on universal credit. The Minister will be aware of the shockingly high rate of sanctioning experienced by care leavers and will know that care leavers are three times more likely to receive a sanction than a member of the general population. They are also less likely to challenge sanctions, but they are more likely to have them overturned. When a care leaver sits down with a work coach for the first time, will the Minster tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that their status is known and that they are treated accordingly? The Children’s Society told me that they worked with a care leaver who was sanctioned over Christmas and had to choose between feeding himself or his pregnant girlfriend. That is not the behaviour of a good corporate parent, and I hope we can hear more about what the Minister will do about that.
In line with other elements of the Bill, new clause 11 seeks to promote the financial stability of care leavers up to the age of 25. It would support care leavers into work and apprenticeships and would protect their finances when living in private rented accommodation. Young people under the age of 25 receive a lower rate of universal credit, but care leavers tend to take on more responsibility earlier. New clause 11 would extend the higher rate to care leavers under the age of 25. At about £780 a year, the difference for a low income individual would be significant. Care leavers will receive a £2,000 bursary when entering higher education, but they are not entitled to an equivalent when engaging in apprenticeships. Given the Government’s emphasis on skills, I hope they will consider such a measure.
Care leavers in private rented accommodation also experience a cut of some £50 a week to their housing benefit when they turn 22. The Minister has asked the Children’s Society for case studies, which it has provided to the Department. Perhaps the Minister could respond.
We estimate the cost of the new clause to be some £32.9 million, which is not a significant sum of money when we consider the ultimate cost to the state of failing properly to support care leavers. The Bill provides an opportunity for the Government to take responsibility for some of the financial difficulties experienced by care leavers, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
New clause 20 calls for an annual review of care leavers’ access to education and for the Government to produce a report of the impact of that access. If my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) presses her amendments to a vote, we will support her.
The Department’s own statistics show that only 6% of care leavers go to university, compared with 38% of all young people. Almost a third of children in care leave school with no GCSEs or GNVQs. That is not their failure but ours. I urge everyone in the Chamber today to reflect on that. We are failing these children and young adults, and it is our duty to turn those numbers around.
Finally, one issue on which we can congratulate all concerned is the progress we have made on sex and relationships education. A great deal of work has gone into getting to this stage, for which I thank my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow, for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in whose names new clause 1 stands.
I also acknowledge the work of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I will support the amendment that they and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) have tabled to new clause 15. I hope the Minister will be able to address the point without division, in either sense of the word.
Caroline Lucas
Does the hon. Lady agree that, on the question of the right contained in new clause 15 for parents to withdraw their children from sex education lessons, we need to ask challenging questions on whether it can ever be right to deny a child their entitlement to vital education through good, age-appropriate information, not least because we know how important that is to keeping them safe?
Angela Rayner
I take on board the hon. Lady’s point. There has to be balance, and there has been considerable movement in that direction. I pay tribute to the Government for moving on that issue. Hopefully we can tease that out as we go through the finer details.
However, I seek clarification from the Minister on certain points of new clause 15. First, the coalition Government withdrew funding for the personal, social and health and economic education continuing professional development programme. That policy made it much more difficult for teachers to access the necessary training, thus lowering quality. Will the Government commit to any new resources for teacher training and continuing professional development, to ensure that relationships and sex education provision is of high quality?
I reiterate the earlier contributions to this debate that, at first glance, there is no explicit mention of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in new clause 15. We have evidence from Stonewall and others that excluding LGBT children and the issues they encounter daily from existing relationships and sex education has a damaging impact on their health, wellbeing and attainment at school. Do the Government commit to ensuring that the new statutory guidance is inclusive of LGBT issues in an age-appropriate way? Will the Government consult expert organisations in doing so?
We know that the nature of relationships and sex education will change, which means changes to statutory guidance.
Angela Rayner
The hon. Gentleman had loads of time to seek to intervene when the Minister was speaking.
Will the Government convene an expert group to ensure that, as the statutory guidance is updated, it covers the broad depth of topics required in RSE? Which organisations will be part of that group? On that issue at least, the House has spoken and the Government have listened. I urge the Government to do the same again on the other amendments before the House today. Many of the most vulnerable children depend on us, and we must not let them down.
Heidi Allen
I rise to speak to new clause 14, which is in my name. My interest in the Bill is born out of the refugee crisis sweeping across Europe. I am interested in how the Bill might apply to safeguarding children in our care. The Government have a tremendous record in the Syria region, but, for me and for many in the House, there remains a big issue in Europe that has still not been addressed. How we safeguard children who might come to us from Europe is a matter close to all our hearts.
Let us get the elephant out there. For many of us, this debate is about the Dubs amendment and whether we can bring it back to life. The heart of the amendment is about consulting local authorities on their capacity. Why is that of interest to us? It specifically interests me because since the Government announced that the Dubs scheme would be closed, local authorities across the country have stepped forward to say that they can do more. If there is that capacity, we must have a safeguarding strategy and something that extracts such information from local authorities on a regular basis, rather than just once up to the end of this financial year. That is powerful information, and we must know it.
What I am interested to hear from the Minister, and I still have not heard it—this will affect how I feel about pressing new clause 14 to a vote—is to whom the safeguarding strategy, which is the subject of ongoing consultation with local authorities, will apply. Will it be children in Europe who may potentially come to us as refugees or asylum seekers? Is it just for children in Syria and the region, or is it just for those arriving under their own steam following dangerous but hard-fought journeys by truck and train?
This refugee crisis will not end neatly at the end of this financial year, so our ability to consult local authorities to understand their capacity must not end neatly at the end of this financial year, either. The timescale of the strategies we are debating today—for consulting local authorities and caring for children in our care and for unaccompanied children who come to us as refugees or asylum seekers—must be maintained over and beyond the end of this financial year.
I remind the House that Lewisham asked for 23 children but has so far been sent one. Bristol has been sent zero out of 10. Gloucestershire would like 10 but has been sent only two. Those small numbers add up. Small gestures of individual generosity collectively make us leaders.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend mentions my local authority, Gloucestershire, which I am pleased has been able to play a part in this process. What is her response to the point that the Minister made, and that I made to the Minister, about significant numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children already coming to the United Kingdom? The burden of caring for those children falls disproportionately, so if councils such as Lewisham and others have some capacity, should they not be helping to support councils like Croydon and Kent that are bearing a significant burden? Importing yet more children is drawing more children to undertake dangerous journeys to Europe that may lead them to their death.
Heidi Allen
That is the strength of a decent consultation. I and many of us in this House believe that we can do both. The new clause allows us to spread the burden. It is tough, as some councils have borne a disproportionate burden of responsibility on their shoulders. Those councils have done amazingly, and it is time that other local authorities that have capacity share some of that burden. Guess what? If we consult as well as I think we can, I sense that we will find that we have capacity to manage both.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I declare my interest. My hon. Friend knows that I put my name to the amendment and that I support her. I do not want to get hung up on any particular scheme, Dubs or otherwise, because the Government have done an awful lot across many schemes, as the Home Affairs Committee has seen. Many authorities have come forward, and my concern is that we need to know exactly what capacity they realistically have to care for refugee children without there being a detriment to indigenous children, for whom there is a crisis in the number of foster care and residential children’s home places. The amendment might achieve that, whatever she might think.
Heidi Allen
Absolutely, and not least because of the refugee crisis. This is good housekeeping. It is good for us to have transparent data so that we can understand the capacity of our local authorities and our care system, which has to help children who are already in the UK care system.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities are already reviewing capacity on a week-by-week basis? That is evident in the number of referrals coming out of London to look after our own British children. Does she accept that local authorities do this every day of the week?
Heidi Allen
I do, absolutely. For me, this debate is born out of the fact that some local authorities have stepped forward and said they are struggling incredibly, while others have stepped forward and said they do have capacity. Somewhere, we are not joining those two conversations together. I know there is further capacity out there for the betterment of the children in care in the UK and the refugee children.
Mr Burrowes
What the Minister said from the Dispatch Box did not seem too far away from what new clause 14 is seeking, which is to ensure that we recognise exactly what the capacity is for all children, including unaccompanied children. Is not the call for transparency the very call referred to in the Home Affairs Committee report, in which the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner said he would welcome greater transparency? He was charged with the duty of going there independently to find the answer, and he wants transparency.
Heidi Allen
Absolutely. The fact that not only Members of this House but individuals such as the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner are asking for this tells me that we need to do it.
Dame Caroline Spelman
Does my hon. Friend agree that capacity is constantly changing? In supporting the intention of the Dubs amendment, the Church of England made it clear that it would appeal for additional foster carers to come forward, not only for the children currently in the system but so that we could accommodate newcomers. If we are going to call for that, we have to provide the extra capacity that local authorities need.
Heidi Allen
Absolutely. I am so grateful for all the interventions, but I shall try to wrap up my speech.
The point is that the refugee crisis—indeed, the care crisis in our own country; we do not have enough foster carers—is an opportunity for us to do some decent housekeeping on the systems and to find out what capacity we have and where local authorities can step forward and do more. There is of course a debate to be had about funding. I know that some councils have said they are stretched, and the capacity conversation will draw out the argument about whether the funding is sufficient.
The majority of councils do not care where the children come from. I care that we take our fair share and help our neighbours in Europe, and I know that many other Members do, too. So that I am reassured by the Minister and do not press my new clause to a vote, I ask again: will the safeguarding strategy extend beyond the UK—that is, might it take into account refugees who may come here from Europe and further afield? Will the consultation results be made open to Parliament?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the Government’s measures on compulsory sex and relationship education and pay tribute to those on both sides of the House who have campaigned for it at a time when we know that violence in teen relationships is increasing and teenagers are exposed to so much more than we were as children.
In the short time available, I wish to confine my remarks to new clause 14, following on from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen). Yesterday, the Home Affairs Committee published a report that was limited in its recommendations because it was an interim report. We called for the Government to clarify and publish local authorities’ capacity to take children, including those from Europe under the Dubs scheme, and their further capacity in the next financial year. We also called on the Government to seek the views of the Anti-slavery Commissioner before making any changes to the Dubs scheme or closing it.
We made those recommendations because of the evidence we heard. First, on council capacity, Ministers have said that councils had only 350 places to provide for children coming from Europe under the Dubs scheme. We heard from councils that said they had not been properly consulted; that many of them, including Hammersmith and Fulham, Lewisham, Birmingham and Bristol, had more capacity; and that they could potentially deliver thousands more places, if they were properly funded. That is why new clause 14 is so sensible.
Mr Harper
The right hon. Lady is leaping to a potential solution, but without thinking through the Government’s argument about why it would be a mistake. The whole point about providing capacity is that if one accepts the argument—I know she does not—that taking more children from Europe will mean that more will make dangerous journeys, on which many will die, it is fundamentally a mistake. She is leaping to a fundamentally mistaken solution to a very grave crisis.
Yvette Cooper
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but his view is rather different from the one taken by the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, who was appointed by the Government to champion action against modern slavery. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Government for leading the way on a lot of work against modern slavery—they are right to do that—but the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner has described the Dubs scheme as a “safe and legal route” that has protected children who were being exploited. We have also heard from UNICEF that the
“cancellation of the Dubs scheme is a good win for people traffickers—there is money to be made, because children will try to get to their families or to places of safety one way or another.”
The point of the Dubs scheme was to prevent slavery. Surely the minimum the Government should do is to seek the further advice of the expert anti-slavery commissioner before they make any changes or close the scheme. If they want to persist in their view, they should at least test it against the evidence, not to mention listen to the many organisations and charities that have been arguing so strongly on the basis of the work they are doing with children and young people throughout Europe and other places who are at risk of being trafficked and being sucked into exploitation and sexual abuse. Children and teenagers have already come to Britain under the Dubs scheme who have been trafficked, sexually abused, raped and exploited. Now they are safe, thanks to Britain—thanks to the work that Britain has done as a result of the Dubs and Dublin schemes.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. He and I have both raised the need to ensure that once children are here they do not fall prey to the same trafficking gangs, which will sometimes go to children’s homes to seek them out. We know that, as a result of the Dubs scheme so far—in the mere six months for which it has been running—many children and teenagers are now safe with foster carers or in children’s homes. They are now back in school—somewhere they had often not been for years because of the exploitation, trafficking and abuse they have suffered.
We also know that, as we speak, there are in Greece more than 2,000 unaccompanied child refugees or those seeking asylum, only half of whom have places in children’s homes or foster care because the Greek system is overstretched. The Dubs scheme simply allows all countries to do their bit. It allows Britain to do its bit in a very small, modest way, given the scale of the refugee crisis. I pay tribute to the work done by Britain and the British Government on other aspects of the refugee crisis, but the Dubs scheme is an important part of Britain being able to do its bits to help those who are most vulnerable of all—children.
Ministers have said they will continue to consult, but only as part of the national transfer scheme and, as I understand it, only for those children who have already arrived in the country. That is important, but it is not a substitute for also consulting on children who could come here under the Dubs scheme. It is not an either/or.
Kelly Tolhurst
In an immigration debate last year, I asked the right hon. Lady about the capacity of local authorities to come forward to help councils such as Kent to look after the significant numbers of unaccompanied asylum seekers that the council has had to look after over this period. Will she clarify that the point she is making is that there is a will to support children coming from Europe, but an unwillingness to support councils like Kent?
Yvette Cooper
No, I am saying the opposite—that we have to do both. Kent does need support from all over the country; so, too, do Hillingdon and Croydon. Some councils have done most to take the strain and to provide support. There has to be a national transfer scheme; I have supported it, when the Government have proposed it, every step of the way, and it needs to do more.
It is interesting that when the Select Committee took evidence, the Local Government Association told us that if there was further funding, councils throughout the country would be able to meet that 0.07% target set by the Government, and that that would allow councils to provide around 4,000 additional places. That is more than enough to take far more of the children who are currently being supported in Kent to other places across the country and to do our bit to help a small number of additional child refugees from Europe to prevent trafficking. The reason why the Government should focus on those coming from Europe as well as those who have arrived on their own is that if we provide help only to those who make the dangerous and illegal journey on lorries and trucks and often with traffickers and not to those who take the safe legal route, all we do is drive more people into the arms of the traffickers and on to the dangerous routes.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I decided to withdraw new clause 5, which had the support of 46 Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and many others, because we feel very strongly that new clauses 15 and 16 do exactly what we wanted, which is to make statutory lessons available for all children in all schools. I applaud my hon. Friend the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, for everything that he has done to make that happen. He has demonstrated what can be achieved when there is a collaborative view in this House.
Three Select Committees have called for statutory lessons in this area, and that is a good way forward. Millions of children will benefit as a result of what my hon. Friend the Minister has announced today. High- quality relationship and sex education can play an important part in preventing child sexual abuse and exploitation. It teaches children from an early age about fundamental issues such as consent, healthy relationships and how to have respect for themselves and their peer group. It is important that we put such lessons in place and that we do so right now. This call could not be more timely, especially in the light of today’s BBC’s report about Facebook’s failure to remove illegal images of children from its social media platform. The whole House will deplore the fact that Facebook is failing in its duties.
Today’s amendments to this Bill will be an important first step in safeguarding our children, but the work cannot stop there. I urge the Minister to work with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that there is a statutory code in place for social media. We do not want to have a situation in which internationally known corporations such as Facebook can host illegal child abuse images, including those that explicitly focus on men with a sexual interest in children.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am sure that almost all of us agree that sex education in secondary schools is a good thing, particularly as parents will still be guaranteed the right to withdraw their children. What one is concerned about is that parents will not have the right to withdraw their children from relationship education in primary school. What is there to prevent sex education aspects from being smuggled in under that label?
Mrs Miller
I urge my right hon. Friend to talk to some of the teachers in his constituency who are already touching on issues of sex education in primary schools, because it is possible to do that in an age-appropriate manner. There is nothing in this Bill that would concern parents about further sex education being taught in primary schools—quite the contrary. According to research, three quarters of all parents, if not a little more than that, welcome these measures. Perhaps it is because they understand the safeguarding issues that can be very well covered by relationship education, even at an early age. I am talking about issues around consent in particular. I hope that my right hon. Friend can support these measures, because they are important not only for the future development of our children, but for keeping them safe and for giving them the ability to call out for help if and when they need it.
Mrs Miller
Will my hon. Friend forgive me if I make just a bit more progress? I do not want to fall foul of Mr Speaker.
I thank the Minister for responding to the amendments that I have tabled with the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). I am talking about proposed amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e) to Government new clause 15. I note the reference of my hon. Friend the Minister to a public law duty that obliges the Government to keep content in this area up to date. I can understand his argument, but it has not really worked so far, has it? It has taken about 17 years to get the guidance on sex and relationship education even on the agenda. Surely that public law duty on the Government has been there for the past decade and a half. None the less, I welcome his confirmation at the Dispatch Box, which will be recorded in Hansard, that he understands the intent behind proposed amendments (b) and (d) to undertake reviews every three years.
Governments of all complexions have, frankly, regularly sidestepped and ducked the issue of relationship and sex education, using a whole host of excuses to this House as to why it was not possible. What my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and I have shown is that there is a cross-party desire to get this matter sorted and that the Government should not duck this issue from this point in.
In response to proposed amendment (c) to Government new clause 15 that relationship and sex education will be central to any assessment of schools, I am really reassured that there will be a lead in this area from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of education. I am sure that the Minister with his infinite influence could encourage Ofsted to go a little further on this and to consider redoing its report that so clearly showed that a large proportion of schools were failing in their delivery of sex and relationship education as it currently stands. It would be good to show that that has changed, that progress is being made and that a further report could be done.
I would also welcome it if the Minister reiterated the fact that newly drawn up regulations and guidance will be shaped by experts and not by prejudice or preconceptions in this area and that there will also be support for expert teaching of the subject. Given the news headlines on Facebook today, perhaps he might consider a levy on social media organisations that flout common decency and standards, so that they can be held accountable and perhaps pay the bills for some of the problems that they create by allowing our children to be exposed to inappropriate material.
Mrs Miller
Will my hon. Friend forgive me if I do not? I can see that I am getting into trouble with the Speaker.
The Minister is right to resist amendment (a) to Government new clause 15; as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), it risks undermining important safeguarding for children in primary schools. The Minister is also right to resist new clause 1, which would not provide the sort of comprehensive relationship and sex education that I know he wants. For 17 years, Governments have sidestepped the issue. This Government should be applauded for the action that they are taking.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I would like to accommodate more colleagues, so extreme brevity would be hugely helpful.
Stella Creasy
In the light of your request for brevity, Mr Speaker, let me be clear that there is a common thread through my points and the amendments that I have tabled: inclusivity, which Members across the House probably support in principle, but in practice, the devil is in the detail of the amendments, and that is why I want to speak.
First, on sex and relationship education, I welcome the moves being made by the Government. It has taken seven years, but finally we will right the wrong whereby while composting and compound interest are on the curriculum, consent is not. I ask the Minister to look at the wording of new clause 1, its explicit reference to same-sex relationships and the importance of being clear during the consultation that we will make sure that children are able to talk about every relationship that they have or may come across in life, and be taught to value them equally. That matters, because 95% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children say that they were not talked to at school about same-sex relationships. When that is so much part of the modern world, it is important that we include it in the modern training that we give our children.
Not least, I want to raise the concerns of teachers from Walthamstow, who said to me that they still live under the spectre of section 28 and the idea that there are things that they cannot talk to children about. The Minister knows my concern that use of the word “appropriate” in his legislation may raise that worry for teachers, so today I look for him to say explicitly that he expects same-sex relationships to be part of the curriculum; that he expects that when bullying is talked about in schools, homophobic bullying will be addressed, at both primary and secondary level; and that we will find a sensitive and religiously inclusive way to cover issues around same-sex relationships, in line with the Equality Act 2010. We should not trade off making progress on some areas of society—through bringing in an ability to talk about consent and domestic abuse—against not making progress on gay rights in other sections of our society. The Minister will point to the 1996 wording that the legislation echoes, but we had section 28 in 1996; this is 2017. Let us make sure that when we make progressive legislation, it is truly progressive.
It is important that we have inclusivity when it comes to child refugees. That is why I want to raise amendment 1 and speak in support of new clause 14 and amendment 2. In October, I asked the Prime Minister to tell us what had happened to the 178 children of whom her Government had been notified who would qualify, under the Dubs amendment, to come to our country but had gone missing from France. Six months on, I am still waiting for a response, but those 178 children are just a fraction of the 10,000 children who have been reported missing in Europe over the refugee crisis. Some 120,000 unaccompanied children—orphans—have come to Europe since 2015. The Dubs amendment is designed to help those children. We agreed as a House that we would do our bit for them, but what kind of a “bit” are we doing? We are talking about 350 children, which equates to 0.002% of all unaccompanied child refugees in Europe. When we debated Dubs, we talked about 3,000 children, which would be just 0.025% of them.
It is right that people should be concerned about what other countries are doing and that we hold the French, Greeks and Italians accountable for their treatment of these children, but Turkey alone is taking 2.8 million Syrian refugees; how can we hold our heads high if we do not do our bit as well? The Dubs scheme is about us doing our bit.
New clause 14 is explicit about safeguarding the children who have applications for transfer—the children in the camps now. I agree with Members who talk about pull factors; the pull factor is safety. We are talking about Afghan children running from the Taliban, Sudanese children running from rape and murder, and Oromo children running from political persecution. They are pulled to our shore for safety. Closing the Dubs scheme will not stop that pull factor, but it will make the traffickers the most attractive proposition those children have. Crucially, amendment 1 and new clause 14 identify our responsibility for involvement in the safeguarding process; we should involve not just the Home Office but the Department for Education. That is where amendment 2 comes from.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I shall speak to my amendment (a) to new clause 15, which would give all parents a chance to withdraw their children from relationships education. As you know, Mr Speaker, there is already a right, long enshrined in our laws, for parents to withdraw children from sex education. I want to ask the Government why parents are to be allowed to continue to withdraw their children from sex education, but not from relationship education. It is an important point. The Supreme Court, in answer to the desire of the Scottish Government to impose itself between children and their families, ruled:
“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”
Those of us who support the amendment believe that parents have the primary duty, and of course a desire, to bring up their children and educate them in their own values. The state should not impose its values on parents.
Frankly, the Government’s thinking on the matter is confused. Their policy statement says:
“We have committed to retain parents’ right to withdraw their child from sex education within RSE (other than sex education in the National Curriculum as part of science), as currently, but not from relationships education at primary. This is because parents should have the right to teach this themselves in a way which is consistent with their values.”
That document rightly justifies the right to withdrawal from sex education, but offers no justification whatever for the inconsistent and aberrant decision not to extend that right to relationships education.
Sir Edward Leigh
I must finish. If we respect the rights of parents over sex education, why trample all over their rights when it comes to relationships education? It is understandable that some will view this as a state takeover bid for parenting.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with commendable succinctness, which allows me to call Angela Smith.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I rise to speak on amendment 12, which is in my name. It seeks to ensure that the proposed child safeguarding practice review panel includes an independent domestic abuse expert.
The recent Women’s Aid report “Nineteen Child Homicides” outlined the depth of the challenge of child protection in families where one parent is abusive. It identified strong evidence that, when arrangements for child contact are being made where there is a history of domestic violence, the current workings of the family justice system support a pro-contact approach, which can undermine the best interests of the child or children.
On average, only 1% of applications for contact are refused, but domestic abuse is identified as an issue in up to 70% of family proceedings cases. In three quarters of cases where courts have ordered contact with an abusive parent, the children have suffered further abuse. Clearly, therefore, significant safeguarding concerns result from the management of child contact arrangements. Indeed, the report I referred to highlighted the cases of 19 children in 12 families who were killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse in circumstances related to unsafe contact.
Research has identified a range of key lessons for the child protection system in relation to child contact in families where one parent is abusive. Those lessons are critical to the Bill’s aim of improving local safeguarding. In particular, understanding abusive partners’ coercive control of women and children is critical to improving child safeguarding.
On the proposed role of the child safeguarding practice review panel, my amendment would ensure that the concerns I have outlined are heard, by making sure the panel included at least one recognised independent specialist domestic abuse expert. In Committee, the Minister seemed to agree with that proposal when he stated that the panel would bring a more systematic and comprehensive approach to pulling together knowledge and understanding for cases involving an issue of national importance and relevance, and as far as I am concerned, domestic violence is an issue of national importance. By putting such an expert on the panel, the Government would also address their stated desire for it to provide social work practitioners with specialist advice and the best available research and evidence on domestic abuse and children.
I will push the issue to a vote if you allow me to, Mr Speaker, because the Government could act on it very easily and very quickly, and it would benefit women and children up and down the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I emphasise that I would like to call the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) from the Scottish National party as well, so extreme brevity is required.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I rise to speak in warm support of new clause 15 and to congratulate the Government. The Minister will remember that I served on the Public Bill Committee and spoke in support of the then new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I very much welcome the two safeguards in the new clause—on age-appropriateness and parental rights to withdraw—which I think address the points that have been raised.
This is a new clause—a 21st-century clause—for a 21st-century education system and for the world in which we live, and it reflects the deep need to provide our young people with the education and skills they require to meet challenges that many of us on the Conservative Benches did not face when we were their age.
Many people rail against the rates of divorce, abortion, teenage pregnancy and the like, and I am absolutely convinced that there must be a causal link between those statistics and the very patchy and relatively poor levels of sex and relationship education we have had in this country hitherto.
The new clause appears to have garnered the support of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am a member, as well as of Barnardo’s, the Terrence Higgins Trust and others. I would therefore suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are clearly on to something and are approaching it in the right way.
We do nothing that could be described as moral if we leave our young people unprepared to meet the challenges of relationships and modern life. I certainly support the fact—I raised this in the Adjournment debate brought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller)—that the clause covers academies and free schools. Given the direction of travel in the education environment, that seems entirely appropriate, and I support the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I wish to speak to the amendments in my name to new clauses 13 and 14. Let me say in passing that new clauses 12 and 11, on universal credit and local housing allowance, both have our full support. On new clause 4, while we sympathise with the sentiment behind it, the method of progression is not the correct one, and we could not give the new clause our support.
Let me turn to new clauses 12 to 14 and to my two amendments. New clause 13 would put the strategy for the safeguarding of unaccompanied refugee children on a statutory footing, and that has our support. Given that many of the laws and services that will be involved are devolved, I have suggested that the new clause be amended to require consultation with the devolved Administrations before the strategy is published.
New clauses 12 and 14 require assessment of the capacity to provide safeguarding and welfare services, including to unaccompanied child refugees. I welcome the cross-party support new clause 14 has attracted, and the Scottish National party fully intends to give it our support. My small amendment to it simply borrows the wording of new clause 12 in relation to the devolved Administrations. It is appropriate to include the devolved Administrations, because, as we have heard, the key driver behind new clause 14 is to force the Government to rethink their move to wind the Dubs scheme down. This was a UK-wide scheme, and Scotland was and is absolutely willing to play its part in it.
With the rationale for closing Dubs falling to pieces, the Government have belatedly come to the Dispatch Box to make a concession. However, in making that concession, they have actually made the case for new clause 14, rather than giving an explanation of why we should reject it, so I see no reason why we should not proceed with it. If it comes to a vote, the SNP will absolutely support new clause 14, whether amended or not.
Mr Burrowes
I rise to support many of the proposals, not least those in my name, which the Minister has supported from the Dispatch Box.
On new clause 7, statutory guidance will spread good practice, which is all too limited in relation to those who need therapeutic support, such as those who are at risk—not least those who have come from a care background—of repeat pregnancies. There is a duty of care in this Bill not only to children but to vulnerable adults, and I appreciate that that will now come within statutory guidance, so I will not need to press the new clause. However, I pay particular tribute to the Family Rights Group and the other organisations supporting it.
I very much support new clause 15, and our earlier new clauses 5 and 6 paved the way towards it. The thrust of it is very welcome. We should recognise the support from all sides of the argument. Previously, there was a stalemate, and we were looking simply at when we would make sex education compulsory. Now, we are focused on relationships and building the resilience in relationships that vulnerable children—particularly those who do not have any sight or sound of healthy relationships—do not have. I welcome that and the reassurance on age-appropriateness and the religious background of pupils.
The Government’s position on new clause 14 is welcome in focusing on safeguarding. This is not a re-run of Dubs or of those earlier arguments. This is about safeguarding. Whether we are talking about children in the UK or children coming from abroad, all children need safeguarding, and I welcome the commitment that has been made on that. However, as a result of this debate, the Government need to be more transparent about keeping the Dubs process open, so that we can do all we can for children here and elsewhere.
“11 The register of social workers in England kept under section 45(1) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 | The registrar appointed under section 45(3)(a) Children and Social Work Act 2017 or, in the absence of such an appointment, Social Work England” |
Mr Speaker
We are making commendable progress—even greater progress, if that is imaginable, than I had anticipated, as may be apparent to colleagues.
Schedule 4
Oversight by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care
Amendments made: 18, page 47, line 26, leave out from beginning to “in” in line 27 and insert—
“( ) Section 25 (the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care) is amended as follows.
( ) .”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 19.
Amendment 19, page 47, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) For subsection (3A) substitute—
(3A) A reference in an enactment to a body mentioned in subsection (3) is not (unless there is express provision to the contrary) to be read as including—
(a) a reference to Social Work England, or
(b) a reference to the Health and Care Professions Council, or a regulatory body within subsection (3)(j), so far as it has functions relating to social care workers in England.”
( ) In subsection (3B) for the definition of “the social work profession in England” and “social care workers in England” substitute—
““social care workers in England” has the meaning given in section 60 of the 1999 Act.””—(Edward Timpson.)
This ensures that references in legislation to a regulatory body mentioned in section 25(3) of the National Health Service Reform and Health and Care Professions Act 2002 do not generally include a reference to Social Work England.
Mr Speaker
Consideration completed. I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motions, copies of which will be available shortly in the Vote Office and will be distributed by the Doorkeepers. I know they will be of very consuming interest to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is greatly seized of the importance and content of these matters.
Mr Speaker
I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified the following provisions of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] as relating exclusively to England and Wales and within devolved legislative competence: clauses 8 and 9.
I have certified the following provisions of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence: clauses 1 to 7, 11 to 31 and 41 to 67, new clauses 15 to 18 added to the Bill on Report and schedules 2 to 4.
For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(4), I have certified the following amendment made to the Bill since Second Reading as relating exclusively to England and Wales: amendment 13 to clause 62, made in the Public Bill Committee.
Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office. Under Standing Order No. 83M, consent motions are therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motions?
Edward Timpson
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Natascha Engel in the Chair]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I remind hon. Members that if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion for England.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(5)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] and the certified amendment made to the Bill—
Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee.
Amendment certified under Standing Order No. 83L(4) as relating exclusively to England and Wales.
Amendment 13 made in the Public Bill Committee.—(Edward Timpson.)
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Just a very short intervention, but I always think it is very useful for the Minister to have the opportunity to expand on an issue, rather than just touching the Dispatch Box and moving on.
The Minister and his Government colleagues will be well aware of the fact that we have just had the Assembly election in Northern Ireland. The results were in some quarters a surprise and in other quarters they were not a surprise at all. We now have a very short window of opportunity for the Northern Ireland Assembly to be restored. If the talks are not successful in the next three weeks, will the Minister and his Government colleagues consider extending some of the Bill’s provisions to Northern Ireland? Parts of it are very valuable, and really ought to be extended in the event of a prolonged period of direct rule.
Edward Timpson
I hear what the hon. Lady says. Of course we are all looking very carefully at the situation in Northern Ireland and hope that we can achieve a resolution as soon as possible, but in relation to the Bill, we have been very clear about which provisions are appropriate in relation to devolution arrangements. Having said that, I should add that on certain aspects of the Bill, we want to co-operate across the whole United Kingdom. I shall take that up with whoever is in place in Northern Ireland in my reciprocal capacity, so that we can make progress throughout the country.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I was loth to speak in this debate, although I think that I am the main contributor to Legislative Grand Committee debates: I believe that I have spoken in them more than any other Member. However, I did not have a clue what was going on. One of my hon. Friends asked me, “What exactly did the Speaker rule in his statement about the certification of English-only business?” I should be interested to learn whether the Minister knows what it all meant, because my colleagues and I have not got a clue, and that goes to the heart of this nonsense about English votes for English laws. No one knows what is going on. The Constitution Unit examined it in detail, and concluded that it was opaque in the extreme.
No one has much of an idea about what we are actually discussing here. I think I heard something about a procedure requiring double consent. What comes first, the English-only vote or the whole-House vote? I know that I cannot take part in one of the votes, but which one is it? That has not been made clear to us today.
If we are to continue to have these Legislative Grand Committees, we shall need a little bit more than a Minister going to the Dispatch Box, touching it with his hands, and then sitting down again. The Mace goes up, goes down and then goes up again, and nothing is debated and discussed. We were told that English votes for English laws was just about the most important innovation in Parliament when it came to debates in the House, and it is not good enough for Members not to take advantage of these opportunities. I appeal to at least one English Member to stand up and speak about the English-only clauses. If they are so important that we suspend our business, surely they should be addressed.
I hope that in future I shall not have to speak about Legislative Grand Committee motions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] For once, I concur with Conservative Members. This procedure has reached a stage at which it is beyond a farce. It is bizarre; it is unnecessary; it disrupts the business of the House, and no one is even bothered about making a contribution.
Question agreed to.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses and schedules of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]:
Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 1 to 7, 11 to 31 and 41 to 67 of the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee including the amendments made on Report;
New clause 15, new clause 16, new clause 17 and new clause 18 added on Report; and
Schedules 2 to 4 to the Bill as amended in the Public Committee, including the amendments made on Report.—(Edward Timpson.)
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.
Third Reading
Edward Timpson
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill is fundamentally about improving the lives of vulnerable children. These are children who have often faced challenges that most of us can only imagine: they might have faced abuse and neglect; they might have been let down time and again by the people who are supposed to love and protect them; they might be being exploited by perpetrators preying on their vulnerability. So it is right and proper that Parliament should devote time and energy to improving their plight. To that end, I am very grateful to all those hon. Members who have engaged constructively with the passage of this Bill and demonstrated their shared commitment to these critical issues.
This Bill represents an important step forward for vulnerable children. It defines what good corporate parenting looks like and secures the involvement of the whole council in looking out for children in care or leaving care. It requires every local area to set out exactly what support they are offering to care leavers, making it easier for young people to access support. It extends the help of a personal adviser to all care leavers up to the age of 25. It introduces improved national arrangements for analysing serious incidents and learning from them and strengthened arrangements for local multi-agency co-ordination of safeguarding. It extends educational support to children leaving care via adoption or special guardianship. It creates the conditions for good placement decisions to be made for children coming into the care system. It introduces a new, bespoke regulator for social work that will be empowered to raise standards in social work and raise the status of this vital profession. It also paves the way for a new system of assessment and accreditation, which will give social workers opportunities to develop and progress in their profession.
In addition—again with thanks to the Members across this House who have supported the Government on this—the Bill now includes important measures on relationships and sex education and PSHE. We need to recognise that the world in which children are growing up is changing rapidly. As policy makers and implementers, we need to keep pace with those changes and ensure that children are well equipped to cope with each new opportunity and challenge they are likely to face. I am delighted, therefore, that this House has supported the Government amendments to put age-appropriate relationships and sex education on a statutory footing. This will be a very significant step to promote the safeguarding of all children in England.
As I said earlier, the changes to be delivered through this Bill reflect my personal passion and commitment to improving the lives of vulnerable children and families. My pledge to the House is to implement these changes as expeditiously as possible when the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent. I thank all Members who have engaged with, and contributed to, this Bill, including the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who cannot be with us here today but shares that same passion.
Of course, we would not be where we are without the dedicated work of all the officials and Clerks of this House and the many officials in my Department who have worked tirelessly to make the Bill’s passage as smooth as possible. I take this opportunity to thank them all, in particular the Bill team and my private office, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Angela Rayner
I echo the thanks given by the Minister, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who cannot be with us today. She did a tremendous amount of work on the Bill. I also thank the Committee members who contributed to the Bill and all Members from across the House who have made it a much better Bill. I commend the Government on the work they have done towards finding consensus within the House on the Bill. I also thank all the organisations that have contributed to the Bill throughout its passage.
We have had a fantastic debate. I am disappointed that we have not managed to add new clause 14 to the Bill, but I hope the Minister was listening in particular to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) when she talked about the model of good housekeeping in the amendment we voted on. I hope the Minister will look at that and see how we can make progress on it in later stages.
Lady Hermon
I voted in support of new clause 14. I should like to say again on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland and those in my constituency that we want to be able to welcome refugee children just as much as England, Wales and especially Scotland, which has already done so much. If the Minister is going to look at this issue, will he also remember that the people of Northern Ireland would like to have been included in new clause 14? The new clause was lost, but I know that the Minister has taken note of it.
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Lady for reminding us of the great contribution that Northern Ireland makes to this place.
I echo the Minister’s points about the progress that has been made on relationships and sex education and on PSHE. This is a tremendous step forward, although there is still work to be done. Many of the Select Committee members who have taken part in the debates today have done a tremendous amount of work on this, and I commend them for that. I also welcome the Minister’s earlier contribution on new clause 3, which dealt with sibling contact. That is going to make a massive difference to vulnerable people. On new clause 7, we know that a cycle of deprivation can be created among vulnerable children, who can grow up to become vulnerable adults. If nothing else, we should be trying to break those cycles. That is where the cross-party efforts in this place to achieve a true meritocracy come in.
I want to mention clauses 32 to 39, the so-called innovation clauses. There was huge resistance to those measures from care leavers, adult survivors of abuse, social workers, academics, children’s rights campaigners and charities. The Together for Children coalition has 53 organisations, more than 160 individual experts and 108,000 signatures from concerned members of the public. On top of this, organisations as diverse as the Magistrates Association, the Law Society, the Family Law Bar Association, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the GMB trade union, which represents foster carers, as well as some of our oldest children’s charities, including Action for Children and the NSPCC, warned of the grave dangers to our country’s most vulnerable children and young people of allowing councils to opt out of their statutory duties. I therefore commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for accepting those arguments and removing the relevant chapters from the Bill.
On new clause 17, we have some concerns about the way in which the Secretary of State will decide to discharge her duties with respect to the registrar, and specifically about the extent to which Social Work England will be able to exercise the necessary independence with respect to accrediting the courses leading to registered social worker status. I hope the Minister will take note of those concerns.
I should like to end by echoing the comments of many Members throughout the passage of the Bill about the great unsung heroes who work in our children’s services. The Minister has rightly said that social workers make an important positive contribution to our communities. I must add that my niece is a social work manager who looks after children, and she does a tremendous job, as do every single one of the workers in that field. They are at the forefront of helping children, families and disabled and older adults who are distressed, in difficulty and perhaps in danger. Most of their work goes unseen, without recognition or celebration, but they deserve our thanks for the major contribution that they make every single day.
Mrs Miller
The Bill is groundbreaking in making sex and relationship education compulsory. The Government have listened to the evidence from Select Committees such as the Women and Equalities Committee, which I chair, and the Minister’s team is to be congratulated. The Bill will benefit millions of children, three quarters of whom believe that they will feel safer as a result of our decision this afternoon to give sex and relationship education a statutory basis. I thank the organisations that have supported and assisted the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I have done—Barnardo’s, Plan UK and Girlguiding are but a few.
When the amendments go to the other place, I hope that careful consideration is given to the fact that the sex and relationship education amendments were made without the need for a vote in this place owing to the cross-party consensus. The Bill is important in many respects, but it will be often cited in this place because of the progress made in that area. I again put on the record my personal thanks to the Minister for the work that he has done over a long period of time. He must be a very pleased man indeed.
Stuart C. McDonald
I congratulate everyone involved in the Bill’s progress. It is fair to say that I have come to it very late indeed, largely because my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) has other parliamentary duties to attend to today. I thank her for her contribution during the Bill’s passage. No one would argue with the Bill’s stated goals, but these issues are devolved matters, so I will leave it to Members from English constituencies to debate the extent to which those goals have been achieved.
There are two main clauses with implications for Scotland. The first is clause 10, which reinstates procedures to place children in secure accommodation in different parts of Great Britain. I agree with the shadow Minister that how those procedures operate in practice demands significant scrutiny. Transfers from one constituent part of Great Britain to another or placement in a secure unit should not be routine or the first option, but it is right that it should remain an option in appropriate circumstances.
The second is clause 40. Both the SNP here and the Scottish Government recognise the need for procedures to support staff in raising concerns to ensure a safe and secure environment in the children and social care sector. Any proposals that strengthen whistleblowing procedures and help to protect employees and service users across the public sector are welcome. We regret the missed opportunities for additional social security support for care leavers and for assessing the capacity of local authorities to safeguard children in new clause 14. However, I have no doubt that we will return to those issues in due course.
Tim Loughton
I come in at the end of the Bill’s progress, having been in at the beginning on Second Reading, but I want to pay tribute to the hard work that has gone into the Bill and to crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, in talking about something that did not make it into the legislation.
Having had experience of children’s Bills over the past 15 years or so, I find it interesting that they have a propensity to be hijacked by things not present on Second Reading that then become the headline in the final stages. True to form, that has happened again with amendments about sex and relationship education, which I fully support—I added my name to that amendment—and about child refugees, which I also support but which did not make it into the Bill in the form that some of us had hoped for. In many respects, that is a shame because it takes attention and focus away from the really important meat of the everyday experiences of vulnerable children, particularly those who find themselves in the care system through no fault of their own. Successive Governments have strived to do much and have achieved much for those children, but we still need to do much more. In welcoming the Bill, I draw the House’s attention to the really good things in it that we did not have much time to discuss today. They were perhaps the more important parts of the Bill as it went through its various stages.
I, too, welcome the addition of the sex and relationship educations clauses. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said, that is ground breaking. Some of us have banged our head against brick walls in various shadow ministerial and post-ministerial positions over many, many years, and the need for it is so screamingly obvious, yet, for all sorts of reasons that I have never quite understood, the measure fails to make it into legislation.
There is an increasing online threat to our children. Shockingly, they are being lured into many things with which we would never have been confronted in our teenage years—just a few years ago in your case, Madam Deputy Speaker, but slightly longer ago for others. Children are exposed to those threats on a daily basis, and the best way to give them defences against those threats must surely be, at an early age at school, to educate, inform, warn and support them against the hazards out in the wider world and the wider web.
By way of example, there was a shocking interview with a teenage girl on “Woman’s Hour” a few years ago. She had been in a relationship with a teenage boy—I think both were under the age of 16—and he had forced her to watch and act out violent pornographic videos, and she had gone along with it. It is shocking that, at her young age, she was under pressure to do that and that it was deemed to be common practice. What was really alarming is that, when the interviewer asked, “Why on earth didn’t you tell him to get lost and report him?” her response was, “Well, I didn’t think I had the right.” If sex and relationships education is anything, it is about giving confidence and empowering young people, particularly young women, that theirs is the choice to say yes or no, and theirs alone.
If we can develop what has now become part of the Bill into an empowerment exercise for our young people, so that they respect other young people and have the confidence to say no—with no meaning no—we will have done this generation of children and future generations a huge service. We have taken a major step forward with this Bill, although the step was not intended on Second Reading, but fortunately it made it in at the last moment with wide cross-party consensus, which is excellent.
The House of Lords is forming a habit of disagreeing with the House of Commons, but I hope that in this case it does not disagree with us. When Ministers formulate the important guidance that needs to go with this legislation, I urge them to be sensitive because this is a big move for many people that will need to be handled carefully and cautiously.
There are many other good things in the Bill, including the local offer for care leavers. In our debates on the Bill we have heard numerous times the figures on the poor outcomes for children in care and for care leavers. The very small proportion who make it to university shows that we still have a long way to go. There is still a large gap in the educational achievement of children in care and others. The gap has narrowed a little, but we need to go so much further. The Government’s support for children in care and adopted children through the pupil premium is a small part of trying to level the playing field.
I welcome the measures, some more controversial than others, on regulating social workers and the need for continuing professional development, but the problem remains that we have a growing shortage of experienced child protection social workers. Work by the all-party parliamentary group for children—I will allude to the study in a minute—shows huge divergences between the experiences in different local authorities. At its worst, one local authority has a 57% locum rate for child social workers. How on earth can we have continuity of care and empathy of care for deeply traumatised and vulnerable children when they are being looked after by non-permanent social workers? That is a huge challenge, and we still have a lot of work to do.
The refugee amendment did not make it into the Bill, but I hope that the spirit of that amendment, which had great support on both sides of the House and on which many undertakings were given by Ministers, will not be forgotten as the Bill’s measures are turned into practice.
Clauses 32 to 39, on the so-called powers to test different ways of working, are no longer in the Bill. I congratulate the Government, because this is a good example of their listening to people from across various professions—academics, practitioners, children’s charities, politicians and others, including me—who were seriously concerned about the huge principles that would have been at stake had the clauses passed into law. There are no parallels for allowing a local authority, or, indeed, other agencies to step outside primary or secondary legislation effectively at the whim of the Secretary of State of the day. That has not been tried with adults—there are no examples of parallels in the Care Act 2014, the Mental Health Act 2007 or the Mental Capacity Act 2005—so why on earth would the Government risk using vulnerable children as guinea pigs to experiment with a new model of working?
I am all in favour of innovation and of being creative in how we get better outcomes and better support for children who most need it, particularly in the care system, but I just do not think we need to remove primary and secondary legislation that has been built up since 1933, on a whim and without consultation. Whatever the safeguards we were promised, at the end of the day it would mean a postcode lottery for the rights of children and for the responsibilities towards those children of different local authorities, depending on when those children happened to be in care.
Back in 2010, one of the first things the coalition Government did in the Department for Education was to recruit Professor Eileen Munro and appoint her to head the complete overhaul of child protection social work. I was pleased and proud to be part of appointing her and implementing her recommendations. We reduced social work legislation from something like 760 pages in the “Working Together” manual, which had accrued over years and years during which the solution to better child protection was more legislation. In the end, that got in the way of social workers being able to use their professionalism, instincts and training to do the right thing by the child. Instead, they had constantly to look at the rule book and over their shoulders.
It was right that we reduced that rule book and that manual and gave greater freedoms and flexibility to social workers, but at no point did that require us, or was it required of us, to remove any of the duties that make up the safety net of primary and secondary legislation. Professor Munro never asked for it; we never considered it; and it was never done. It would have been absolutely inappropriate to do it now, so it was completely appropriate that Professor Munro did not give her support to the Government’s previous proposals. I am pleased that they have listened, and I am grateful to Lord Laming and Lord Mackay in the other place, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) today, for putting that message across to Ministers.
The Bill has to address the huge variations in practice and outcomes for vulnerable children in care throughout the country. The all-party group for children is about to produce a report on the state of children’s social care. Last year, the average rate of referrals to children’s services was 532 per 10,000 children in the local population. The lowest rate for a local authority was 187 and the highest was 753 per 10,000 children—that is a difference of nine times, just depending on where the child happened to be. Last year, the average national rate of children becoming subject to child protection plans was 54 per 10,000, but the lowest local authority rate was 16.5 and the highest was 180.5—a difference of 10 times. Our report highlights huge differences in experiences and outcomes for children in care, depending on what local authority they happen to live in. That is the biggest challenge that we face. We owe the same duty of care and responsibility to a vulnerable child in care regardless of whether he or she lives in Yorkshire, Sussex or Cornwall. Those clauses that are now no longer in the Bill would have just widened those differential experiences. The Government’s priority now must be to narrow those gaps to make sure that we are doing an ever better job for every child in care in every part of the country.
In closing, may I say that I welcome this Bill? I also welcome the fact that the Government have listened, that the debate has contributed to a great strengthening of some of the measures in this Bill and that some additional measures have been included, but, at the end of the day, we owe our thanks, our respect and our regard to the social workers on the frontline who do an exceedingly challenging job in very challenging circumstances, often dealing with very challenged children and families. We owe a duty of care, thanks and respect to the many foster carers and, increasingly, adoptive parents coming forward to give those children a second chance of a safe, stable and loving home. If there is one upside from our debate on refugees and the publicity about refugees, it is that more people have come forward to offer themselves as foster carers and adoptive parents both for refugee children coming to the county and for the indigenous children for whom we still have a large shortage of places in foster care and for adoption. Those are the people on the frontline who make the difference to children’s lives. We have a lot more to do. We owe much greater care to our vulnerable children, but this Bill is a very good step in making that achievable.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I very much agreed with the latter part of his remarks about the challenges, the so-called innovation clauses and the debt that we owe to social workers.
I realise that it is customary to make congratulatory remarks at this stage in the proceedings, but, to be perfectly honest, this is a good example of a piece of legislation that has really rather lost its way. As the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who is no longer in his place, put it earlier, the Minister said nothing to indicate that he had a problem with new clause 14, but he still urged his colleagues to vote against it. He was left looking like a Minister vulnerable to senior colleagues at the Home Office rather than the Minister for Vulnerable Children. [Interruption.] There you go, Minister. Never mind they will look after you.
The Minister then proposed new clause 15; his colleagues warned him to guard against smuggling sexual education content into relationship education. I welcome the comments of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), but surely the Minister either believes in such education to safeguard children in this day and age or he does not. I wonder whether new clause 16 will ever see the light of day or whether his more atavistic colleagues will have it kicked into the long grass before the election.
The Minister then formally deleted the entirety of what he was stoutly defending in Committee as the “innovation” clauses, but without a single word of explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) was typically charitable and generous to the Minister, but I am really keen that the House should hear why he changed his mind. I would love it if the House had some explanation for why these clauses, which he claimed had so much support from so many notable experts just a few months ago and were so essential to new and innovative approaches to children’s social care legislation, had to go. The House would like to hear what happened. Was he wrong in Committee? Has something changed his mind? It would not do him any harm to offer the House an explanation. It is good to know that the Government listen, but we would like to know what they were listening to, and what had an impact on them.
May I clarify, at this late stage, whether the provisions on training in Government new clause 17 include—[Interruption.] Yes, this is Third Reading, which I understand allows me to speak on the entire contents of the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: on Third Reading, he is perfectly entitled to debate anything in the Bill, but not anything that is not in the Bill; if he could restrict himself to the former, that would be great.
Steve McCabe
That is exactly what I am attempting to do, Madam Deputy Speaker; Government new clause 17 is in the Bill, and I want to ask whether it covers those doing initial training at higher education institutions, or whether the Government plan to exclude initial training from it.
I am sorry that this does not suit some Government Members, but if ever there was an example of the Government needing to prepare a bit more before rushing to legislate, it is the Bill. I do not for a second doubt the Minister’s good intentions, but it is absolutely clear, if one looks at the Bill from its start point to where we are now, that his Government are utterly confused in their objectives.
Kelly Tolhurst
It is a pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton); with his expertise and knowledge in this area, he has been a great source of information and guidance to me.
I was elected two years ago, and I have had great involvement with some of the most vulnerable children in the country, and particularly in my area. When I was a local councillor, I saw some of the decisions taken around the cabinet table on looked-after children; my sister is a social worker; and I continue to be an independent visitor for a looked-after child. I am extremely proud that this Conservative Government have brought forward a Bill that seeks to improve outcomes for our looked-after children and children in need. I pay tribute to the Ministers; it is because of their dedication to improving outcomes for our looked-after children that the Bill is being championed.
I welcome the Minister’s comments on sibling contact, including when the children are not looked after, although I have not once met a social worker or foster carer who has denied a young person in care an opportunity for contact with their siblings. I have seen some of the damage done by contact with parents. Parents have legislative rights to contact with their children, and I have seen really damaging outcomes from forcing newly looked-after children to have such contact, which they do not always want; I hope that that is always taken into account and that the best interests of children are always to the fore when decisions are taken.
On Second Reading, I welcomed the introduction of the local offer in the Bill, and I continue to do so today. I also supported the amendment that was brought forward. The local offer should always be about more than just financial support, and it should be more than a box-ticking exercise. In my experience, young people need guidance and support during their transition from being looked after to going it alone. From what I have seen, local authorities, due to budget burdens, will only ever deliver what they are statutorily obliged to deliver. Therefore, as we evaluate the implementation of the Bill, I would like to see greater prescription of the services we would like local authorities to provide for care leavers, which will hopefully take into account accommodation, training and finance.
Investment in our young people will always pay off. From my experience, people leaving care sometimes lack the necessary experiences and training, because they have often been wrapped in a safety blanket—more so than people’s biological children—so it is important that we do enough for young people in care to make sure that they are prepared. In some of the cases I have seen, that has not always taken place, and I hope we now have an opportunity to further the local offer.
I want to mention new clause 14 briefly. On Second Reading, one Opposition Back Bencher made a speech; I was pleased the Chamber was a lot fuller earlier, when we spoke about refugees, than it was on Second Reading. However, I would have liked to have seen a real championing of the need to find foster carers and social workers to look after the children we are already struggling to place in some parts of the country. We are not selling the fact that becoming a foster carer is an amazing thing to do. We also need an acceptance that when somebody becomes a foster carer, there is a mountain of assessment and training to go through before they are, quite rightly, qualified to look after young people. It is exactly the same in relation to unaccompanied young minors, and it is right that we have the same high standards for them. I therefore welcome what the Minister said about reporting to Parliament, but the way we look after refugees and our looked-after children must be on a par.
We have seen increased referrals, especially to independent fostering agencies. Speaking from my own experience, we often see large numbers of referrals in Kent of young people from London, and we have also seen that with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We hear that many local authorities around the country have capacity, and I hope they will continue to support counties such as Kent. I hope they will take part in the national transfer scheme and help Kent, as well as Croydon and other London boroughs.
Let me turn to the clauses that were removed from the Bill today. In some parts of the country, as I have outlined, there is great demand for intervention and support for looked-after children and children in need. We have seen growing demand for intervention for young people, especially those with complex needs. The strain on local authorities in terms of providing high-quality support and placements is still there. There is great variation in the quality of service and practice throughout the country, as my hon. Friend outlined, and outcomes for our young people remain poor.
I welcome the fact that the Government have the desire to get behind innovation in the children’s social care system and to drive and encourage the reviewing and sharing of best practice. I am sure this is not the end and that the Government will continue to look at ways in which they can improve things, because the Minister is extremely passionate about doing what he can for young people in our care. I would like to see vast improvement across the country in the delivery of children’s social care. This should not be—I am glad it will not be—the preserve of local authorities that may have been judged to be good; it must happen in other parts of the country where innovation is much needed.
I look forward to the Minister making further proposals on meaningful reform, after consultation with frontline professionals and care deliverers. For example, I would like IROs—independent reviewing officers—to become truly independent of local authorities, enabling them to make decisions and face challenges on the outcomes for our looked-after children without the demands of budgetary pressures. We still need to tackle social workers’ caseloads because there is such a vast difference in the number of cases that social workers will have in different local authority areas. Local authorities are struggling to keep up with demand, and when there is higher demand, caseloads are greater. We need to protect our workforce and enable them to carry out their role knowing that they are safe when doing so, with the personal capacity to deliver good-quality services to the young people they are charged with looking after.
There is a high burn-out rate for professionals dealing with child protection cases, and many social workers are leaving frontline social work due to the stresses involved. Local authorities are relying heavily on agency workers, and this impacts on the continuity of some of the decision making that takes place subsequently. In turn, there is lots of churn in the system. I have seen examples where looked-after children may have 10 to 12 different social workers over a very short period, and that is just not right. We need to be bold. I hope that the Government come forward with further recommendations and further work in this area, and I am confident that that will happen.
My final point is about social worker regulation. Social workers, in my opinion, have never had the credit that they deserve. They are sometimes the forgotten public servants. They are vilified when something goes wrong, but we never hear about all the good work they are doing day in, day out in protecting families. Social Work England is a positive way forward. Social workers need a stand-alone body to make sure that they are held in the high regard that they deserve. I would like the Secretary of State and Ministers to work with the professional bodies to make sure that the qualifications and continual professional development is right and is acceptable for these workers. It is true that we see variations in the standard and quality of the delivery of social worker practice among individual social workers. I have had some first-hand experience of that.
Although there is some concern from the profession about these changes, I really do believe that they rightly put social workers in the position that they deserve. I hope that the Government will continue to work with them to make sure that they, as a profession, can continue to carry out their job knowing that the Government—this Conservative Government—are fully behind them and all that they are doing for young people in this country.
Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)
I very much support the ambitions of this Bill. As we have all seen, there have been a number of changes during its passage. I want to be assured by the ministerial team that, notwithstanding those changes, we are monitoring the outcomes of safeguarding for those in residential care and those in boarding schools—not just those sent because of the care system but those who attend. Some of my constituents have raised concerns about that. I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments.
Edward Timpson
I can offer my hon. Friend that reassurance. The care plan outcomes of every child who is in care have to be closely monitored to make sure that, whatever their setting, they are achieving what the plan sets out. Of course, I am happy to discuss that with her further and to provide her with more detail about how we can do that in the future and keep a close eye on the issues that she has rightly raised.
Victoria Borwick
I thank the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
United Kingdom Statistics Authority
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
I beg to move,
That this House endorses the nomination of Sir David Norgrove for appointment as Chair of the United Kingdom Statistics Authority.
May I first offer my thanks to Sir Andrew Dilnot, who has performed the role very commendably over the past five years? I truly believe that his initiative has driven all of us to think more critically about statistics and how we can make better use of them.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for his help in the selection process. I am pleased that that process, which included a pre-appointment scrutiny session before the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, has identified in Sir David Norgrove an outstanding candidate and a worthy successor to Sir Andrew Dilnot.
I, like the Committee, am convinced that Sir David has both the professional and the personal qualities necessary to make an excellent chair of the UK Statistics Authority. I commend the motion to the House.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Before I turn to the nomination of Sir David Norgrove as chair of the UK Statistics Authority, I should like to echo the Minister’s tribute to the outgoing chair, Sir Andrew Dilnot. In so doing, I want to acknowledge two important contributions.
First, the outgoing chair, Sir Andrew Dilnot, has, as noted by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in its report published in January, worked tirelessly over the past five years in maintaining both the independence and the overall excellence of the UK Statistics Authority. There is no better example of that approach to independence than when Sir Andrew took the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the current Health Secretary to task for presenting to the public misleading figures on supposed increases in NHS spending.
I note how, in the four years that have followed, the Government have been less than attentive to Sir Andrew’s concerns, but it is important to recognise the impartiality that the role brings to challenging the spin and the misuse of data and statistics to which all politicians, if we are honest, succumb from time to time. If we look back over his term, we will see that Sir Andrew has performed his public duties robustly and with complete impartiality, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to him for his public service.
Secondly, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and the Select Committee on Public Accounts under her leadership for their engagement in the appointment process. In an age where terms such as “fake news” are bandied around regularly, it is more important than ever that we have an independent, rigorous and reliable official statistics body.
It is also important in the current climate that the public have faith in such an institution. A 2014 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life found that only 30% of the general public had confidence in Parliament as a public institution, which amplifies the new chair’s task in maintaining the rigid independence demanded by his post. The public deserve accurate statistics, free from political interference, and Members on both sides of the House must do more to ensure that the public have total confidence on the issues that matter most.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I assure the shadow Minister and the Minister that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee gave full consideration to ensuring that there is a worthy successor to the current chair of the UK Statistics Authority. As the shadow Minister says, it is vital that the public have faith in public statistics. Does he agree that a key job of the new chair may be to challenge statistics presented in UK referendums? We are aware that the country may face another referendum in Scotland. Some of the statistics used in the EU referendum could usefully have been challenged by the chair of the Statistics Authority.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are talking about the misuse of statistics and data not just within the parliamentary forum, but in elections. He mentioned the EU referendum, in which the origin and robustness of the statistic about health spending post Brexit, in particular, were quite questionable. I share his view on that.
In respect of Sir David’s professional competence, I agree with the Committee’s report that his extensive experience makes him highly suitable for the role of the chair of the UK Statistics Authority. As the Minister noted, Sir David Norgrove has had a distinguished career, most recently as the chair of the Low Pay Commission, where his leadership in support of campaigns for the national living wage and national minimum wage has been crucial. In addition to that experience, he has also chaired the Pensions Regulator, and that will stand him in good stead in driving forward the structural changes needed in the Statistics Authority, as laid out in the Bean review.
We are convinced that Sir David’s skills and professional background as chair of two highly regarded and statistically driven public bodies will allow him effectively to oversee the twin tasks of statistical production and strictly regulating Government statistics and the veracity of Departments’ claims. Throughout his career, Sir David has been unafraid to question authority when those with power threatened to abuse or distort the process. That was seen when he famously faced down Sir Philip Green after the retail entrepreneur tried to buy Marks & Spencer with a bid that jeopardised the solvency of the pension scheme. Sir David’s record speaks for itself, and I am therefore satisfied—and rather hopeful about the fact—that he will bring the same toughness and fairness to challenging the Government’s use of statistics.
The Opposition are less concerned about the suitability of Sir David for the role in question than they are about the lack of diversity in the wider appointment process, which gives the impression of a closed system. Of the 14 candidates who applied for the chairperson’s position, only three were women and 11 were men. Added to that, all three previous authority chairs have been white, male and Oxbridge-educated. The Labour party recognises the quality that diversity can bring to both the selection and appointment processes, and we urge the Government to take steps to ensure that future candidates are from as diverse a pool as possible to ensure that every part of Britain is represented and that each person has an equal opportunity to aspire to the highest posts in the land.
The post involves the significant responsibility of promoting and safeguarding the production and publication of official figures that serve the public good. Sir David has already made it clear how crucial it is to have consistency in how the Government produce their figures. The appointment of a new chair of the board of the UK Statistics Authority is extremely important. We need a candidate who can maintain the code of practice for official statistics and ensure that Government figures are produced and presented to the highest standards of independence and integrity. We share the view of the Government and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that in Sir David Norgrove we have a candidate who can rise to that challenge.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
SNP Members welcome the appointment of Sir David, and we certainly wish him well in his future role as chair of the UK Statistics Authority. However, we have some concerns about the UK Statistics Authority’s rather narrow approach to the way in which it reviews and undertakes a critique of the statistics used by the Government and others.
Tomorrow, we will be faced with the Budget. I predict that it will have forecasts from the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility, and may possibly even throw in the odd forecast from the Bank of England. One thing that will be true of every forecast produced by all those bodies is that not a single confidence interval will be mentioned. We know that their forecasts are consistent—consistently wrong and always need revision, partly because the models used are inappropriate.
I notice in the description of the UK Statistics Authority that part of its task is to make sure statistics are available to aid Government decision making, which is a very worthy purpose. I have struggled to find any expertise in, for example, Bayesian statistics that could be used as decision aids. That is possibly because the Government do not use any statistical decision aids in their decision making. I think there is a long way to go in developing the authority to provide the kind of critique that will realistically help the Government both now and in the future. For that future, however, we wish Sir David well.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I rise as a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which scrutinised the appointment, to give a warm welcome to Sir David’s appointment. I pay tribute to his predecessor, Sir Andrew Dilnot, for his work, which did well in holding the Government to account and ensuring that statistics were used reasonably when debating the NHS.
It is a difficult time for politics for us all. We have come through a referendum campaign, during which various statements and assertions were made on both sides of the debate. At the forefront of the minds of members of the Committee when scrutinising the appointment was the need to ensure that we had a new chair who would scrutinise the use of statistics in future referendum campaigns. It does credit to nobody in the House to see statistics potentially misused in referendum debates that captivated the mind and votes of the overwhelming majority of the public. The shadow Minister quite rightly outlined some of the concerns about NHS spending that were raised by those on one side of the referendum debate, while other perhaps somewhat exaggerated claims were made by those on the other side of the debate. No matter which side of the debate we have sympathy with, we can recognise that the referendum campaign did no credit to the use of statistics. It is important to have an independent chair—I am sure Sir David will fulfil that role—and I hope that that will restore some public faith in the independent challenge offered to the misuse of statistics in the future.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I, too, congratulate Sir David. However, I want to pick up the point that the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly made about the importance of looking closely at statistics during elections and referendums. May I add to that list by encouraging the authority, under its new chair, to look at the statistics that may well be claimed by Sinn Féin for a border poll in Northern Ireland? This is not just about referendums and elections, but about such a border poll. It is very important indeed that propaganda perpetuated by Sinn Féin and the popularity of Sinn Féin do not lead—unexpectedly, and without any good reason—to a border poll in Northern Ireland. The authority should look at that.
Dr Poulter
The hon. Lady is absolutely right in her comment. She may be reassured by the fact that, when scrutinising the appointment, members of the Committee asked Sir David directly about his approach to the issues involved in his scrutiny of another possible referendum in Scotland and of debates in all devolved parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland and Wales. He assured our Committee that he will be keeping a keen eye on these issues. We are very aware of the recent concerns that may have manifested themselves as a result of the election results at the weekend. I am sure that Sir David will be mindful of that as he comes into post. When we have what are sometimes emotive debates, it is vital that the public can have faith that there is an independent authority that will hold politicians to account. It is important that that happens in Northern Ireland and, indeed, elsewhere.
I am sure that another pressing issue on Sir David’s mind will be ensuring that claims that may be made in a future Scottish referendum are properly scrutinised. I remember that there were a lot of discussions about North sea oil and its potential revenues during the last referendum debate. I am sure that he will be mindful of that when taking up his position. When there is a referendum, or an important debate of that nature, the public must have faith that politicians are in no way willingly misleading the public, although they may exaggerate statistics. We would not wish to do that in this House, and we should not do it in debates outside this place.
The Committee was satisfied that in Sir David we have a new chair who meets those criteria, will be a robust defender of the correct use of statistics and will hold Executives—and, indeed, political parties—in all parts of the United Kingdom to account when they make claims in referendum campaigns.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman even though he was not here at the beginning of the debate. We are not short on time and he has promised that he will be brief.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for being late; the earlier business finished much sooner than I expected so I was caught short, so to speak.
As I chaired the confirmation hearing for Sir David at the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I thought it would be appropriate to say a few words. We thought he was the right person for the job and strongly approve of him. He has some great predecessors. Sir Michael Scholar, the first chair, challenged the Government over misuse of statistics, and we want the chair to take a strong line with the Government or any other official body that makes light of official statistics. Sir Andrew Dilnot, who is coming to the end of his term, is a great friend and another great communicator with broadcasting and so on in statistical matters. He is an excellent chair. Sir David has two great predecessors to follow. I am sure that he will measure up and do a good job, but I hope that the UK Statistics Authority continues to hold the Government to account if they misbehave.
Question put and agreed to.
Standing Orders (Public Business)
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 239 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)
I beg to move,
That:
(1) In Standing Order No. 83S(3)(c), after the paragraph (4A) treated as inserted in
Standing Order No. 83J, insert-
“(4B) In addition, a clause or schedule-
(a) relates exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and
(b) is within devolved legislative competence,
if it does nothing other than set one or more of the main rates of income tax for a
tax year.”;
(2) In Standing Order No. 83S(3)(d), at the end insert “and”;
(3) In Standing Order No. 83S(3), omit sub-paragraph (f), and the “and” preceding it;
(4) In Standing Order No. 83T(2)(c), for “, (7) and (12)” substitute “and (7)”; and
(5) In Standing Order No. 83U(8), for “(4A), (7) and (12)” substitute “(4B) and (7)”.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Scotland Act 2016 received Royal Assent last year. The Act provides the Scottish Parliament with the power to set its own rates and thresholds of income tax. For that reason, the Government announced in the 2016 Budget changes to the structure of income tax intended to ensure that from the Finance Bill 2017 onwards, a clause setting the main rates of income tax would be certified under the English votes procedures. In other words, the consent of hon. Members from constituencies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be required for any income tax matters that affected their constituents and that did not affect Scottish taxpayers. The necessary legislative changes to achieve this were made in the Finance Act 2016, and mean that from April this year, these UK main rates will no longer affect Scottish taxpayers.
The technical amendments to Standing Orders before us will ensure that provisions setting the main rates of income tax will be subject to a certification decision by the Speaker now that the Scottish rates of income tax are set by the Scottish Parliament. It will mean that the Standing Orders on which Parliament has already voted will work as originally intended, but now taking account of the new element of the Scotland Act 2016.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am grateful to the ever-generous Leader of the House. If the Chancellor were to come to the Dispatch Box and deliver a Finance Bill in which he said that the rates of income tax in England and Wales would alter and that, on that basis a different set of taxes, which were still reserved, would be altered—national insurance, for example—would this English votes for English laws clause be appropriate?
Mr Lidington
It would be a matter for certification by the Speaker. As in all other such matters as provided for already under our Standing Orders, the Speaker’s test has to be whether the content of the clause or amendment under discussion is devolved to Scotland—or, for that matter, to another part of the United Kingdom—and then, in addition, whether the subject-matter before the House at that time is the sole province of English, Welsh or Northern Irish Members.
Mr Lidington
I shall not give way again; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is important that this small technical change is made in time for this year’s Budget and Finance Bill. As hon. Members know, the Budget statement is due tomorrow, so that is why we are bringing this change to the Standing Orders before the House now.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House and I appreciate that he has said that there has to be an amendment to Standing Order 83S. Doubts have been raised as to whether under the current provisions of Standing Orders, the main rate of income tax under the Finance Bill will definitely be certified as English only, particularly when this comes with partially devolving income tax to the Scottish Parliament this year.
However, this is a point of principle and Her Majesty’s Opposition oppose EVEL, which in our view is poorly conceived, a knee-jerk reaction and a constitutional disaster. It risks dividing the UK, rather than allowing devolved Governments to work together for the benefit of the whole UK. The Labour leader in Scotland, Kezia Dugdale, has more recently called for a “constitutional convention”, which is the position we support. If the Government had listened to these suggestions, the House would not be in the position of having to amend Standing Orders—both now and possibly in the future. For these reasons, Her Majesty’s Opposition oppose the motion.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
This is the second time this afternoon that I have debated English votes for English laws on the Floor of the House, and I have to say that I did not expect to be speaking conclusively on EVEL on either of these occasions. It is always a pleasure to address some of the issues surrounding English votes for English laws.
SNP Members see this very much as a technical change to the Standing Orders, and we are quite surprised that we are getting into a general debate about the whole insidious package of English votes for English laws. I totally understand Labour’s concerns, and there are good reasons to be concerned, but it seems a curious environment in which to be having some of these debates about EVEL just now.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is the very distinguished Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee on which I serve. For clarity, will he re-emphasise that he and his party previously supported English votes for English laws?
Pete Wishart
I am happy to confirm that we believe conclusively that English Members should of course be responsible for all their own measures, and we agree that it is up to English Members to determine their own legislation and their own policy. We have a very elegant solution for that, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows exactly what territory we are getting into with that. English votes for English laws is simply the wrong way to do that. As a package, it has been utterly divisive in this House and has been supported by absolutely no one other than the Government themselves, so I think it should be reviewed. I shall come on to that later, and I will allow him to come into the debate again if he thinks it necessary.
Let me address what is before us now. When it comes to these changes to the Standing Orders, we need to recognise the fact that the Scotland Act 2016 devolved to the Scottish Parliament the right to set the main rates of income tax—and thank goodness for that. This was agreed between the party of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and my party in the Smith Commission, and we are grateful to know that the rates of income tax are now a responsibility for the Scottish Parliament. That is a good and positive thing, which we very much welcome.
We see the motion as a recognition of our legislative authority on rates of income tax and as a tidying up exercise. If anything—I am loth to concede this to the Leader of the House—it is helpful in clarifying the new arrangements on Standing Orders relating to English votes for English laws. That is why I am surprised that Labour has decided to have a real debate and conversation tonight about EVEL. I am always happy to debate EVEL. I am just surprised that Labour has chosen this evening to conduct such a debate.
The changes take account of the fact that there might, in future, be resolutions or pieces of legislation relating to main income tax rates that are specific to England, or to England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not Scotland, because those matters have been properly devolved. It also makes changes to ensure certainty on who are and who are not Scottish taxpayers. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South will remember the tortuous conversations we had on trying to identify who are and who are not Scottish taxpayers. The changes will clarify that a touch and are therefore reasonably helpful in that regard.
There is much about English votes for English laws that SNP Members do not like. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that our issues with EVEL are many and manifest. No one understands what on earth is going on. We just had a Legislative Grand Committee. The bell went off, the Mace went down and the Mace went back up again, and not one Member from England had got to his or her feet to contribute. I have the House of Commons record for contributions in Legislative Grand Committees. In fact, I have spoken twice as much in LGCs as all the English Members put together, yet we were told that EVEL was an absolute necessity, a burning issue that concerned and consumed the shires of Englandshire as they were revolting about me and my hon. Friends coming down and voting on all their precious legislation. And what do we get when they actually have the opportunity to discuss this? Absolute and utter silence! That is why we say again that English votes for English laws are unnecessary. They are burdensome to this House and cumbersome to the way we do business. More than anything else, they divide this House on the basis of nationality and geography. It is on that basis that we profoundly disagree with the whole idea of English votes for English laws.
Now that is all well and good—I am looking at you, Madam Deputy Speaker, getting edgy and tetchy about where I am going with this—but in our view this is not the place to have this debate. I am surprised at Labour’s lack of understanding about what is being pitched by the Government. As the Leader of the House says, this is a technical change to Standing Orders. I understand that the Labour party will press the motion to a Division. I will support Labour on that as I will oppose English votes for English laws at any opportunity, but I know that the Leader of the House finds it very curious that Labour has decided that this will be a matter of principle on which to vote this evening.
English votes for English laws is an absolute disaster. This is nothing to do with the Leader of the House, bless him; this is all about his predecessor’s charge to bring this forward to the House without any due regard to its impact on our business. It is wrong. It does not work. The House does not require it and it does not satisfy anybody. It does not satisfy us in Scotland. It certainly does not satisfy English Members, who have not contributed one peep to English Legislative Grand Committees. This is an opportunity for the Leader of the House. Yes, go ahead with the technical changes. There is no real issue from us on them, but he will not get the support of the House on EVEL. He has seen all the reviews and reports and it manifestly does not work. It sits awkwardly with the idea of a unitary UK Parliament, where every single Member should be equal. This may be the wrong place to have that fight, but on EVEL we are in the trenches and will support Labour this evening.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) says about how EVEL was brought to this House. It is an unnecessary change to Standing Orders, because the Conservatives and the Government have a majority in both England and Wales, and across the UK. They do not have to use this process to get legislation through. All it has done, as the Conservatives have done consistently over the past few years, is create more division, which the SNP—if SNP Members do not mind me saying—thrives on in this House.
That brings me to the motion and the Standing Order. We have now added to English votes for English laws the issue of income tax. I am delighted that income tax has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It is a shame that members of the Scottish National party, who have spent their entire lives fighting for more powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, failed to use that in their most recent Budget, because they did not want a differential between Scottish and English rates. That is the irony of the position.
Adding the income tax issue to the EVEL provisions, Madam Deputy Speaker, not only undermines the principle of the House, but puts pressure on you, and on Mr Speaker’s office, to determine, when dealing with a Finance Bill, whether a provision should indeed be invoked under the EVEL regulations. That means—this is why I intervened on the Leader of the House earlier—that an individual clause in the Finance Bill could rightly say, “We will set the following rates of income tax as part of the Finance Bill for England and Wales,” but the Chancellor could come to the Dispatch Box tomorrow and, hypothetically, say, “We will reduce income tax by x pence in the pound, and we will pay for it with an increase in national insurance.” The income tax rates in the Finance Bill will be in a separate clause, and that will then have to be determined by Mr Speaker and his office, but the national insurance increases will be in another part of the Bill that will not be subject to EVEL.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am loth to bring this up, but I am holding a copy of the Standing Orders of February 2016, which specifically mention the Scottish rate of income tax. That was already in the EVEL Standing Orders presented by the Leader of the House previously. This is just a technical change in the language. Has the hon. Gentleman read the Standing Order?
Ian Murray
It seems to me that SNP Members agree with English votes for English laws and do not want to defend the principle that we are against them, or they want to vote with the Government this evening, or they want to abstain. I am not quite sure what they are doing. However, if I heard the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire correctly, he is going to vote with the Labour party against the motion. I am not sure where the hon. Lady stands on that argument, but the point I am trying to make is simply about division and unnecessary complication in the House. The Government’s majority will see any Finance Bill that they wish to present before the next general election—whenever that may be—through the House, because that is the way in which Governments and majorities work. If the Government have a problem with their own Back Benchers when they are trying to change income tax rates, that is entirely fine.
The hon. Lady was right to raise the point that she has just made, but let me gently say to her that we wanted to debate this matter today because it is the first opportunity that we have had to return to the EVEL regulations. It does not make sense for it to be possible to invoke this procedure in the context of income tax.
That brings us to the great repeal Bill and what will come back from the European Union. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has raised that issue on a number of occasions. What will happen then? Will more technical changes be made by means of statutory instruments and Standing Orders to determine whether provisions are subject to English votes for English laws? We do not even know where some of the powers will lie when they are repatriated. It is important to note that none of these issues were examined in depth at the time of the McKay commission’s proposals. There was no consideration of the impact and the knock-on effect of the provisions on the way in which the House operates.
On four separate occasions, under the premiership of Gordon Brown, the Scottish National party asked for English votes for English laws. In fact, they used the term “EVEL”. Then, after 2015—I do not know what happened in 2015; they must have won more seats—SNP Members became opposed to English votes for English laws. Now they are reluctantly voting against this measure. I think the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire just said that he profoundly disagreed with it as a matter of principle, but was not sure whether he would vote against it. He seemed to be saying that these were merely technical changes.
On top of all that, the greatest anomaly in all the regulations, including the one that is before us now, is that even when the hon. Gentleman has sprung up in that strange Committee where the Mace goes down, Madam Deputy Speaker moves to the Chair to take the proceedings and no one speaks, and when he has—invariably, and quite rightly—railed against English votes for English laws, SNP Members do not vote when they are allowed to do so, on Third Reading. They are, in practice, demonstrating English votes for English laws in any event.
I remember the circumstances surrounding the housing Bill where the EVEL provisions were put in place for the first time in this House. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly railed against EVEL, and we supported him on that, but then the SNP Members did not vote on the Third Reading of the Bill in any case, when they were entitled to, so I am not quite sure where the principles of that lie, or whether or not the hon. Gentleman should have been voting on the housing Bill.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Of course we support the principle of English votes for English laws and its ultimate logical conclusion of independence, but does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a difference between supporting that concept in principle and this dog’s breakfast of Standing Orders that were brought forward in such a rush after 2015? It is these procedures that we have an issue with, not the principle of English votes for English laws.
Ian Murray
And that is quite right: it is a dog’s breakfast, which is why I am so surprised that the hon. Gentleman’s spokesperson on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, did not rail against this particular dog’s breakfast, but instead welcomed this technical change and is not quite sure whether he will vote for it or against it or abstain on it this evening. If it is a dog’s breakfast and a matter of principle, let us try to fight these changes at every possible turn, of which this is a great and ideal opportunity in this House this evening.
I will conclude by saying what the alternative is for the Government. Let us take away all these changes to Standing Orders—the mess that the Leader of the House is making of the constitution—and get to a point whereby we have a set of constitutional arrangements in this House that work for the UK. We have called for a constitutional convention that would look at all these issues—the House of Lords and everything we do in terms of the constitution—and do it through a sensible and pragmatic approach, where we can look at everything in the round and come out with something the public want. It is time we started bringing the country together: no more division, no more separating different classes of MPs, no more bringing Standing Orders to this House that merely set one MP off against another. Let us work together to try and find a set of circumstances that work for the entirety of this House. It seems to me that when this Conservative Government talk about taking back control, they are not talking about taking back control to the people of this country; they are talking about taking back control for themselves, and that is the principle behind all these English votes for English laws.
This is a dog’s breakfast and it does not work, as has been highlighted time and again in this House. It is a waste of this House’s time to have to go through the process of a Committee to address whether or not we have English votes for English laws. It is inelegant and we will be voting against this this evening, to send a strong message that we as Members of Parliament are all one in this House, and the Government must go back and think again about what they are doing to the procedures in this famous House of Commons.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise my voice in opposition once again to the procedure known as English votes for English laws. The acronym EVEL seems very appropriate from my point of view, if I may say so. It is deeply divisive, demeaning and humiliating for MPs from Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish constituencies to be told repeatedly that this is the United Kingdom, given that although when the Prime Minister took over the reins of power from David Cameron on 13 July last year she spoke about wanting to bind together the parts of the United Kingdom, the continued use of EVEL certainly does not do that.
I have a very high regard for the Leader of the House. In a previous role he was a spokesperson for Northern Ireland—a spokesman, rather; I will allow him to be a spokesman—and he will therefore be very sensitive indeed to how divisive English votes for English laws and its continuation in this House is, particularly after Brexit. None of us in this House should be under any illusions as to how the circumstances in Northern Ireland have changed. That is evidenced by the Northern Ireland Assembly election on Thursday. A reduced number of MLAs was returned—90—and the Democratic Unionist party, which dominated for so long, now has a majority of just one over Sinn Féin, the republican party. Sinn Féin’s vote went up dramatically. I am not speaking for Sinn Féin—I am speaking as a Unionist—but I am reflecting to the House the seriousness of the situation. With the greatest respect to the Prime Minister, for whom I have great respect, her first call of duty yesterday morning should have been to Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, to reassure the people there that it was firmly within the United Kingdom. That opportunity has now passed.
It behoves this Government to look at ways and means of binding together a very disunited United Kingdom post-Brexit. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House and to the Government, the continuation of the procedure known as English votes for English laws is counterproductive. It unnecessarily drives a wedge between MPs in this House. The Conservative Government have a majority. Indeed, they increased it in a recent by-election, and their new Member was greeted with great applause last Wednesday. I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) on her election.
I urge the Leader of the House and his Government to take a long, hard look at the consequences of perpetuating the procedure of English votes for English laws, not just through the issue before the House tonight but when the great repeal Bill comes before the House. He will know that I asked him, in a written question, whether Standing Orders—including the EVEL procedure—would be applied to the great repeal Bill, and I had a perfect parliamentary reply. It told me virtually nothing, except that the great repeal Bill would be the subject of Standing Orders.
The Government can no longer turn their eyes away from what is happening in Northern Ireland. They must take seriously the consequences of last week’s Northern Ireland Assembly election. One way of doing that successfully would be to bring back equality and respect in this House for all Members who stood at the general election on the same day. I stood in the general election in Northern Ireland. I did not explain to my electorate who returned me—because I did not know that I would have to—that my vote would be disregarded when the Government decided to apply English votes for English laws. This is wrong. Let us please wake up to the consequences of Brexit and to the consequences of perpetuating the divisions within our country by using EVEL when it is wholly unnecessary to do so.
The only kind words that I can add are to commend those who provided the explanatory memorandum to the motion on the Order Paper. The motion is so threadbare that it is impossible to understand what aspect of Standing Orders we were to debate, so I commend the officials who drafted the explanatory memorandum. I would have liked the Leader of the House to take the opportunity to do so as well. Perhaps he will do so in his closing remarks. Without that explanatory memorandum, no one—but no one—would have been able to understand what we were voting for without a crystal ball. That is inappropriate. We need to understand what we are going to vote on. My message is loud and clear to the Leader of the House, whom I respect, and I expect him to come back at some stage, having considered—with his boss, the Prime Minister—how we in this Parliament are going to bind up the wounds that undoubtedly exist throughout this country.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I first saw these proposed changes to Standing Orders on the Order Paper last Tuesday and, as any competent, capable parliamentarian would do, I decided to find out what they meant. I spoke to the Clerks and to the more senior members in my group. I also went to the Leader of the House’s office and asked his officials to produce an explanatory memorandum, so that we could understand the changes that were being made and the reasons behind them. Having spoken to the Clerks, I realised that these were in fact fairly innocuous changes that were intended to tighten up the language.
I am against English votes for English laws. I do not like the way the arrangements have been implemented through Standing Orders. I do not think that that was the right way to bring forward such a significant constitutional change in this House. It has shown up at least one technical problem with the drafting. That is a concern, and it would not have arisen had we had proper scrutiny and primary legislation to make the change. I am against EVEL because of how it has been implemented. I am against the fact that significant decisions can be taken on things that have a major impact on Scotland’s public finances and on Barnett consequentials without Scottish Members being able to take a full part in the debate and have a full say in the votes. That is not right, and the change was not an appropriate way to implement EVEL.
We were reassured by the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), that Scottish Members would be able to have a full say in the financial processes and the departmental budgets in the estimates process, but the estimates process is utterly rubbish. It does not allow MPs in this House, whether Back-Bench Conservatives or anybody in the Opposition, to scrutinise departmental budgets. The only people who have a say over departmental budgets are those in the Treasury. The Treasury puts them forward in the form of estimates, which we are not allowed to debate. We were promised that we would still have our say under EVEL on all the financial implications through the estimates process. If the Government are to change EVEL, instead of the change they are making today they should make meaningful changes to allow Scottish MPs to have a say on things that have a financial impact on Scotland’s public finances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that income tax has been “properly devolved”, which is an interesting phrase, particularly in this context. The Standing Order allows for decisions around the main rates of income tax, which are wholly devolved, to be classed under EVEL. I do not like EVEL at all and I do not think that we should have EVEL, but if we are going to have it, it is probably sensible to have it on something that does not have direct impact on Scotland’s public finances.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned the great repeal Bill, which is important in this context. The great repeal Bill cannot be subject to EVEL, and the Leader of the House should bring a further amendment to the Standing Orders or commit to suspend the Standing Order when we discuss the great repeal Bill, because it is not appropriate for Standing Orders relating to EVEL to apply during the great repeal Bill. Scottish Members should absolutely have a say at all its stages. We are being dragged out of the European Union against our will, and we should have a say in the great repeal Bill.
Patrick Grady
My hon. Friend is making an important point. We have always been worried about the EVEL Standing Orders placing the Chair in an invidious position. Will that not increase if the Scotland Office, and the Government as a whole, cannot be clear about what powers will be devolved to Scotland in the event of Brexit? The Scotland Act sets out that if something it not reserved, it is devolved, but if the UK Government start to legislate, how on earth will the Chair know whether something should be subject to the EVEL process?
Kirsty Blackman
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly clever point. The waters are muddy, because the Secretary of State for Scotland has not been clear about what will actually be devolved. He keeps saying that more things will be devolved, but he has been utterly unclear about whether agriculture and fishing will be devolved. The Chair will be in an even worse position when making decisions about the great repeal Bill due to the mud in the water.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire and the shadow Leader of the House said that this is a matter of principle. I get that. I am against EVEL and do not think it should have been implemented in this way. We should not have a constitutional convention; we should have independence. If the Labour party is so concerned about voting against the Government on matters of principle, I suggest that the one to have started with would have been the article 50 Brexit vote.
Mr Lidington
With the leave of the House, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) enjoys huge respect on both sides of the House for the way in which she has championed peace and political reconciliation in Northern Ireland. We all take seriously her concerns about the current fragile political situation there. Both the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are working as hard as they can to bring about reconciliation, and they will want to listen to her views and the views of other Northern Ireland colleagues in the days and weeks ahead.
The hon. Members for North Down and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) both asked about the application of the Standing Order No. 83 tests to the repeal Bill. One reason for my reluctance to go into great detail is simply that the repeal Bill has not yet been published. I can give a measure of reassurance that the repeal Bill will seek to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and convert European law into UK law, which is not a matter that could relate only to England or only to England and Wales. It therefore strikes me as very unlikely that EVEL would apply to the Bill, and even more so when one considers the tests that Mr Speaker is required under the Standing Orders to apply to Bills, or to clauses of Bills, when considering the application of Standing Order No. 83.
To be treated under the EVEL procedures, a Bill or a clause has to deal with a devolved matter—in most cases, the procedures apply to matters devolved to Scotland. The repeal Bill will address the cessation of the application to the UK of an international treaty, and international treaties, as the whole House knows, are expressly reserved to the United Kingdom Government and Parliament in all three devolution settlements.
It is difficult to see how the EVEL procedures could apply to matters under the repeal Bill, but I will be cautious about that until the day when the repeal Bill is published and everybody can inspect it.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate that the Leader of the House is giving us more clarity on the issue than we have previously received, but I still ask him seriously to consider suspending the Standing Order when the great repeal Bill comes to the House, to ensure that it cannot possibly be subject to the EVEL procedures.
Mr Lidington
I take note of the hon. Lady’s representation.
It is always good to hear familiar riffs. Like putting Eric Clapton on the turntable and hearing the golden oldies from one’s younger days, the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is familiar to me. He puts his finger on the truth that I am not sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) or the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), really grasped. This is a narrow, technical change.
On the question before the House, it is true that all UK MPs will still be able to continue voting on Budgets and on all aspects of income tax. But English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs will have an opportunity expressly to approve matters that primarily affect their constituencies, such as the main rates of income tax. That simply reflects the fact that it is Members of the Scottish Parliament who vote on devolved matters, including the main rates of income tax, in so far as they affect Scottish taxpayers.
Why are we making this change? We are making the change because of a degree of uncertainty in the current Standing Orders when we have to take into account the implications of the Scotland Act 2016. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North pointed out, our Standing Orders already provide for certification in relation to Finance Bills, so we are not debating some new extension of the EVEL procedures. The 2016 Act presents us with a particular problem. The main rates of income tax are paid by residents of the United Kingdom who are not subject to the Scottish main rate of income tax. That means that in future no Scottish taxpayer will be affected by the UK main rate, but there is a theoretical possibility that the main rate of income tax could affect an individual who is not a Scottish taxpayer but has some connections to Scotland—perhaps they have a second home there. Because of that possibility, it was unclear whether, subsequent to the 2016 Act, a clause that set the main rates of income tax would relate exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and therefore trigger a vote under the English laws procedures according to the existing Standing Orders.
The narrow amendment we are considering will remove the element of doubt and ensure what was always intended when the House approved the Standing Orders, the 2016 Act and the measures in last year’s Finance Act—namely, that a vote on the main rates of income tax will attract an EVEL vote. This will ensure that English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have the final say on setting income tax rates when no Scottish taxpayer will be affected. That seems to be a perfectly fair way to proceed, so I invite the House to support the amendment.
Question put.
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is particularly appropriate that, on the eve of International Women’s Day, I present this petition from the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign in Newcastle upon Tyne Central, and many men, calling for fair transitional arrangements for 1950s-born women affected by changes to the state pension age.
In my recent Westminster Hall debate, I highlighted how these changes disproportionately affect working-class women of that generation, who are more likely to have started work at 15, more likely to be in manual trades, which take a greater toll on the body as it ages, more likely to die younger and less likely to have private pensions. There are many such women in Newcastle and across the country who wish to highlight the hardship, stress and worry they face as a consequence.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Newcastle Upon Tyne Central,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002024]
Rural Policing and Hare Coursing
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate on rural policing and hare coursing. It is particularly important that we discuss this issue now, as we must reflect on, and learn lessons from, the most recent hare coursing season, which is coming to a close.
Hare coursing, poaching and the surrounding issues of antisocial behaviour should be matters of great concern for this House, both as individual crimes and examples of the challenges associated with policing rural communities. I have been struck by the number of hon. Members who have approached me following notification of the debate this evening. In particular, I would like to draw the House’s attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who will be unable to contribute, but I understand she has a strong interest in some of the issues I am about to raise.
We must carefully consider two key issues. First, we need to recognise the damage sustained by farmers to their properties and their wellbeing, as many are made to feel intimidated by those carrying out these heinous acts. Secondly, we need carefully to consider the police’s approach to this problem and what tools are necessary to ensure that the law is effectively enforced.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both points. On the first point, farmers can, of course, dig ditches and barricade their fences, but many in my constituency are afraid to undertake that work in case there is retaliation against their equipment as a result.
John Glen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As somebody who used to live in his constituency, I empathise strongly with the concerns he raises. I will set out similar examples of my constituents who have shared the same experience.
My first and principal concern is the threat that hare coursing poses to farming communities. Hare coursers are not simply a few individuals quietly chasing hares on unused land: they are, most often, large groups who show serious contempt for the law. This results in a number of significant problems for my constituents. Farms are vandalised; people are intimidated; and often farmers are isolated and unable to count on the law for timely protection.
The National Farmers Union has found that hare coursing is now the most common crime experienced by farmers in Wiltshire. That has a number of troubling implications for rural communities.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that hare coursers marauding across farmers’ land in their vehicles not merely cause an unsightly mess but vandalise livelihoods, and should be dealt with accordingly?
John Glen
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention: I absolutely agree. Again, I will come on to set out more examples and give the Minister some suggestions on what could be done to deal with the problem.
I want to outline some of the implications of hare coursing. First, when entering these private lands, hare coursers and poachers regularly cause criminal damage to gates, hedgerows, fences and growing crops. This creates financial costs arising from repairs to the damage and the need to increase security infrastructure, probably involving CCTV cameras. It also wastes a huge number of man hours as farmers are forced to look for damage and repair it. This is extremely time consuming, frustrating and upsetting for many farmers, whose land is the single most important asset of their business and their livelihood.
My constituent Chris Swanton, whose family have farmed on his farm for several generations, has regularly experienced at first-hand on his farm in South Wiltshire the problems I have described. He wrote to me saying:
“I get upset because I am very passionate about my farm and I have a certain amount of pride in the appearance of my fields and crops. I find it gutting and very depressing to drive around my farm after hare coursers have been all across my fields.”
It is totally unacceptable for farmers like Chris who have worked 80 hours a week preparing seed beds and planting crops to find them ruined by mindless vandals. His experiences are by no means unique, as this happens right across my constituency, and, from what colleagues have been telling me in the past few days, over large tracts of rural England.
The impact for victims is not merely economic. Many face unjustifiable intimidation and antisocial behaviour on their doorsteps. Hare coursers will often threaten and behave violently towards landowners who attempt to challenge them or collect evidence to report to the police.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr Murrison
It is a great pleasure to contribute briefly to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour on bringing this matter to the House’s attention. Does he agree that these are not good people and that these groups probably contain within them individuals who are intent also on acquisitive crime? Not only are they violent people, but they are probably also eyeing up the property of our rural constituents, which, as he will know, is very much under threat at the moment from bespoke criminality focused on thieving to order. The suspicion is that this population and the hare coursing population are very often one and the same thing.
John Glen
Those are characteristically wise words from my hon. Friend and neighbour, and I absolutely agree. This speaks to some of the suggestions that I am going to make about the nature of resourcing of rural policing. I am delighted that the Minister is here to hear those words and, I hope, respond positively.
Lincolnshire police found that the majority of people involved in hare coursing in their county already had the criminal histories that my hon. Friend refers to and often travelled for hundreds of miles to participate. This is particularly distressing for farming communities, who are genuinely vulnerable. The average age of farmers is now 59, and they often work alone, so there are few or no witnesses to the crimes that are perpetrated on their land. Farmers know too well the repercussions of trying to deter coursers from their own land—from targeted break-ins and theft on their farms, to extremes such as arson and direct physical attacks.
Another of my constituents, who understandably did not want to be named, lives on a farm with their teenage daughter. While on their own land, the constituent was confronted by three men with dogs who threatened that they would “do over” their car and carve up their crops. My constituent’s daughter now worries for her parent’s safety and is concerned that the coursers know where they live and what their car looks like.
It is completely unacceptable that constituents do not feel safe on their own land, and these are not isolated cases. In January, the BBC reported that violence and intimidation have escalated in the recent hare coursing season. One farmer, who also wished not to be named, fearing for his own safety, stated, “They would kill us if they could.”
I emphasise to the Minister that, for rural communities and farmers in particular, hare coursing is not simply a nuisance; it is a serious blight on livelihoods and wellbeing.
I want to turn to how we can ensure that there is an effective and coherent response by the police and the magistracy. In preparing for this debate, I was struck by the exasperation of constituents who tell me that they regularly reach out to the police but feel as if nothing is being done and that they are fighting hare coursers on their own. One constituent remarked that his tactic of digging ditches around the farm to stop the coursers’ vehicles felt almost medieval—building a moat to prevent the enemy from entering.
I pay tribute to Wiltshire police force. Its officers do very difficult work in challenging circumstances, and they should be commended for the innovative steps that they are taking to improve their response to rural crime. The general quality of their work was acknowledged by last week’s report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, ranking them good across the board. Wiltshire police have put in place a number of initiatives, including funding six dedicated wildlife crime officers, and I welcome the news that further funding has been secured to train another five.
I recognise the apparent logic of weighting police funding by population size and demography, but cases such as hare coursing demonstrate that rural areas require specialist resources to ensure that isolated and sparser populated communities do not feel abandoned by law enforcement.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. The rural part of my constituency is served by Humberside police, which is a predominantly urban force, and the farming and rural community feels somewhat neglected. Does he agree that it is equally important that the rural community, wherever it is situated, is suitably prioritised by the police?
John Glen
I absolutely recognise the situation described by my hon. Friend. It is particularly true of hybrid constabularies that have to serve significant urban populations, but the rural element needs to be properly recognised.
May I urge the Minister to take those factors into consideration in his deliberations on the new police funding formula? Although Wiltshire is the 15th largest county geographically, it receives the fourth lowest budget from Government. The resources needed to tackle rural crime must be reflected in allocations within the overall funding envelope. That will require him to challenge his officials on the different spreadsheets that they put in front of him and make sure that the pockets of rural need are properly reflected in the review’s outcome.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Is not the real challenge faced by rural police forces the fact that they have to deal not only with issues such as hare coursing, which is a form of organised crime, but with those challenges that are also faced by urban policing, including changing tactics for cybercrime and domestic violence? That is a perfect storm and it requires special attention.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Is not one of the issues the lack of neighbourhood policing in some rural areas? In the northern part of my constituency, in Bassetlaw, we have a long-standing police officer, Bill Bailey. He knows the lanes; he knows many of the criminals; and he knows how to respond to and sort out such crimes. He is also fluent in the law in this area. All too often, when officers such as Bill retire, as he will do in October, they are replaced by police officers drawn from a much wider area. His replacement is likely to be drawn from urban areas such as Worksop and Retford, where crimes are very different. Response times will diminish, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) has said, it is difficult for people to be certain that police officers who understand the rurality of the area will be able to get out and sort out the problems.
John Glen
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. Like many Conservative Members, I gained some familiarity with my hon. Friend’s constituency in the weeks running up to his election. I would not want to comment on the specific example that he gave, but it is absolutely key that we have the right resources in the right places.
I return to the specific issue of hare coursing. I believe that it is both a policing and a judicial issue, and I want to raise three policy concerns that I hope the Minister will reflect on to ensure that constituencies such as Salisbury and south Wiltshire can effectively deal with hare coursers and the many disruptions and problems that I have just described. First, I ask the Minister to consider creating a more widespread infrastructure for seizing and rehousing the dogs used in such criminal activities. Will he look—perhaps not personally—into how the police organise themselves in that regard? Hare coursing dogs are high-value assets worth tens of thousands of pounds. I think that the threat of dogs being taken or rehomed, and therefore losing their value, will deter hare coursers. To be able to seize dogs, the police must have the appropriate kennels and facilities to look after them. In Wiltshire, despite a large number of hare coursing incidents, we do not have that vital infrastructure in place.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Can he give us some idea of the extent of the hare coursing, badger baiting and illegal foxhunting that take place and the percentage of those incidents for which people have been prosecuted in the recent past?
John Glen
Actually, I can give the hon. Gentleman some of those statistics, if he will just wait a few minutes.
In terms of legislation, hare coursing offences sometimes fall under the Game Act 1831, which does not provide the powers of seizure and forfeiture of dogs and vehicles that the Hunting Act 2004 provides. Updating the 1831 Act could rectify that issue and allow more hunting dogs to be seized. In addition, if we gave police the ability to recover kennelling costs for seized dogs in a way similar to the process for seized vehicles, we could make that deterrent more financially viable.
Secondly, I hope the Minister will consider the penalties given to those guilty of poaching and hare coursing. Currently, the maximum possible penalty is unlimited. Despite that, the House of Commons Library reports that between 2010 and 2015, the average fine for offences under the Hunting Act was just £256.43. Wiltshire police told me that they had a recent case in which three males were sent to court for offences under the Night Poaching Act 1828. They had dogs, lamps and a gutting knife in their possession, and they had travelled some 100 miles from Wales to Wiltshire. The three men received a fine of just £50 each. The men were persistent offenders who were known to the police, and they were stopped again just three days after their appearance in court. Are we honestly surprised that when hare coursers have the opportunity to earn thousands of pounds betting on their illegal activities, such small fines do nothing to deter them? It is nothing short of outrageous that such individuals can simply give no comment at interview, go to court, plead guilty, accept a fine of £50 or £100 and return to the fields the very next day. Magistrates must be encouraged to use the full extent of the penalties available to them. As a former magistrate, I am very aware of the guidance that sometimes comes out, and I feel that it needs to be updated. Will the Minister commit to working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to examine such matters and ensure that sentencing guidance in this area is reviewed?
The third and final issue is conviction rates. On the figures I have, there were 2,169 reported incidents of hare coursing in Lincolnshire during the six months between September 2015 and March 2016. Some 176 men were charged or reported for summons, but only 25 were actually convicted, which is less than one in seven. Of the 176 individuals charged, 117 cases were discontinued, usually when witnesses declined to give statements for fear of reprisals. Even if CCTV cameras are used—presumably at the farmers’ expense—farmers are obliged to declare that they have individually put in an evidence-capture system, therefore putting their name on the record and risking retaliation through some of the apps I have described. That situation is simply blocking access to justice. Until the Government send a clear message that farmers will be properly protected and perpetrators brought to justice, the unwillingness to provide evidence will only increase. Will the Minister work with local police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that farmers are not deterred from coming forward because the evidence they are required to gather is too costly or cumbersome to obtain or puts them at risk?
In conclusion, hare coursing is a serious issue, and we must not underestimate the financial and emotional harm it inflicts on vulnerable rural communities, and on farmers in particular. Despite pockets of good practice, more must be done to stop the increasing prevalence across the country. I am concerned that the overall framework governing policing and sentencing does not currently act as a sufficient deterrent. May I urge the Minister to look carefully at the measures I have suggested? We must send a clear message to hare coursers that they will no longer be able to get off the hook with paltry sentences and very low conviction rates. What they are doing is wrong, and we must not allow it to continue in the way currently experienced.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
It is very handy to have the opportunity of an extended debate, which has shown that a number of colleagues are concerned about this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has done us a service by finding an opportunity to raise the matter.
I do not need to be reminded that I have been a Member of Parliament for a very rural constituency for a long time. I cannot recall circumstances that are now regularly being reported to me ever having been raised with me before. I am not naive enough to believe that hare coursing did not take place in former years, but it now seems to have achieved epidemic proportions in my area, with village after village now reporting incidents.
The police are stretched. Whatever the force available to the chief constable of Essex—indeed, this applies to any other constabulary—it is bound to be deployed in areas of higher crime than in areas of low crime. The district of Uttlesford and rural Chelmsford are areas of low crime, but that does not mean that there is no crime. This form of crime, which has now started to surge, if that is not too strong a word to describe what is happening, is particularly difficult for the police to cope with. There is obviously great mobility on the part of the offenders, and if we are to get a grip on this type of activity, there needs to be co-operation between police forces.
John Howell
In my constituency, the police have set up surveillance areas, but this has become a bit of a cat-and-mouse game, because they are spotted while setting up the surveillance areas and the hare coursers simply move to another field on another farm. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that as a problem?
Sir Alan Haselhurst
Absolutely; on the basis of reports I am getting from constituents, I am beginning to ask myself “where next?” .
For historical reasons, Essex has always felt underfunded, and if any of my Essex colleagues were present for tonight’s debate, they would heartily agree, because we are always pressing for more resources. This is now a new situation that has to be confronted.
Matt Warman
The chief constable of Essex was recently quoted on Radio Lincolnshire complaining that Lincolnshire’s success at dealing with hare coursing meant that Essex was being placed under even greater strain. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that underlines the fact that we have to work together to tackle this problem?
Sir Alan Haselhurst
I absolutely agree, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in the right terms to indicate that this has to be a co-ordinated approach.
Let me add one further point about the impact of this activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury spoke mainly about the farming community, which is absolutely right, but there have been some particularly odious practices performed in my constituency that affect not the farming community, but ordinary residents in villages. Mutilated corpses of hares are being laid on people’s cars or lawns, and parts of these dead bodies are being draped round the handles of doors. This is sickening, and small children will obviously be more vulnerable to the horror of seeing that kind of thing. We are getting well beyond the thought that this is some illegal sport that is far removed from everybody. Yes, this affects the farmers, as my hon. Friend clearly said—my farmers have spoken to me about it, too—but there is also this extra dimension, which makes the problem truly appalling and underlines the need for special attention to deal with it.
If this activity has not been as prevalent in former years and is now becoming a phenomenon to which we are all giving witness here today, perhaps we need to stamp down on it, to quell it once and for all. That requires special attention, special resources and special drive of policy.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I echo the thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on raising this important issue. Although some people might view the debate and the problem as merely an issue of animal welfare and wildlife crime, which of course it is, as others have suggested, it goes much wider than that. We are talking about vandalism of property; loss of income for farmer and landowner; theft, atrocity and intimidation of farmers, their families and in some instances gamekeepers and others employed on estates; and a lot of road traffic issues, including the driving of unlicensed and uninsured vehicles, driving while disqualified and so forth. This all adds up to the picture of criminality that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) alluded to in his intervention.
My constituency is easily split between east and west. The western part of North Dorset is the Blackmore Vale, which has heavy clay, and nobody would try to course on that. The hares do not like it, and it is too heavy to make a form; sometimes even a 4x4 will get stuck in the clay of Blackmore Vale. Cranborne Chase on the eastern side of my constituency, however, is beautiful, undulating chalk downland, very similar to the area at the border with Wiltshire. It is, of course, an ideal and fertile ground for illegal hare coursing, and it happens on all too regular a basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) talked about the chief constable of Essex blaming the robustness of his colleague in Lincolnshire for transporting a problem across a county border. In Dorset, we have also seen an element of that, given the significant success that the chief constable and officers of Wiltshire have had in clamping down in that county. The problem has merely translocated over the border to us.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said with regard to value of the sighthound used for this purpose. I was told by one of my local police officers that, having confiscated a telephone from a hare courser, he looked—I could not tell the House why—at the gentleman’s photo album on his phone. He had 184 photographs: 20 of his family and 164 of his dog. That, I think, demonstrates the importance and value that these people place on their livestock. The problem is exactly as my hon. Friend suggested. Local authorities have pulled away from taking stray dogs off the street and have contracted it out, often on narrowly defined contracts. The police do not have kennels to house these dogs. I would prefer a far more robust approach, not just in the provision of kennels but in the removal and permanent confiscation of dogs and their rehousing.
Robert Jenrick
Last year in Scotland was, I think, the first time that a hare courser or a group of hare coursers were prosecuted successfully and imprisoned using DNA evidence taken from a confiscated dog. We have heard in the debate about the scale and importance of these crimes, so perhaps the police elsewhere in the country should look to take that forward.
Simon Hoare
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The deployment of technologies that may have been advanced for other purposes can easily be used for exactly the sort of incident my hon. Friend suggests.
I want to draw the attention of the House, if I may, to the excellent work undertaken by the Dorset constabulary in this area under the leadership of Martyn Underhill, our police and crime commissioner, and the chief constable. After discussions with me as a Member of Parliament, we now have a dedicated rural team—and not in name only. The team has the right vehicles—4x4s and Polarises—telephones, equipment and so on. It is doing a fantastic job. It was my pleasure, if that is the word, to join them on a night operation ranging from 8 o’clock in the evening to two o’clock in the morning, where a collaboration of three police forces—officers from Dorset, Wiltshire and Hampshire—came together with local farmers and gamekeepers. I was obviously the “heavy” man brought in for intimidation. We drove around the countryside using intelligence and telephones to identify where people might be and disrupting activity as it was about to unfold: the interception and interruption of illegal activity taking place in our countryside.
A number of hon. Friends mentioned intimidation. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury provided statistics on the number of people brought to court and the rather lenient slap-on-the-wrist fines. If someone is prepared to wager £10,000 on one greyhound getting a hare, a fine of £276 is but a drop in the ocean. I wonder, as I often do in these circumstances, whether our local magistrates feel intimidated, given the reputation of a lot of people involved in hare coursing knowing no bounds to the retribution they wish to see. I hope our magistrates are made of strong and robust stuff, but that might not necessarily always be the case.
I again congratulate Dorset constabulary on its work. I echo entirely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury that the funding requirement is, as so often in our rural areas, very bespoke. If one talked to councillors in Manchester, Bristol or Birmingham about rural crime on farms as a result of hare coursing, they would probably scratch their heads and look very bemused, but it causes a great loss of income, great degradation of the countryside, a vast amount of cruelty and a huge amount of illegality. These niche issues that need to be policed with robustness, intelligence and co-ordination do need to find, in our rural policing and its funding formula, an identification of how best to marry funds with the very clear demands elucidated by my hon. Friend in what has been an excellent debate.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions to it. The number of Members present, as well as the number who have spoken, illustrates the importance of this issue to rural communities throughout the country.
I shall not detain the House for long, because in principle I agree with what has been said, but I want to go into a little more detail about the position. It is clear from what Members have said this evening that the issue is of concern to rural communities, but I have also heard of their concern at first hand. I am very clear about the fact that people should not have to experience the crimes that have been described; nor should they ever feel threatened, victimised or harassed, whether they are witnesses or actual victims. Anything of that nature is wholly unacceptable, and I expect the police to act in such circumstances.
As has already been mentioned, the Hunting Act 2004 came into effect on 18 February 2005. Under that Act, an individual who is found guilty of illegal hunting or hare coursing can be liable for an unlimited fine. Let me, at this point, respond to the second request made by my hon. Friend. I noted his comments about the level of the fines that are issued by magistrates courts, and I can assure him that I will liaise with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to establish what guidance is given to the courts and the Sentencing Council about the use of that power. The criminals—and they are abhorrent criminals—who behave in this way should be sent the message that such behaviour will not be tolerated.
Section 30 of the Game Act 1831 gives the police the power to seize and detain vehicles taking part in hare coursing until a court hearing takes place. The police also have powers to deal with other criminal offences. When I visited Lincolnshire recently at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), there was clear evidence of the ability to deal with all the crimes being committed. As we have heard this evening, hare coursing is an offence in itself, but other offences are potentially committed within it, such as aggravated trespass, abuse, intimidation, harassment and criminal damage. All those offences are prosecutable in their own right.
As one of my officials pointed out when we were in Lincolnshire, the police may not be able to catch someone in the act of hare coursing because of the speed that is involved. However, through CCTV and other means, they often discover number plates of vehicles that are not taxed or not MOT-ed. They can act on the basis of such an incident in itself, without necessarily catching someone in the act or putting farmers in a position where they have reason to be fearful. I emphasise that the police have a range of options enabling us to be smart about prosecution and cracking down on behaviour of this kind.
Decisions on the use of resources and on law enforcement in individual areas is of course a matter for chief constables. It is for them to determine their priorities and policies, along with their police and crime commissioners. I believe that the policing plan of the Wiltshire police and crime commissioner was published today. PCCs such as Lincolnshire’s Marc Jones want to get a grip on such issues, and I commend them for appreciating that in representing their communities they are understanding what is important to those communities. That demonstrates why devolving powers to locally accountable, locally elected PCCs was such an important step.
Members have mentioned funding this evening. Let me remind them that we are firmly committed to reforming the current police funding arrangements, because they are out of date. We want a fairer system that is up to date and, importantly, is transparently able to reflect the way in which crime is being dealt with locally. We are at the moment taking forward a detailed engagement with the sector itself—police, chief constables, police and crime commissioners, and experts and academics in the field. I have met a range of PCCs and chief constables to discuss the issues they think should be covered. A number of them, including representatives whose Members have spoken this evening, have raised the issue of making sure that the costs and challenges that rural policing faces are reflected in the formula. No new formula will be implemented without public consultation; there will be a full process of that, but it will come at the end of this substantial piece of work that we are doing, to make sure that it is fully informed. I have met the PCC for Wiltshire, who has made this point about his own force very directly to me, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury.
I also appreciate that there are complaints both from communities and Members that the police are not always doing enough to deal with the criminals involved in this activity. As I have said, we need to be smart. We need to drive this through our PCCs and our local chief constables, to make sure that local police use all the tools at their disposal to deal with criminal behaviour, including any challenge about the speed with which people move. Those tools might include trespass and the way they deal with cars. As has been noted, there is a clear and powerful message in the seizure of vehicles, which is an expensive circumstance for people to have to deal with, and the seizure of the dogs themselves. I know from talking to the police in Lincolnshire that they are looking to seize dogs; they have organised the kennels, and even have the kennels outside Lincolnshire to make things more difficult. That sends a powerful message, because the dogs are valuable to the people who own them—they are worth tens of thousands of pounds. That is a very clear message that we and the police can send.
I join my hon. Friend who secured the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) who has just spoken in congratulating both of their forces on the excellent work they are looking to do to deal with issues around rural crime, as well as the work that others, including Lincolnshire police, are looking to do to develop this and make sure they are representing the needs of their local communities. I want to make it clear that, as I said a few moments ago, the decisions on how people allocate their resources and what local police are focused on is a matter for them to determine with their PCCs, based on their local knowledge, and working with their chief constables. If the police and the chief constable or the PCC are not focused on such an issue, I encourage people to bring it to their attention and make this point. I will happily continue to work on that as well. As I recently did, I will again be meeting the National Police Chiefs Council lead on rural crime and these issues to reinforce the strength of feeling outlined so clearly and eloquently by colleagues this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury outlined three particular requests. I have dealt with his second, but will now deal with his first and third points. On updating the legislation procedures around seizure, I will look at the powers the police have, although I think they have the powers they need and that the question is how they are being used and implemented. However, I undertake to do some further work, again working with the National Police Chiefs Council lead on this issue, and I will get back to my hon. Friend on that and involve him and any other colleagues interested in making sure they are up to speed with the work we are doing and what the opportunities are.
My hon. Friend’s third point was about the number of people who are actually being charged with these offences and the issue of farmers potentially feeling intimidated if they come forward as witnesses. We discussed that recently when I was in Lincolnshire, and there is a real challenge there. I want people to feel that they can come forward and work with the police both formally and informally, and we will continue to work to develop that.
In closing, I would like to thank not only my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for securing the debate but all the hon. Members who have taken the time to be here today to highlight the genuine importance of ensuring that we are able to police and protect our rural communities properly. I also want to take this opportunity to commend and congratulate the police, who work hard to deal with this issue, as well as to remind them that we expect them to use the full set of tools at their disposal. I will support them in doing that as we move forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Electoral Commission
(7 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That the Motion in the name of Mr David Lidington relating to the appointment of Professor Elan Closs Stephens as an Electoral Commissioner shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice of a motion has been given that the instrument be approved.
The motion proposes that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Professor Elan Closs Stephens as a member of the Electoral Commission for a period of four years, from 13 March 2017 to 12 March 2021. Professor Stephens will serve on the commission as electoral commissioner with special responsibility for Wales. The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced a report in relation to the appointment, its first report of 2017.
The vacancy has arisen because the term of office of Gareth Halliwell, the current commissioner with special responsibility for Wales, will come to an end on 12 March 2017, in a few days’ time. Appointments to the Electoral Commission are made under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Under the Act, the Speaker’s Committee has a responsibility to oversee the selection of candidates for appointment to the Electoral Commission. Commissioners are appointed for a fixed term and may be reappointed up to a maximum term length of 10 years.
As is normal for such appointments, the Speaker’s Committee established a recruitment panel to oversee the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates. It asked the Commissioner for Public Appointments to appoint a public appointment assessor to chair the recruitment panel; the commissioner nominated Mark Addison, a former civil service commissioner. The committee also agreed that the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly should be invited to nominate a member of the panel, in recognition of the fact that under the Wales Act 2017, the commission is increasingly responsible to the Assembly for its work in Wales; the Presiding Officer nominated Suzy Davies, Assembly Member for South West Wales. The other members of the panel were Sir John Holmes, chair of the Electoral Commission, and the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who is a member of the Speaker’s Committee.
I am pleased to say that the unanimous view of the panel was that Professor Elan Closs Stephens should be appointed as electoral commissioner with special responsibility for Wales. It may interest this Committee to know that Professor Stephens is currently a member of the BBC Trust, serving as the national trustee for Wales and chair of the BBC’s audience council for Wales. She is also currently the senior independent director on the civil service board of the Welsh Government. Her career in academia culminated in her appointment as professor of communications and creative industries at Aberystwyth University, where she is still an emeritus professor.
The Speaker’s Committee received the board’s report in January and agreed to the nomination. Professor Stephens’s name was then put forward for the consultation with the leaders of the political parties represented at Westminster, as is required by statute. The statutory consultation provides an opportunity for the party leaders to comment, but they are not required to do so. The responses received to the consultation are published in the Speaker’s Committee report.
If the motion is approved, Professor Stephens will serve on the Electoral Commission until March 2021. I hope that this Committee, and ultimately the House, will support her appointment and wish her well as she takes on these new responsibilities.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for introducing the motion about this important appointment. We believe that Professor Stephens appears to be a very good and proper choice for the role, and we are happy to support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That the Motion in the name of Mr David Lidington relating to the appointment of Professor Elan Closs Stephens as an Electoral Commissioner shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice of a motion has been given that the instrument be approved.
Draft Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) (Amendment) Order 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) (Amendment) Order 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. The order was laid before the House on 6 February 2017. If approved and made, it will postpone the mayoral election in the Sheffield city region, meaning that the Mayor will first take office in May 2018, rather than May 2017. It also sets the duration of the first mayoral term as four years, with the next election being held in May 2022.
Before I say anything further on the order, I reiterate the Government’s commitment to the devolution deal that we negotiated with the Sheffield city region, which we signed on 15 October 2015. That deal not only transfers significant powers on a range of policy areas from this place to the Sheffield city region, but injects more than £1 billion into the city region to boost growth. That is the only deal on the table for the area, and I trust local leaders are as committed to it as the Government. That is certainly what we wish to hear.
In recent days and weeks, there have been alternative devolution proposals for Yorkshire as a whole, but I make it absolutely clear that the Government are committed to the Sheffield city region and have no interest in negotiating outside that. We hope that local leaders of the four local authorities in South Yorkshire will also confirm their commitment to the deal which, as I said, transfers significant powers and funding from this place to the region.
Dan Jarvis
The Minister knows that there was a discussion just the other day about whether some of the funding might be released to the Sheffield city region ahead of the mayoral election. Will he saying something about that, and what the specific criteria for releasing some of that funding might be?
Andrew Percy
I am more than happy to respond to that specific point. In previous devolution deals, we have made advance payments on the gain share funding ahead of the mayoral elections. There is no specific requirement around that. In this case, we wish the consultation to take place, on which I will say more in a moment, and for some of the powers and other orders to pass through the House. We also require an absolute, cast-iron guarantee that the leaders of the four South Yorkshire local authorities in the Sheffield city region are fully committed to the deal. It is possible to make gain share payments before the mayoral elections take place, and we would be prepared to look at that—although while having regard to what I have just said.
In bringing the order before Parliament, we are responding to a request from the Sheffield city region’s local leaders. On 11 January this year, those leaders met as a combined authority and concluded that it was no longer possible to achieve a mayoral election in the Sheffield city region in May this year, and they agreed and announced that they will work towards a mayoral election in May 2018. They explained in their announcement that they had reached those decisions because of the need for the combined authority to undertake a further consultation before it was possible for an order to be made that conferred powers on the Mayor and the city region, as envisaged in the devolution deal negotiated with the Government.
The need for an additional consultation arose following a judicial review brought by Derbyshire County Council against the city region’s consultation earlier this year, which it argued was misleading. The case was considered by the court on 9 and 10 November last year, and in December the judgment was given that the consultation did not achieve its lawful purpose. While the court did not quash the consultation as Derbyshire County Council had requested, it said a further consultation was needed before the statutory requirement was satisfied.
The city region’s local leaders have agreed to prepare and carry out that necessary consultation, with a view to its starting after the local elections in May. Hence our meeting today, at which we need to defer the mayoral election until May 2018, by which time we can expect all necessary consultation to be complete, and the devolved powers envisaged in the devolution deal to have been conferred on the combined authority and the Mayor. I could regale the Committee with the details of the devolution deal, but I shall not do so, and thus I shall reduce my speaking notes by exactly two and a half pages.
With regard to the judicial review that took place in December, the court ruled that the consultation did not achieve its lawful purpose, as it did not include a question specifically seeking consultees’ views on Chesterfield’s becoming part of the combined authority. Accordingly, before devolution can be fully implemented, the city region is required to undertake a further consultation and submit a summary of the consultation responses to the Secretary of State.
It will then be for the Secretary of State, having regard to those responses, to decide what provision to include in any further order, which, subject to the approval of Parliament, would confer functions on the combined authority and on the Mayor. The order might also, if the Secretary of State considered it appropriate, provide for an expansion of the city region area, which the city region’s leaders are seeking. Once such an order was made, it would be appropriate for the first mayoral election to be held. That is now envisaged, as I have said, for May 2018.
In conclusion, the draft order changes the date of the mayoral election from 4 May 2017 to 3 May 2018 and also sets the first mayoral term for a duration of four years, with the next election in May 2022. The election is being postponed in the expectation that by May 2018, powers and budgets envisaged in the agreed devolution deal can be devolved to the city region, which will have a Mayor who can deliver for local people and help the area to fulfil its long-term ambitions, in line with the negotiated deal.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
I do not propose to speak at length. A series of statutory instruments on combined authorities is now coming through to Committee, and I have put it on record that I welcome the move towards further devolution. I feel obliged to repeat that I am concerned about the lack of a framework for devolution in England. While some areas, as the devolution deal has progressed, have managed to negotiate to some degree impressive devolution and investment deals with the Government, other areas have asked what is in it for them. County areas, in particular, where a directly elected Mayor perhaps does not quite fit with local identity, are right to question how they fit into the vision for the future of devolution in England. I welcome any effort to bring forward a framework for devolution for the whole of England.
There has been a bit of talk about the four leaders. We should bear in mind, of course, that Chesterfield and Bassetlaw are both constituent members of the combined authority and, in the spirit of first among equals, we should welcome the work that they have done in the city region area on the combined authority.
We are beginning to see, I suppose, the contradiction that arises with the drawing of quite artificial boundaries in the spirit of trying to put in place combined authority arrangements, when those do not necessarily mirror local community identity. There has of course been a legal challenge from Derbyshire. Let us be honest: the leader of Derbyshire County Council is pro-devolution and believes strongly in the devolution of powers from Westminster to communities, so the challenge was not a weak political point-scoring exercise but a point of principle about the need for future boundaries to mirror local identity and circumstance. I urge the Minister, rather than holding the axe above devolution if the other local areas do not agree, to make far more effort to engage at a local level, to try to work with councils that have legitimate concerns.
If there were a national framework whereby we could see how different areas come together where boundaries are coterminous, maybe Derbyshire could see how it fitted into the wider proposal for that part of England. However, because devolution is incremental by nature at the moment, it is very hard for areas around combined authority arrangements to see how they fit into them.
In the spirit of brevity, I will leave it there and let Members get on with the rest of the day. However, there are some things that the Minister will probably not want to put on record in Hansard, but that would be helpful context for me to understand, shadow effectively and provide scrutiny, challenge and, where required, support for devolution coming to fruition for the whole of England. I place on record my offer to meet outside Committee to have that conversation in more detail.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
It is a delight to see you in the chair, Mr Paisley.
Far be it from me to curtail the desperate attempt at brevity, but there are some serious issues here, and it is right that Parliament scrutinises them. I appreciate that the Minister has been offered a packet of Liquorice Allsorts when it comes to the devolution progress under his predecessors. When I was in Cleethorpes on Saturday watching Grimsby Town, I passed through two constituencies in a district, which is apparently in Yorkshire and the Humber, but in fact is proudly and defiantly in Lincolnshire.
In defining these borders and the reason for bringing forward this draft order, does the Minister agree that he has inherited rather a mess and that there needs to be more certainty in local government structures? Too many people are hung up on boundaries created decades, centuries, almost millenniums ago, that do not necessarily fit the modern era. Mr Paisley, I am sure you will remember when the towns of Bawtry and Finningley were usurped and taken out of Nottinghamshire and put into Yorkshire, from Bassetlaw into Doncaster. Bomber command headquarters shifted its loyalties. That was done in 1973 and never properly explained.
The Chair
Order. This is fascinating, but before we get to the dropping of the bombs, the scope of today’s legislation is the change of date from one year to another and the intervals for subsequent elections. Let us keep to the scope, or we could be here for months.
John Mann
Mr Paisley, I am doing nothing more than simply outlining logically why the order has had to be brought before us, so that Members can democratically consider whether it is appropriate to pass it or not.
We have had a mishmash of borders. The counties of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire have two cricket teams and two identities, but are not necessarily economic units. They clash, with the D2N2 local enterprise partnership based primarily in Derby and Nottingham, and they compete—that is the term—with the authorities of South Yorkshire on what the structures should be.
Here is the nub of the issue. We have councillors being asked to give up their powers but we do not have clarity from the Government on what powers ultimately—and “ultimately” may mean before 2020—are going to be handed over. Will the Minister confirm whether health powers, for example, are intended under this Parliament to be given to the combined authority, should it become a city region? If so, does he agree with my proposal that should Bassetlaw and Chesterfield join next year, social care and public health should transfer from local government to the national health service, to be the first place in the country to allow the integration of health services in the way in which, on a cross-party basis, Parliament appears to demand?
Will minerals planning be transferred? In the next three years that will undoubtedly mean decisions on fracking and, indeed, on where the wealth that the Government are adamant comes from fracking will go. Those are not minor issues; they are fundamental to today’s decision, because all the proposals for fracked gas in Nottinghamshire are in Bassetlaw. Should there be a Sheffield city region incorporating Bassetlaw and minerals planning was to transfer to one planning authority, that would be coherent. Has the Minister had an opportunity to read what the city region is saying? Does he agree that its case would be strengthened if it was to incorporate properly the A1 into its transport infrastructure? Currently, it is mysteriously missing.
Finally, Will the Minister confirm that in other parts of the country there are legal disputes over the levels of consultation? Will he outline, with a bit of detail, how we got into this mess whereby Chesterfield appeared to think that it was following instructions from the Government but ended up being judicially reviewed, challenged and defeated in the courts, so progress has been unfortunately and unnecessarily delayed? Will there be other such problems elsewhere in the country? How will he ensure that others do not face that kind of dilemma in the next year?
The Chair
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to relate all those matters to 2018.
Andrew Percy
I will start with the comments of the shadow Minister before addressing the many questions from my friend and constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, who raised quite a few issues. In answer to the shadow Minister, the reason I did not mention Chesterfield and Bassetlaw when I talked about the four authorities is that they are presently non-constituent members of the city region, so they are not among the four that will make the decisions. That is the same for North East Derbyshire, Derbyshire Dales and, I think, the county, which are also non-constituent members. The purpose of the consultation was to bring Bassetlaw and Chesterfield in as fully constituent members of the Sheffield city region.
The shadow Minister talked a lot about local government boundaries. I think that misses the purpose of devolution. Of course we need the buy-in of the local authorities, but it is not about creating structures based around local government boundaries; the statutory test is whether the geography formed by a devolution deal is a functional economic area, which I think is the point the hon. Member for Bassetlaw made. We need to think not so much in terms of local government boundaries.
The shadow Minister asked for a meeting. I am more than happy to meet to discuss this general area of policy if he so wishes. It is important to have both Front Bench teams in discussions and engaged outside of the back-and-forth of debate in this place. He also mentioned bringing down the axe on the deal. It is not a case of bringing down an axe on any deal. If an area negotiates in good faith with the Government and then walks away from the deal, which is what happened in the case of the north-east, we would have to take that deal off the table and carry on our negotiations and discussions with areas that are engaging with us positively. This is a deal that the Sheffield city region asked for, the four leaders of the constituent councils agreed to it and we plan to take it forward. If leaders in the region walk away from it or look elsewhere, the deal will have to be taken off the table and that would be the end of the matter, which would be very sad for the people of the region, given the nature and scale of the devolution deal agreed.
Turning to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I will not talk about an inheritance. Government policy is obviously all conducted through a fair and full process in which there is consistency and absolute clarity at all times. I think that I have dealt with the matter of boundaries. I am always happy to hear about Yorkshire expanding its boundaries, as he made reference to, but the important thing, as he rightly points out in connection with his recent visit passing through the Humber, or northern Lincolnshire, is that the devolution deals are about creating structures around functional economic areas rather than on the old boundaries.
It is also important to place on the record—without prejudging because there is a whole process to go through, regardless of whether Bassetlaw and Chesterfield ultimately join the city region as full constituent members and take part in the elections for the Mayor—that the counties of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire remain intact. The counties do not disappear and no one is pulling out of a county. The devolution area simply sits above that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked some questions about what is in the devolution deals. That is a matter for the city region. The deal those in the region negotiated with us had provisions to do with transport and planning, but not with health, social care or any other requests. It would be for them to come forward for future iterations of devolution deals to ask for and seek other provisions. We have always made it clear that we have an open mind, but the tests are clear: any devolution must improve the administration of the powers across that geography. We could not agree to anything outside those statutory tests.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there were other legal disputes about boundaries, and I am not aware of any judicial review proceedings on the boundaries involved in other deals. We are progressing all the other deals through this House at the moment—the shadow Minister and I have sat on many such Committees in recent weeks, with another tomorrow on the Liverpool city region—but with none is there any judicial review of the boundaries. We have made it clear, too, that we remain committed to trying to do a deal for the rest of Yorkshire and for the authorities north of the Tyne, which were pulled out of their deal through no fault of their own but through the behaviour of councils south of the Tyne that resulted in us having to take the deal off the table.
I think that I have responded to the points made. I hope that we can move forward and agree this important order to delay the election.
Question put and agreed to.
Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2017.
The draft order, which was laid before on the House on 6 February 2017, is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for legislative provision that is
“necessary or expedient in consequence of…any Act of the Scottish Parliament”.
The draft order is made in consequence of part 1 of the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015, which received Her Majesty’s Assent on 4 August 2015, having been passed by the Scottish Parliament on 25 June 2015.
The 2015 Act gives effect to a provision in section 10 of the Scotland Act 2012 that devolves the power to regulate air weapons in Scotland, within certain limits, to the Scottish Parliament. It introduces a new licensing regime for air weapons to maintain controls over the use, possession, purchase and acquisition of such weapons in Scotland, broadly following the principles and practices of existing firearms legislation across Great Britain. It sets out the air weapons that need to be licensed; allows a fit person to obtain and use an air weapon in a regulated way, without compromising public safety; and sets out appropriate enforcement powers and penalties to deal with any person who contravenes the new regime. It is notable that in advance of the regime coming into force on 31 December 2016, almost 19,000 unwanted air weapons were voluntarily surrendered to the Police Service of Scotland for secure destruction.
The draft order will enable part 1 of the 2015 Act to be implemented in full by making the following consequential amendments to reserved Great Britain legislation, namely the Firearms Act 1968. First, it will make it
“an offence for a pawnbroker to take in pawn an air weapon”
in Scotland and will impose penalties for pawnbrokers who do so. Secondly, it will allow a court in England and Wales, under certain circumstances, to
“cancel any air weapon certificate granted to the person under…the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015”,
which will have the effect of extending the court’s existing powers to cancel a firearm certificate or shot gun certificate held by a person who appears before it. Thirdly, it will allow a court in Scotland to
“order…the forfeiture or disposal of any firearm…other than an air weapon…or ammunition found in the…possession”
of a person convicted of an air weapon offence.
Ministers and officials of the UK and Scottish Governments have worked and continue to work together closely to ensure that the draft order will make the necessary amendments to Great Britain legislation in consequence of part 1 of the 2015 Act. It represents the final piece of the jigsaw in the implementation of the new Scottish air weapons licensing regime, which will tighten controls of the use, possession, purchase and acquisition of such weapons in Scotland.
I hope the Committee agrees that the draft order is a sensible and positive use of the powers in the 1998 Act. I commend it to the Committee.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Wilson. I had not realised that you had been elevated to such heights. It is long overdue.
I will not delay the Committee for very long, as we obviously support the order, but I will ask for a couple of clarifications. The maximum penalty for a pawnbroker who takes in an air weapon when they should not is three months’ imprisonment or a level 3 fine. On what basis have the Government come to that decision? Is that sentence enough to be a real deterrent? In my ignorance, I have not got a clue what level 3 means. Will the Minister give us some idea of that?
I welcome the fact that 19,000 weapons have been handed in, but they are obviously the people we should not be worried about. Can the Minister reassure us? When people are ordered to forfeit or dispose of weapons, how is it policed to ensure that that actually happens? Is it possible that, because the pawnbroker is no longer there, there is more chance of an underground black market in air weapons developing? Clearly none of us wants that, so what will be done to ensure that that does not happen? I guess that nobody in this room would argue with the order, but we should remind ourselves that only 12 years ago, a two-year-old was killed in Scotland. That is worth mentioning, because this is serious stuff.
Michael Ellis
I reiterate what a pleasure it is to appear before you, Mr Wilson, and opposite the hon. Member for Blaydon. In response to his question, a level 3 fine on the standard scale is a maximum of £1,000. The court system operates fines on a scale of 1 to 5, to take account of inflation.
The sentence of three months’ imprisonment would be a maximum. Officials and the relevant parties have considered that that would meet the merits of the offence because it is simply about possession, and there will always be the possibility of other offences in the case of misuse of a weapon.
The destruction of confiscated weapons would be a matter for the courts. I think the normal practice would be for the court to order the forfeiture or confiscation of the weapon, which would be securely destroyed by the authorities in a way that would put the weapon out of use, but if there is any difference in the process, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Deregulation Act 2015, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and the Insolvency (amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Stephen Barclay)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Deregulation Act 2015, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and the Insolvency (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
In 2015, the Government introduced a series of reforms to modernise and streamline the insolvency process. The regulations will amend the relevant special insolvency procedures for financial sector firms to take account of those reforms. The Deregulation Act 2015 separated out the authorisation of insolvency practitioners for personal and corporate insolvency to reduce the cost of training for applicants who wish to specialise. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 introduced a series of changes to streamline the insolvency process, including allowing liquidators to exercise powers without court permissions and extending the maximum term for an administration. The Insolvency (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 made similar reforms to the insolvency legislation in Northern Ireland.
The purpose of the reforms was to reduce unnecessary regulation and therefore cost, to improve public confidence in insolvency legislation and to make the legislation clearer. The Government carried out extensive consultations before introducing the reforms to the insolvency regime, and there was broad support from the industry.
The regulations will make consequential amendments to the existing modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector. Modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector exist because general insolvency procedure is not always suitable for failed financial institutions. Such regimes apply general insolvency law with modifications designed to address the special nature of some financial institutions. For example, a bespoke bank insolvency procedure tackles the impact of insolvency on financial stability.
The special insolvency procedures for the financial sector are built on general insolvency law, so they now need to be amended to reflect the reforms. The regulations are therefore important to ensure that the benefits of the reforms to general insolvency law are extended to the financial sector. They will also ensure that the modified insolvency regimes for the financial sector are compatible with general insolvency law, thus reducing legal uncertainty. The proposal of the consequential amendments follows discussions with the regulatory authorities and the banking liaison panel.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
I welcome the Whip, who I understand is taking the place of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stourbridge because she is unable to join us for family reasons in what are sad circumstances. I am sure that he will deputise for her extremely well. He was certainly very brief in his comments. I suspect that I shall be slightly less brief, but here goes.
The Government made some significant changes to insolvency law in 2015 through the Deregulation Act and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, and in 2016 through the Insolvency (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland). The Government’s intention in making the changes was to decrease undue regulation and reduce cost. However, the primary legislation that enacted the changes was not applicable to all kinds of financial services, as the Minister said, because such organisations tend to have special insolvency regimes, given their unique position.
The Opposition will not oppose the statutory instrument today, but we have some specific concerns about the provisions, which I hope the Minister will be able to address. The regulations extend section 17 of the Deregulation Act 2015, which made changes to the licensing regime for insolvency practitioners, to financial services. Previously, practitioners were granted an insolvency licence that allowed them to act in relation to both corporate and personal insolvency cases.
My concern is that bankruptcy is very different from corporate insolvency. As some insolvency practitioners have pointed out, if someone acts only on bankruptcy, how can they understand corporate insolvency? Likewise, if someone has been doing corporate insolvencies all their life, how can they understand adequately what is involved for a sole trader or a partnership, or for personal bankruptcy as a whole? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s analysis of that point.
A question was asked in the Deregulation Public Bill Committee about the impact on the quality of professional work of requiring practitioners to pass only one part of the insolvency exams. It is an extremely rigorous set of qualifications. I worked for an insolvency practitioner a very long time ago, and the qualified insolvency practitioners in the firm generally came from a cohort of which only 2% passed the professional exams, such are the high standards in the profession. There has been great concern about the impact of these changes on the profession.
Similarly, the Opposition had serious concerns about section 118 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which is also extended to financial services through this statutory instrument. That section amended the Insolvency Act 1986 to allow a liquidator or administrator to assign causes of action that arise on a company going into liquidation or administration. Opposition Members said of the section:
“This clause would allow the office holder to assign not only the right of action but the proceeds of such action. By ensuring that the purchaser would stand to gain fully from potential benefits arising from the action, alongside bearing all the risk and cost of pursuing the claim, the Government are assuming that a clear incentive will be created to pursue more wrongdoers. The clause may well deliver in that regard. However, there may be other, unintended consequences.”––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 4 November 2014; c. 445.]
I would be grateful if the Minister gave us examples of how the section has been implemented thus far to help us understand its extension to financial services.
The statutory instrument includes measures to support unsecured creditors, but may I ask about the impact on staff? Staff are ring-fenced in insolvency proceedings and have been for some time, but there is a limit to how much money is recovered for redundancy payments during insolvencies. We have seen that in high-profile examples, such as BHS and Comet. I had a Comet store in my constituency, so I know how much money staff members were still owed after the Government-backed scheme was exhausted. Will the changes to the support for unsecured creditors make any difference in helping staff to recover the excess amounts not covered by the Government schemes, or is this just a more general set of changes for unsecured creditors?
Similarly, there is the opportunity for administrators to take action against directors for fraudulent or wrongful trading. Will the Minister give us examples of where the provisions that have already been approved outside financial services have been applied? That will indicate whether there will be successful additional action when they apply to financial services.
I mentioned two high-profile cases, but there are a number of others. There is great concern inside and outside Parliament about the actions of some directors. Philip Green is a notable example; we are all familiar with his having agreed a sum of £363 million out of a £571 million pension shortfall. Is that an example, or are there other examples, of where the changes in regulations will enable action to be taken against directors to ensure that they act in the way that most people would expect them to? Do the terms “fraudulent or wrongful trading” cover those sorts of examples? Can we be given some assurance that the changes, which the Opposition broadly welcomed when the original legislation was passed, have started to create the intended improvements and have been helpful in supporting creditors and ensuring that directors take a more responsible attitude to business?
With those remarks and questions, I am happy to say that we broadly support the changes that have been introduced. We were pleased that the Government introduced them at the time. Having put our concerns on record, I look forward to the answers. We will not oppose the regulations.
The Chair
Of course, this is Parliament and I want to encourage as full a debate as possible, but for the guidance of Members, we are expecting a series of votes in about nine or 10 minutes.
Stephen Barclay
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sefton Central for his broad support for the regulations, which essentially focus on tidying up measures relating to the financial services sector. He referred to Philip Green. The focus of the regulations is to target not the retail sector as a whole, but the financial sector specifically.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. In the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, I will answer them as best I can. First, he referred to section 17 of the Deregulation Act 2015 and the difference between bankruptcy and corporate insolvency. He asked whether those who are trained to act on one will understand the other. The key point is that we intend that there will be a general paper, and that people can specialise within that. We are separating out the authorisations to allow insolvency practitioners to specialise in one or the other, but there will still be an initial general paper covering both.
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to provide clarification and further detail on his points about fraudulent or wrongful activity and the extension to financial services. The key point to make to the Committee is that we have had a much wider debate on the changes that are being made to insolvency, and I do not want to revisit that wider debate today. We are here to debate the specific impact on financial stability and how we amend the legislation to fit with those wider reforms.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on staff and the extent to which we ring-fence for insolvency procedures. He mentioned the Comet case specifically, which I know caused numerous concerns. The reforms are intended to benefit creditors by removing red tape. Therefore, as far as insolvency procedures are concerned, staff are often creditors and will benefit from the reforms. I hope that that reassures him that where instances like Comet arise in future, there will be some benefits from this exercise.
I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration—
Bill Esterson
The Minister kindly offered to write to me on one matter. Perhaps when he does, he could flesh out some of the other points a little more. In particular, can he give details of how staff will benefit, rather than the more general point that he just made? I appreciate that he is probably not in a position to tell me that in detail now, so perhaps that will be an opportunity to address the point more fully.
Stephen Barclay
I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with a much fuller example, and I commit to writing to him on that basis.
Subject to there being no further comments from Members, I am very grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the regulations today and for the points that have been made. In summary, the regulations make consequential amendments to the special insolvency procedures for financial sector firms to take account of the reforms that we have discussed. I ask the Committee to support the changes.
Question put and agreed to.
Farriers (Registration) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 7th March 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Farriers (Registration) Act 2017 View all Farriers (Registration) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I welcome you all to the Committee. Before we begin, I will make a couple of introductory remarks. You know that I take a very old-fashioned view with regard to behaviour in Committee, and anyone caught taking their clothes off or drinking coffee or anything else will be asked not to do so, if that is all right by everyone concerned.
No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. That means that we will have one debate on clause 1 stand part, if that is agreeable, during which it will be perfectly sensible to discuss clauses 2 and 3 stand part, and indeed the schedule to the Bill. At the end of the debate, if it is agreeable to the Committee, we will take clauses 2 and 3 and the schedule formally, having already debated them, rather than taking each separately.
The Chair
I see from nods around the room that that is indeed an acceptable way of proceeding.
Clause 1
Constitution of Farriers Registration Council and its committees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am delighted to be able to present the Bill, to which I have some attachment, as my father started life as a farrier before the second world war. When he came back from the war, things had changed and he followed another career, but I am delighted to have this opportunity to introduce the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to protect and maintain the public interest and protect the welfare of equines by modernising the governance, structure and operation of the Farriers Registration Council and its statutory committees. That will enable the council to overcome practical difficulties caused by out-of-date legislation, reduce the risk of legal challenge and modernise the council’s structure and operations in line with the Government’s better regulation principles and the practices of other regulators.
Clause 1 introduces the schedule, which amends the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 and makes changes to the constitution of the Farriers Registration Council and its committees: the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee. The schedule has three parts, which replace the respective sections in the original Act dealing with the constitution of the council, the constitution of the investigating committee, and the constitution of the disciplinary committee. I will summarise the key points of those parts and highlight the changes that the Bill makes.
Part 1 of the schedule deals with the constitution of the council. The Bill retains the existing number of members—16—but makes some changes to their make-up. It removes the distinction between employed and self-employed farriers, as virtually all farriers are self-employed these days, so the distinction is out of date and no longer representative or valid. Four practising farriers will be elected, and two farriers will be appointed by the British Farriers and Blacksmiths Association. Three members will still be appointed by the Worshipful Company of Farriers, but there will be a new requirement that at least one must be a practising farrier. That means that the minimum number of farriers on the council will be seven, and there may be as many as nine if the worshipful company chooses to appoint more than one farrier. The remainder of the council will be made up of two veterinary surgeons and five lay representatives appointed by various interested bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Horseracing Authority. The worshipful company will no longer appoint the chairman, who will be elected by the council from its members.
The Bill also tightens some of the provisions for serving on the council. It introduces a fixed four-year term of office for all members and stipulates that a member may serve on the council only twice. It introduces fitness-to-serve conditions. Members may be removed from office if they fail to comply with those conditions.
Turning to the changes in the constitution of the investigating and disciplinary committees set out in parts 2 and 3 of the schedule, part 2 deals with the investigating committee, which carries out preliminary investigations of cases or complaints against farriers that could amount to professional misconduct. If the investigating committee deems that to be so, the case is sent to the disciplinary committee, which determines whether the charges are proven. It can, where appropriate, apply sanctions—in the most serious cases, up to and including the removal of someone from the register of farriers. That would mean that that person would no longer legally be able to practise farriery.
The function of those committees is vital to the regulation of the farriery profession, and the Bill seeks to make changes to modernise the law and ensure that they are fit and proper for regulation in the 21st century. In particular, the Bill seeks to impose a full separation of powers, as I shall now explain. As the law stands, the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee are made up of members of the council. That does not fulfil the principle of separation of powers and the removal of possible bias and impartiality. The body that sets the standards for the profession is also responsible for investigation and adjudication on possible breaches of those standards.
As such, decisions of the investigating committee or the disciplinary committee may be subject to legal challenge by those whose cases are determined on the basis that they did not have the right to a fair trial. Equally, members of the public may view the lack of impartiality as farriers looking after their own. Consequently, it is vital that changes are made to bring the law up to date. The Bill proposes that members of the investigating and disciplinary committees are not members of the council; nor may they be an officer or servant of the council—that is, paid staff of the Farriers Registration Council.
The provision will be retained that a person on the disciplinary committee cannot sit on a case if they served time on the investigation committee in respect of the same case. That will ensure that full separation of powers is met and that the investigation and disciplinary committees meet the requirements of a modern regulator.
To summarise the remainder of the Bill: the investigating committee will consist of six people appointed by the council, of whom at least two must be registered by the council. The chair will be appointed by the council, and the quorum for a meeting will be three, at least one of whom must be a registered person. As with the council itself, the Bill would introduce a fitness-to-serve provision and powers to remove those who do not comply.
The constitution of the disciplinary committee, set out in part 3 of the schedule, follows similar lines. The principal difference from the investigating committee is that the disciplinary committee will consist of nine members appointed by the council, at least three of whom must be registered persons. The quorum for a meeting will be five members, at least one of whom must be registered. Otherwise, the same rules apply as for the investigating committee: the chair will be designated by the council, and a fitness-to-serve provision introduced, with powers to remove those who cannot comply.
Clause 2 inserts new section 17A into the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 and gives powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend or replace those parts of the measure that deal with the constitution of the council, the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee. In short, the clause would allow future amendment of the legislation to be made by secondary legislation, should that become necessary.
The clause also recognises the devolved nature of the legislation and would require that, if any future legislative change is made, the Secretary of State must gain the consent of Scottish and Welsh Ministers. The Secretary of State must also consult the FRC and any other relevant parties. Legislative changes will be by statutory instrument and subject to the negative procedure.
Clause 3 provides for the Bill to extend to England and Wales and Scotland, and states that the main body of the Act will come into force when introduced by statutory instrument at a date determined by the Secretary of State.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. It is more than three years since the coalition Government carried out the consultation on reforming the governance structure and operation of the Farriers Registration Council. Unfortunately, they were not able to allocate time in the previous Parliament for a draft Bill to reform the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975.
I, therefore, congratulate the hon. Member for Gower on taking up the draft Bill. It was wonderful to hear—and he must be proud to be able to speak on this—about something that his father was involved in during his early life. He spoke in depth about the Bill’s clauses, so I will be brief, the Committee will be pleased to hear. The Bill will modernise the Government’s structure and operation of the FRC and its statutory committees to protect and maintain the public interest.
Under the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975, the FRC not only has a responsibility to maintain, regulate and approve membership of the register, but it has a responsibility for the preliminary investigation of disciplinary cases through its investigating committee, and it determines cases through its disciplinary committee. The arrangements are out of date and are not in line with the regulation of other professions. In the Bill, members of both the investigating committee and the disciplinary committee will not be members of the FRC, which will result in an acceptable separation of powers. There will also be a fitness-to-serve requirement for all members, similar to that in other regulatory bodies. There are also defined terms of office, and the chair will no longer be appointed but will be elected by members of the council.
The Bill will reduce the risk of legal challenge, and bring the regulation of the farrier profession into line with the regulation of other professions. It will introduce a new flexibility, and will allow future changes to the FRC to be made by the Secretary of State under secondary legislation, thus allowing the FRC and its committees to be kept up to date and fit for purpose. We support the Bill, as it introduces a greater level of fairness and transparency to the FRC and its committees that will underpin its progress as a modern and professional regulator for its members, and for those who rely on the industry well into the future.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I, too, shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill. As a result of an interaction I had with a constituent of mine who is a farrier, I seem to have got to know more farriers in the country along the way. Perhaps this is a good example of how democracy works: we are here to serve our constituents, and I promised that if I could not get him the answer he needed, I would apply to get on the Bill Committee. Here I am today as a result.
My constituent, Mr Jeffrey Newnham, has concerns about the composition of the Farriers Registration Council, particularly the requirement that the worshipful company provide three members. It appears that the Government have also looked at this issue. The changes are welcome, and should be welcomed by my constituent. By ensuring that one of the three members from the worshipful company must be a farrier, the number of farriers on the council is increased. The Government seem to recognise that there should be greater representation of farriers within the worshipful company.
It may seem strange to some hon. Members, but it is not a requirement for the Worshipful Company of Farriers to actually provide farriers to the council. As a result, farriers feel that they are under-represented among the 16 members. They want 50% of the council to be farriers, rather than the seven out of 16 that will be the case under the Government’s change, which at least raises it from six. Farriers themselves feel that they are under-represented.
The point I would make to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, and perhaps to the Minister, is that there seems to be a lack of harmony between the farrier industry and its own worshipful company. Knowing some of these companies, I would say that its rules can at times be outmoded and its constitution might not necessarily reflect the industry that it was originally set up to serve. There may need to be a bringing together of farriers and their own worshipful company. I recognise that it is not the Government’s job to intervene so closely, but where farriers have real concerns about a lack of representation on their own council, I would like the Government to take steps to bring the sides together in the event that the Government are unwilling to put the make-up up to 50%.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gower on bringing forward this Bill, which enjoys full Government support? As the shadow Minister pointed out, we held a consultation on this issue in 2013. The intention is, at the request of the Farriers Registration Council, to revisit the legislation to enable the council to modernise its procedures. The Farriers Registration Council is an important organisation. It was established by the 1975 Act to maintain a register of farriers, to determine who is eligible to practise and to approve farrier training. The Farriers Registration Council is a light-touch regulatory body that focuses on regulating the individual and leaves the farrier free to adopt the business model of their choice.
I will not rehearse the detailed intention behind each clause because my hon. Friend the Member for Gower has outlined that. In summary, first, the Bill establishes a new schedule that enables us to revisit the constitution of the Farriers Registration Council. I will return to that in a moment, given the points made my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. Secondly, in order to establish a degree of independence that it was felt was wanted, the Bill makes changes to the constitution of the disciplinary committee and the investigating committee to ensure that members of those committees cannot also be members of the council. Thirdly and importantly, clause 2 establishes a power for us to revisit issues such as the constitution of the Farriers Registration Council and its committees through secondary legislation. Most of us here today would probably think it unnecessary to have primary legislation to make decisions about the constitution of a particular committee of the Farriers Registration Council.
The original 1975 Act sought to maintain some continuity with the very good work done by the Worshipful Company of Farriers, which can trace its origins right back to 1356. In fact, the company is No. 55 on the register of the City of London livery companies. The 1975 Act always intended to maintain a link between the Worshipful Company of Farriers and the Farriers Registration Council. That is why it charged the Worshipful Company of Farriers with the function of
“securing adequate standards of competence and conduct”
among farriers, and the duty of promoting, encouraging and advancing the
“art and science of farriery”.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle pointed out, under the legislation, it is the role of the Worshipful Company of Farriers to provide three appointees to the Farriers Registration Council, but we are making a number of important changes.
I reassure my hon. Friend that I, too, have had meetings with farriers on both sides of the debate. I have met those who felt that the Worshipful Company of Farriers had too great a role. They raised two particular issues. First, they felt there should be 50% representation of working farriers. Secondly, they had concerns about the ability of the Worshipful Company of Farriers, under the original Act, to directly appoint a chairman of the Farriers Registration Council. I listened to those concerns, but I reassure him that they are not felt universally by all farriers. I have also had farriers contact me to say that they are perfectly happy with the current arrangements, that they have great confidence in the Worshipful Company of Farriers, and that they would not want to break that link.
We have therefore sought to build a compromise that addresses all of those concerns. First, we have made it clear that the Worshipful Company of Farriers will no longer directly appoint a chairman of its choosing. In future, the members of the council will decide who is their chairman. That does not prevent there being a convention, if it is the will of the members of the council, for the Worshipful Company of Farriers to advance options or nominations to be considered alongside others. However, it means that the worshipful company will no longer have the power to directly appoint a chairman.
The second change is that, of the three appointees the worshipful company must make, at least one must be a working farrier. It is possible for all three to be working farriers, meaning that, of the 16 members, a minimum of seven and a maximum of nine will be working farriers. It is likely that, more often than not, the majority of council members will be working farriers, which I think strikes the right balance. If the council were predominantly constituted of farriers and did not, as currently, have veterinary experts, representatives of the horse industry and other experts in the field, there would be the danger of regulatory capture. That is the counter-argument that has been made by others in the worshipful company. I hope that the compromises we have made strike the right balance in that regard and mean that hon. Members feel able to support the Bill.
Finally, I simply say that it is important that councils such as this have a collegiate manner and work together, based on the evidence of individual cases and particular problems. We do not want a system in which there is a bloc vote of working farriers versus the rest; that would clearly not be a healthy state of affairs. I hope I have reassured hon. Members about the changes we are making and the reasons for them. In doing so, we make no comment at all about the Worshipful Company of Farriers. It is an organisation with a proud history. I have met its representatives and have a huge amount of respect for them. The Bill will maintain the close link with the Worshipful Company of Farriers while, I hope, striking the right balance in other areas. I am happy to say that I support the Bill and hope it is passed quickly.
Byron Davies
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s kind words, her support for the Bill and her assistance in allowing for its smooth transition. I am grateful to the Minister for addressing the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, and I hope that that matter has been put to rest for him and his constituent, Mr Jeffrey Newnham. That is about all I have to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Beer Duty
(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 Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered beer duty.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to open this debate on a very important matter. First, I must acknowledge and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies), who secured this debate only to find that it clashed with other, unavoidable parliamentary business. He therefore asked if I would step in for him. His loss is my gain. I am sure he would want me to mention right at the very beginning Gower Brewery, which produces some excellent ales—I remember a very enjoyable evening with my hon. Friend, drinking Gower Gold. It is right to acknowledge that in his absence.
The debate is timely, taking place the day before the Budget. We hope once again for good news from the Chancellor and another cut in the much despised beer duty. There is no doubt that the brewing and pub industry has faced a great many challenges in recent years, which have brought a wind of change blowing through one of the oldest and best loved traditional businesses in the UK. Public houses—or, as we all more affectionately know them, pubs—and breweries have experienced enormous change and upheaval over the past 30 years or so. The vast and often overlooked brewing and hostelry industry is an icon of our nation, cited by tourists the world over as one of the reasons for visiting the UK. Almost 900,000 people work in pubs and the supply chain, from agriculture to brewing, logistics and the licensed trade.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the debate. He rightly points to the vast number of jobs that the industry supports, many of which are in peripheral areas of the country such as our constituencies. Does he agree that action on beer duty, which is up to 10 times that of the duty paid in our neighbouring continental countries, is a vital step?
Steve Double
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whereas many other industries are centralised in very specific areas or regions of our country, the pub industry is spread right across it and provides much needed jobs in many of the more rural areas. He is also right that we need to reduce the gap between the duty we pay in this country and the duty paid in many other countries, and I will come on to that later.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies the role of rural pubs, many of which serve those who come out to the countryside from our conurbations. What impact does he think the ill-thought-out proposals from the Local Government Association to cut the number from 2 pints or 1.5 pints to 1 pint will have on those pubs?
Steve Double
I assume the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the guidelines for alcohol consumption. I suspect that is a subject for another day, but I understand his point.
Mr Spellar
No, I am not talking about the guidelines; I am talking about the drink-drive limit. Most of the offences are recorded at the much higher level of about 150 mg. A reduction in the limit could have a dramatic effect on many rural pubs, let alone rugby clubs, Royal British Legion clubs and so on.
Steve Double
I now understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is making. I would never drink and drive at all. That attitude has become much more the norm in today’s society, where most people consider that drinking anything and driving should be avoided. I am not entirely sure that I agree with his point.
The brewing and pub industry not only employs 900,000 people but attracts many younger people to its workforce—in fact, 46% of those employed in the sector are under 25 years old. That level of employment among the young is a critical factor, especially in rural constituencies such as the one I represent in Cornwall. While many start out in basic roles, they go on to become professionals in the trade or elsewhere—for example, working as chefs, licensees or successful businesspeople in their own right, and employing others.
That said, the news has not always been good in recent times. Some 17,000 pubs have closed in the past three decades, and while the closure trend has slowed markedly of late, many communities will grieve the loss of their local, which all too often is the only pub in the area.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Although it is not the only factor, does the hon. Gentleman agree that cuts in beer duty increase investment and employment opportunities, particularly for the young, while increases do the opposite?
Steve Double
I wholeheartedly agree. Lower taxes generally encourage investment and growth in a sector, and I will press for that as the debate goes on.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my sense of pride that it was a Conservative Government who in 2012 finally put an end to the beer duty escalator—a measure that had led to duty going up 42% between 2008 and 2012? Following that, in 2014 beer sales increased and an estimated 21,000 jobs were created in the industry.
Steve Double
My hon. Friend may have been reading my notes, because that is a point I will come on to highlight.
There are many reasons why pubs have closed. Some of them were badly managed, and some lacked investment to keep the facilities up to date. Although I believe that the smoking ban was the right thing to do, and it is popular among many pub goers, we have to acknowledge that it stopped smokers visiting the pub quite so often. There are also changing social habits, with more people drinking at home as a result of cheap alcohol available in supermarkets and other outlets.
Those factors have all contributed, but it is also undeniable that the dreadful and despised beer duty escalator introduced in 2008 had a devastating effect on the industry. Annual duty rises under the escalator led to beer duties rising to among some of the highest anywhere. Even now, following successive years of duty reduction by this Conservative Government, our pints remain heavily taxed at around 52p on a 5% alcohol by volume pint, compared with 4p in other key beer-brewing nations such as Germany and Spain—an enormous and disproportionate difference that needs to be addressed.
There is much more happening now, with a revolution in the old craft of brewing and selling beer to the UK’s 32 million beer drinkers. Numerous microbreweries have opened up and craft beer and real ale are rising in popularity. I have the great privilege of having a great example of a local family-run brewery in my constituency. St Austell Brewery has been a roaring success in recent years, particularly since the launch of its excellent Tribute ale. It now makes many excellent beers, and I spent an enjoyable day during the recent recess assisting master brewer Roger Ryman in making a batch of Proper Job. I count the fact that I managed to make more than I drank that day as a notable success.
While it is right to recognise concerns about alcohol abuse, we must note that the majority of people enjoy healthy levels of drinking. Given the social benefits that come with a visit to the local pub, it makes no more sense to celebrate pub closures than it does to close roads because some motorists speed.
Mr Spellar
On the subject of craft breweries, will the hon. Gentleman, who rightly attacks the beer duty escalator, acknowledge the very considerable role played by the duty exemption for small breweries that are getting off the ground? That was a major factor in the explosion of the craft brewery business and was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) when he was at the Treasury.
Steve Double
I will happily agree. The support given to microbreweries to develop right across the country—they are now producing very high-quality, excellent craft beer—is a success that should be noted.
David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that larger breweries, such as Carlsberg in my constituency, also play an important role in providing beer for people, but the beer duty also has an impact on them?
Steve Double
I wholeheartedly agree that the beer duty affects the whole industry. That is why I believe it needs to be addressed.
One interesting statistic I read was that communities that have a well loved pub are happier. Pubs have that very positive effect on local communities. I was dismayed when a local Liberal Democrat councillor in St Austell recently suggested tightening up the local licensing regulations and limiting the number of pubs to curb incidents of antisocial behaviour. That misses the point entirely, because well run pubs promote responsible drinking, and in my experience they have a positive impact by reducing crime and antisocial behaviour, rather than being the cause of the problem.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned St Austell —I am very partial to a pint of Clouded Yellow myself. A family brewery, John Willie Lees, is a major employer in my constituency. I fully support the comments that the hon. Gentleman is making about social drinking. I am sure that he will agree that we should be promoting pubs, keeping them open and stopping people buying cheap alcohol and drinking alone at home.
Steve Double
I wholeheartedly agree. Not only are pubs great places for community cohesion, but they promote responsible drinking in a safe environment, which we should wholeheartedly support.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is very generous. On responsible drinking, another change has been the move to lower alcohol beer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that beer with an alcoholic strength of less than 3.5% is subject to 66% more duty than very high-strength cider at 7.5%? Does he agree that we could do more to incentivise the consumption of beers under 3.5%?
Steve Double
I agree. We do need to look in particular at the amount of duty on high-strength ciders, because it is disproportionately low and should be increased. The duty on lower strength beers should also be looked at, to encourage their consumption. The industry was challenged by the Government to reduce consumption of alcohol units by 1 billion by 2015. By reformulating and introducing lower alcohol drinks, the industry surpassed that target ahead of schedule, which we should acknowledge and welcome. There is also a fall and clear downward trend in problems relating to under-age drinking in pubs, as licensees—pub landlords—have become more responsible in their approach to that matter.
The problems associated with drinking have less and less to do with pubs and more and more to do with sales of cheap alcohol in supermarkets and other off-licence establishments. It is clear that pubs can and do have a very positive impact on their local communities. Pubs are experiencing a revolution. They have caught the spirit of the times and of this Government: there is a belief and a strategy about getting best value for money and a happier, better outcome for everyone by making best use of what we have and combining our efforts.
Let us take as an example the village of Nanpean in my constituency of St Austell and Newquay. Once a bustling, busy community, almost solely reliant on the booming china clay industry, it has declined in recent years. That and changing shopping habits over the years meant that the Co-op supermarket, four general stores, the butcher’s, the bakery, the fish and chip shop and the post office all had to close. No shop remained—none was viable as a stand-alone unit; none could survive with separate overheads and wage bills. Thanks to innovation, though, the Grenville Arms pub in Nanpean now houses the post office and a shop, and the combination of the three has proved a great success. Each one helps the others to provide key services to the local community of about 2,000 people. The shop sells essentials and locally produced food, and the return of the post office is a real asset to the whole community. The scheme has created new jobs and, with its fresh role at the centre of village life, the pub has become a community meeting point.
All that was achieved by converting a disused room. Of course, there was a cost. That was met by the licensee and an organisation that was originally the inspiration of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Pub is The Hub is a voluntary, not-for-profit organisation helps pubs in rural communities to innovate and thrive. By working with all interested parties—breweries, licensees, councils and local communities—it has had success in bringing together talents and opportunities and meeting needs. It gives guidance to groups seeking to buy their local pub to save it from closure. Besides advice, it gives grants—modest sums of money that make a big difference. Pub is The Hub says that, on average, for every pound in grant provided, an additional £1.60 is forthcoming from other sources.
I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who is responsible for pubs. He continues to champion Pub is The Hub and has this year supported the organisation further with a £50,000 grant. Heineken matched the funding, giving Pub is The Hub further assistance to continue its excellent work across England and Wales and now, I believe, in Scotland.
A revolution is under way in the pub trade, and we need to do a lot more to support it. The simplest and best way to do that is by continuing the process of reversing the crazy, punitive, unfair and mean-spirited hikes in beer duty imposed by the previous Labour Government. The UK’s excise duty rate for beer is much higher than that in most European countries. Despite the three duty cuts by the Conservative Government in recent years, the UK has the third highest duty rate in the European Union. Forty per cent. of all beer duty paid in the EU is paid by the UK, yet we drink only 12% of the beer.
Tax on beer has been a sorry story. From 2008 to 2012, there were steep and relentless tax increases, with a staggering 9.1% hike in March 2008 and an 8% increase in December of the same year. Then came the beer duty escalator, which increased beer duty by 2% above inflation every year. By 2012, beer duty had increased by 42% since 2008. Although other factors played their part, that was a disaster for the industry, with thousands of pubs closing and tens of thousands of job losses. Despite the hike in duty, revenues rose by just 12%. Punitive taxes do not work.
In 2013 the beer duty escalator was, mercifully, dropped. Then came further relief with three 2% cuts and a freeze in 2016. There is revived confidence in the sector. Beer sales have increased, which in turn has led to higher levels of investment in pubs and breweries. Tax cuts work. They boost trade at home and give this major exporting industry extra confidence in its future. In 2016 the value of UK beer exports was a healthy £584 million; it was up 17% on the previous year. So there we have it: a multimillion-pound industry that exports the world over, employs the young in record numbers, attracts visitors to our shores and yet has in its sights ensuring that villagers still have a post office and the lonely have a place to go and be part of the local community.
I and many other hon. Members present want to thank the former Chancellor and the Government. Despite the enormous task of deficit reduction and the difficulties that lay ahead, they chose to reduce beer duty, seeing the beneficial effects that that would ultimately have. Confidence and investment are returning but now we need another hand up—we need a further reduction in beer duty. Seven out of 10 alcoholic drinks sold in pubs are beer, and 82% of those are brewed in the UK. The most effective way of keeping our community pubs open and trade buoyant is by continuing to support them and giving them the confidence they need. I am calling for a revival of the beer duty escalator, but escalators go in both directions. I want an escalator that goes the other way and reduces beer duty significantly.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on his speech; he told us that he was a substitute, but that was certainly not the introductory speech of a substitute. May I also take this opportunity to welcome my next-door neighbour and good friend, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), to his place? He is the chairman of the all-party parliamentary beer group. I was with him in the Terrace marquee the other night where, I must say, I enjoyed the award-winning beers from the Campaign for Real Ale, including Binghams vanilla stout, which I enjoyed—but only in moderation, of course.
I have had the pleasure of going to two pub openings in my constituency in the past couple of weeks. I went to the Handbridge pub, which has been refurbished by Punch Taverns, and I was very pleased to go to the Bull and Stirrup in Chester, which is a historic pub, particularly for the labour movement, to open it with the actor Ricky Tomlinson. It has been the beneficiary of a £2 million refurbishment courtesy of Wetherspoon’s. It employs 70-odd people—most of them very young—and is an excellent example of the fact that pubs and the industry provide employment, including at entry level, for people looking to make their way in their career.
I want to speak briefly about one of the big employers in my constituency, Admiral Taverns, which I am proud to represent. It employs 145 people in my constituency, has 850 pubs across the UK and is consistently winning awards. It was the leased and tenanted pub company of the year in 2013 and 2016, which makes it the current holder of that prestigious award, and I can tell Members this morning that it is again shortlisted for community pub operator of the year. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay talked about the importance of community pubs. I worked with Admiral Taverns when it closed the Centurion pub in Vicars Cross in my constituency. I worked with community leaders Trevor Jones and Bob Hindhaugh, and we managed to persuade Admiral Taverns to reopen it with community leadership. That was a tough business, because the numbers had to add up, and part of the reason for the closure was the high beer taxation levels. I have worked with Admiral Taverns on a couple of projects since, and I am proud to do so. It is keen to see a continued light touch in the taxation of the pub sector.
In this short contribution I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the conflict between beer duty and business rates. I am told that business rates for pubs are calculated on turnover, but that that turnover includes beer duty. As Admiral Taverns point out that is, therefore, a double whammy—I believe that is the phrase, Sir Roger. They are being taxed on taxation, because turnover includes beer duty. I ask the Minister whether levels of beer duty or the business rates calculations can be taken into account.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I want to reflect on that briefly, because my hon. Friend is making an exceptionally important point. Even before the re-evaluation of business rates, which will hit pubs particularly hard, pubs were paying 2.8% of the total business rates bill but only accounting for 0.5% of total business turnover. That is a crucial area that I hope the Minister will take into account and feed into the Budget negotiations for tomorrow.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There does seem to be a discrepancy. I would not like to think that pubs, which play such an important part in communities, as we correctly learned from the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay, are seen as a soft touch and an easy hit.
I am keen to convey on behalf of my constituents, particularly Admiral Taverns, with which I have an excellent relationship, that there needs to continue to be a light touch to allow the sector to flourish. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), who is no longer in his place, about the effect on microbreweries when there was a reduction in taxation—that sector of the business expanded. I believe that could also help in the pub sector and in community pubs, but there is a real problem in the conflict between business rates and beer duty, and I ask the Minister to look at it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Graham Evans, Jim Shannon, Helen Whately and Claire Perry are all seeking to speak, and I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30 am. I am not going to impose a limit, but do the maths.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee and the Chairman of Ways and Means for enabling the debate and to my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for Gower (Byron Davies) for their speeches. Indeed, I pay tribute to Gower Gold, which is an excellent beer, and to Tribute; I look forward to visiting St Austell brewery in my capacity as chairman of the all-party beer group. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who did an excellent job in slaying the hated beer duty escalator.
I must confess that I have stopped many a barrel of beer going sour in my life. I met Mrs Evans in a pub when I was a wee slip of a lad in my 20s working behind a bar. My mother was a barmaid and she worked in a pub; my brother and sister worked in a pub; my father spent most of his time in the pub. My auntie and uncle had a pub in Chester on Northgate Street—I am sure the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) knows it well—and it is an excellent coaching inn. I used to stay there for my school holidays. It was haunted—I believe it still is—and it used to scare the life out of me, but that does not stop me going in whenever I visit Chester.
The economic value of pubs and beer is important. The industry employs nearly 1 million people, many of them young, and contributes £23 billion to UK plc and £10 billion in tax to the Exchequer. I welcome the steps taken in the last Parliament on the dreaded beer duty escalator, with the three successive cuts in beer duty before the freeze in the 2016 Budget. Although it is easy to think that a penny or two off a pint does not make any difference, it does make a significant difference, as right hon. and hon. Members have said. The turnaround in confidence since 2013 has seen more than £l billion invested by brewers and pub owners each year, with thousands of pubs across the country being able to keep their doors open.
Yet despite those positive steps, the UK still has the third highest duty rate in the EU. The amount paid per pint is almost three times the EU average. UK beer drinkers pay 52p of duty per pint, whereas those in other major brewing nations such as Belgium, Germany and the Czech Republic pay around 5p per pint. Having recently met the Minister, I know she will be aware of the cross-industry initiative to incentivise the production of low-alcohol beers benefiting from the duty reduction on products below 3.5%. Although the industry has taken some steps with low-alcohol beers, the lower the percentage, the less the flavour, so looking at a stronger strength up to 3.5% ABV gives brewers the opportunity to create tastier beers.
Jessica Morden
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point on lower-strength beers. Does he agree that AB InBev in my constituency, which is developing more of those products, has a laudable aim in trying to have 20% of its products in the lower strength range by 2025? Does he agree that that is a positive development?
Graham Evans
That is a good and powerful point, and I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady. I grew up with a Manchester brewery called Boddingtons; we used to call it the “cream of Manchester”, but sadly it cannot be called that because it is brewed in Luton these days. AB InBev is producing it at 3.5%, which puts it in that low ABV category. I am keen to support the promotion of beers such as the ones made by the company in the hon. Lady’s constituency. At 3.5% Boddingtons is still a tasty beer, although it is not quite how I remember it from the ’70s and ’80s.
Few can argue that 3.5% beers should have 66% more duty imposed on them than 7.5% high-strength cider, which is more associated with problem drinking than any other drink. Hon. Members may remember the question that the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) asked at last week’s Prime Minister’s questions about her constituent who tragically died while drinking high-strength cider.
We are in a difficult economic position and alcohol excise duty makes an important contribution to reducing our inherited deficit, but beer duty clearly remains a concern to publicans, constituents and hon. Members. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the excellent Minister to carefully consider beer duty’s impact on the profitability of pubs, responsible drinking and the future of our local communities. Some 90% of the beer we drink is brewed in the United Kingdom and supports UK jobs and industry. In a post-Brexit Britain, the Great British pint drunk in the Great British pub will be able to compete on a level playing field with our European and international competition. We are lucky that the Minister loves beer and pubs—she is a member of CAMRA—and I urge her to do whatever she can for the Great British brewing industry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Sir Roger, and I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on presenting his case well. He was certainly a super-sub, so well done to him.
I have been contacted about the beer duty on numerous occasions—a few times by constituents complaining about the rising price of their well-earned beer at the end of a day, but mostly by the hospitality sector and industry, groaning with the weight of trying to inspire growth while being restricted by a seemingly never-ending duty increase, which happens year on year without fail. I would like to give Northern Ireland’s perspective and talk about how important the issue is for us and about the Minister’s responsibility.
I was contacted before the debate by Hospitality Ulster, which is the professional body that represents the hospitality industry in Northern Ireland—its membership consists of pubs, bars, café-bars, restaurants, hotels and major visitor attractions. Tourism is important for us in Northern Ireland, and the hospitality sector’s role is particularly important. Hospitality Ulster believes that it can transform the local economy and create additional wealth and job opportunities. The successful growth and expansion of the industry will have direct financial benefits, but only with the Government’s help and support. That is why the chance to set out the issues in this debate is important and why I am presenting this case on the industry’s behalf.
Figures indicate that there are 45,000 jobs in the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland. That may not seem a lot compared with similar job opportunities across the United Kingdom, but when we pare that down, it equates to one in 20 jobs being sourced in food and drink and the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, so the importance of this debate is clear. The hospitality sector overall accounts for 60,000 jobs across Northern Ireland and generates some £88.4 million in tax. It contributes approximately £1.1 billion to the Northern Ireland economy and pays out £653 million in wages, keeping people in employment and creating opportunities. Its importance, therefore, cannot be underlined enough.
In my area of North Down and Ards and in my constituency of Strangford, the sector pays some £7 million in tax and provides just over 3,700 jobs. There is potential for so much more, but we need to put in place support networks and help. That is partly about addressing the issue of taxation and duty, which is the key reason why we are here.
The tourism industry in Northern Ireland is competing in a cost-sensitive marketplace locally and globally. High taxation and the additional costs of unnecessary, disabling regulations and outdated legislation directly affect its ability to compete. In addition, the lack of access into and around Northern Ireland limits not only the number of people visiting the country but its residents’ access to the evening economy. Tourism brochures and information indicate that Belfast is one of the best areas for nightlife in the United Kingdom, and there are tremendous opportunities to do much better on access to it.
Much of the responsibility for this issue lies with the Northern Ireland Assembly—these are devolved matters—and I hope that it will soon be up and running; we are in the middle of a process of talks at the moment. However, taxation and duty are major issues for this House to address. Duties on all alcohol products are forecast to raise some £11.2 billion in 2016-17. To split that up, the duties on beer and cider are expected to raise £3.6 billion, whereas the duties on wine and spirits are expected to raise £4.2 billion and £3.4 billion respectively. Receipts from beer and cider duties are expected to rise slightly to £3.8 billion in 2017-18. That is a massive amount of money, and we understand its importance to the Treasury in balancing the books. We also need sustainability for the industry, which is why we want this matter to be looked at.
We need to ensure that this is the last small rise in a series of rises that has seen the price of a pint rise to £3.46, which is 20 times the amount that it would have cost in the 1970s. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) referred to those free and easy days, and that is a fond memory of a time when I also had hair. Correct me if I am wrong, but wages have not increased at a similar rate, so people are missing out and publicans are seeing customers sitting at home with a tin of beer at half the price. We have to address that as well. I will come on to that point, because some of these issues could be dealt with in the Budget and, at the same time, the importance of the hospitality sector could be reinforced.
We want to encourage a society that enjoys a drink responsibly. That is what pubs do: people are refused drinks if they are too drunk and car keys are removed, and there are protective barriers when people leave the pub. Pubs and landlords are careful about what they do, and they are responsible. On the other hand, the alcopops sector can have special offers in supermarkets, allowing 20 shots of vodka from a one-litre bottle to be downed for a shockingly small price tag. That issue was highlighted at a reception in Westminster three weeks ago. I was not aware that a big, one-litre bottle—it looked like lemonade, by the way, but it clearly was not—was so cheap and was placed in supermarkets to make it more attractive for people to buy. We have to address these issues. We all have great respect for the Minister, as others have said; she has always done her best in the many portfolios she has held, and I know that she will do the same for us today.
Something is not quite right about how we are approaching this issue. I believe that the duty rises should be put on the alcopops sector, which is often a favourite of under-age drinkers and is often where alcohol abuse takes place. The hospitality industry should be given a break, which may well keep businesses open and attractive to consumers who can put money in the local economy as opposed to the pockets of supermarket shareholders. I am not against supermarkets making money, but something is unfair when there is a clear imbalance.
I oppose any rise on beer duty, and I ask the Government and the Minister to fully consider the needs of this industry, which brings so much into the local economy and has the potential to do so much more if encouraged to do so.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies) on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on his impressive opening speech, particularly given that he was a substitute. He covered an enormous amount of ground and made important points.
This debate is an opportunity for colleagues to talk about their experiences with the world of pubs, but I cannot possibly compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), who told us that his family have been in the pub trade. I have not been to a pub since Sunday. I can vouch for the health benefits of pubs in my constituency, because the best way to get my children to go on a long walk in the rain and hail is the promise of a pub at the end of it—however, I assure hon. Members that they have a packet of crisps while the rest of us may have some beer.
Beer, the pubs trade and brewing are important to my constituency and have enormous historical significance. Brewing in the area goes back to medieval times. I have been told that my constituency is the first place in England where hops were grown. At the time, they were a new-found and not entirely welcome import to the English brewing scene, but times have changed, and they are most certainly welcome nowadays.
As well as being part of our history, brewing and pubs are critical employers in my constituency. Shepherd Neame, our largest brewer and the oldest in England, employs about 700 people in the constituency. Its well-known brands include Spitfire, Whitstable Bay and Master Brew, with which I hope colleagues are familiar, along with many other own brands and beers brewed under licence for other breweries. Whitstable Brewery is also in my constituency, although Whitstable itself is not. We also have several craft breweries and microbreweries, such as Hopdaemon, the excellent Mad Cat Brewery, which I have visited, and many others. Brewing is important to my patch, providing at least 2,000 jobs including in pubs.
On top of that, there is the agricultural side of brewing. Kent was once renowned for its hops. Although we do not still grow hops on the same scale, the hop sector is still a significant part of the Kent economy, and British hops are experiencing a revival. Hop growing in the UK has increased by about 8% in the last couple of years, and at least half of that is in my constituency. We have renowned experts on hops, such as the farmer Tony Redsell, who recently produced an excellent video about hop growing; I point viewers to it on my Twitter feed.
Pubs themselves are also important to my constituency. We have 84 pubs, and hopefully there will be another one soon: the Harrow pub in Ulcombe. It is currently closed, but the community are getting together to revive the pub. Pubs are so much more than just a place to go and have a drink; they can be the heart of a community. In a small village, there are often no other amenities or facilities, and the pub is the one place where people can meet up. It is important that we look after our pubs.
I am grateful that the Government have been doing so. I know that the industry in my constituency has welcomed the reductions and freezes in beer duty over recent years. I ask the Minister to consider continuing that approach to support the industry, bearing in mind that at the moment, pubs and the brewing industry as a whole face rising employment costs as well as the challenge of increasing business rates, as other hon. Members have mentioned. In that context, this is a particularly important moment to consider whether the industry can be helped through beer duty.
As other Members have mentioned, we are mindful of the difference in beer duty between the UK and some other brewing countries. Belgium and Germany have both been mentioned as countries with lower beer duty for their brewers. We know that we want to increase our exports, and that beer exports have been growing. There is a significant connection: a strong and vibrant brewing industry at home provides a good platform for brewers to export successfully. I feel strongly about supporting it through the tax system. On behalf of my constituency, I welcome the support that the Government have given to the brewing and pub industry, and I urge the Minister to continue that support.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this important debate. Colleagues have already referred to pubs in their constituencies; if I started doing that, I would have more than 100 to read out, and no one else would get an opportunity to speak. I will not play favourites towards any of them, but I will say that in Chesterfield, our night-time economy is incredibly important to us. I welcomed the liberalisation of licensing hours as a punter, although I must say that as the parent of a 19-year-old I am less enthusiastic than I used to be about our pubs being open until 6 o’clock in the morning.
None the less, pubs are an important part of our economy. When we reflect on their importance, as other Members have done, we must reflect on the contribution that they make to the economy and the community, and the contribution that they make as employers. They employ young people, and predominantly women, which is important to areas where the economy needs more help.
This debate is specifically about beer duty. Understandably, hon. Members have taken the opportunity to reflect on some of the other issues facing pubs, but beer duty is an important issue, and I am glad that the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay reflected on it. It sends a message from the Government about the importance of pubs to our communities, our society in Britain and our sense of national being. Beer is one of those iconic products of which I think all of us in Britain feel proud.
It is also important to reflect on the fact that if the Chancellor announces something about beer duty today but simultaneously puts pubs through the mill on business rates, not many will raise a glass. Beer duty needs to be seen alongside the impact of VAT and the potentially serious impact of business rates. The previous Chancellor deservedly got credit for cutting beer duty, but we should also remember that he raised it through the beer duty escalator. He came to power in 2010, and it was 2013 before he got rid of it; he milked it as well as abolishing it. It is important to see his record in that broader context.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for pubs, I work closely with the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) and his all-party parliamentary group on beer. We all collectively recognise the importance of pubs in our communities and our economy. In the spirit of working together with that group, I join him in calling for the Minister and the Chancellor to recognise the value of pubs in the Budget, and to ensure when considering beer duty and business rates that publicans will raise a glass to the Chancellor on Wednesday.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies), who cannot be here, on securing this important debate.
I have spoken several times in similar debates over the years. As I am sure Members know, I am the proud representative of Wadworthshire. I have in my constituency Wadworth Brewery, which brews iconic beers such as 6X, Swordfish and Bishop’s Tipple. It has 240 pubs in its chain and employs about 500 people. Nobody who visits Devizes can fail to be struck by the incredibly iconic brewery building, in which brewing has taken place since 1875, and Max and Monty, its two dray horses, who often cause traffic chaos when delivering to local pubs, although nobody minds, because they are a symbol of a wonderful local business. As well as Wadworth, I have Ramsbury Brewery, Shed Ales, World’s End Ales, Three Castles Brewery, Stonebridge Ales and Eastbury Brewing Co. in my constituency, all of which report that things are definitely looking up.
Why did I come along today to support the call for a cut in beer duty? I must confess that I was a little sceptical about what the impact might be when the original tax cuts were announced, for many of the reasons that have been mentioned: we drink in a different way; we often prefer to drink at home; supermarkets have historically used alcohol as a loss leader to generate foot traffic; the smoking ban has hurt businesses; and the drink-driving laws, which I absolutely and heartily support, have changed people’s way of being entertained. However, it is obvious that since we abandoned the beer duty escalator and cut beer duty in 2013—I am thinking of the billboard outside the Red Lion pub that day with a big sign saying, “Cheers, George!”; the former Chancellor should indeed be applauded for it—there has been a material impact on the industry.
I know that the Opposition Members present would not have voted for this, but in 2008 taxes on beer were hiked twice: by 9% in March and then by 8% in December. The escalator was then whacked on at inflation plus 2%, which led to a whopping 42% increase in overall duty between 2008 and 2012. As we have heard today, thousands of pubs exited the industry. It was a significant hit to an industry that we all know and love, and that had a major impact on employment in many of our constituencies.
Since then, with relatively modest measures—the abandonment of the escalator and a reduction in duty—we have seen some really rather extraordinary things. In 2014, beer sales increased for the first time in a decade. Oxford Economics has estimated that more than 20,000 more new jobs have been created in the sector than there would otherwise have been. That shows that very small changes in taxes can have a material impact. I submit that what the Exchequer is giving up in tax duty is being more than recouped from the increased income tax paid by the now thriving businesses and the employment contributions coming in.
On the subject of employment, let me mention a couple of very important things that are happening in my constituency. As a result of the change in the business climate, companies such as Wadworth are now substantially increasing their own investment programmes; indeed, investment in Wadworth’s 240 pubs will increase by 30% this year. I am proud to have been associated with the reopening of some wonderful pubs that are now thriving, such as the Three Crowns in Devizes: morning, noon and night, groups of people are going in for coffee and sampling the wonderful beers and delicious food. That is happening not just in my constituency but right across the country. I was fascinated to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) that it is also having an impact on the supply chain—a piece of good news for hop production that I did not know about.
I support future investment and the increase in apprenticeships. Wadworth now has 62 apprentices—it has been investing hugely in my area—but it is facing pressures, including the apprenticeship levy and the increase in rates that we have discussed. It seems to me that to support the industry, stimulate demand and encourage companies to invest their own capital so that we can have a thriving beer, pub and hospitality industry, this relatively small adjustment in the Budget would be very welcome indeed.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on introducing this debate and the hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies) on securing it.
It is clear from hon. Members’ contributions today that there is a large degree of agreement among us all. We have heard about the benefits of the local pub in our constituencies—I certainly support the pubs in mine as much as I possibly can. A strong case has been made this morning for minimum alcohol pricing, given the dangers from the very high levels of alcohol in alcopops and other such drinks.
I have recently noticed an increase in the number of craft beers being produced with 0% alcohol, including Tennent’s Hee Haw and BrewDog’s Nanny State—I think the brewers were having a deliberate go at the establishment when they came up with that name. Many such beers are coming into the market, demonstrating that a 0% alternative that still retains flavour is possible.
It is clear that there are many points that we agree on, and the one thing that we can be absolutely certain of agreeing on is that beer is good. It is good for our economy, it is good for our communities and it is definitely best served while watching Scotland win the rugby. Like most worthwhile inventions, it has been suggested that it was invented in Scotland, in some form at least; evidence has been discovered of fermented beverages being brewed in Scotland, possibly as early as 400 BC. In my constituency, Midlothian, there was a brewery in Dalkeith that had been there since at least 1789. The last remaining brewery, McLennan and Urquhart, brewed what I am led to believe was a very fine selection of sweet ales, and the business thrived in Midlothian for the best part of a century. Unfortunately, it closed in the late 1950s and was demolished in the 1960s, and sadly brewing left Midlothian for quite some time.
That was a common picture in Scotland. The economic situation in the ’60s and ’70s made it impossible for breweries and pubs to survive, and closures were savage. The ’60s may have been swinging, but there was not much for brewers to smile about. High unemployment, shipyard closures and the decline of traditional industries were common throughout Scotland, and for breweries the picture was just as bleak. In 1920, there were 62 breweries in Scotland; by 1960, there were just 26, and in 1970 only 11 remained. What we must learn from that period is that not nurturing the right business environment for breweries creates consequences that can be far-reaching across communities, have an impact on national, local and micro-economies and have knock-on effects on pubs and jobs.
We are now witnessing something of a beer revolution, as the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay put it. More consumers are searching for new flavours, or simply for good beer, and new breweries are starting up more and more frequently. I am pleased that new breweries are flourishing and growing in Midlothian. I positively encourage all hon. Members to visit my constituency, have a look around the breweries and taste their products. The first brewery to rekindle Midlothian’s brewing history is Stewart Brewing in my home town of Loanhead. It was founded in 2004, led by a team of ambitious, passionate and hardworking beer enthusiasts, and its business has grown and expanded considerably—some may suggest that my own contribution and appreciation of its very tasty craft IPAs has contributed to that. I have also been fortunate to have the opportunity to visit the newly established Cross Borders brewery in Eskbank. It was clear from speaking to the team there that they have an absolute desire to expand, to contribute to the local and national economy and to be a key player in the beer market.
In fact, all over Scotland there is a rapidly growing industry, which we are embracing. The food and drink sector is vital to Scotland’s economy, with one in five people in Scottish manufacturing working in it. The SNP Scottish Government have been working hard to support this key sector: since 2008, they have supported 173 food and drinks companies and organisations to achieve a 77% improvement in their access to local suppliers and a 62% increase in new market penetration. Scottish food and drinks exports are now worth some £4.8 billion every year. In February, the SNP Scottish Government announced business rates relief for the hospitality sector, which will save Scottish pubs around £6 million. The package also included a one-year cap on business rate increases in Scotland for the hospitality sector at 12.5%, which will benefit a further 8,000 businesses. Brigid Simmonds, chief executive of the Scottish Beer and Pub Association, said:
“The introduction of a business rates cap, set at 12.5 per cent, is welcome, and shows that the Scottish Government has listened to the concerns of Scottish pubs and other hospitality businesses.”
The association’s analysis suggests that the cap will save Scottish pubs around £6 million, with pubs standing to benefit by an average of £4,700. Many microbreweries may also benefit from the small business bonus scheme, which will give up to 100% relief in many cases.
What can we do to help this very important industry, and what can we learn from Scotland’s approach? I agree with many hon. Members that a cut in beer duty is essential, but I fear that that alone may not be enough. I would like the UK Government to go further. The evidence is compelling. Of course businesses should pay their share in tax, which should be fair, but in 2015 beer duty comprised 49% of a brewer’s turnover, and the British Beer and Pub Association calculates that the beer and pub sector is one of the most highly taxed in the country. Brewers also face more tax: business rates, employment taxes and corporation tax are added on top. Once costs of production are taken into account, a brewer makes an average profit of just 2p or 3p a pint. For all brewers, but particularly the types of brewer in my constituency, this situation stifles the potential for growth and the ability to employ more staff.
The SNP supports a better, fairer, evidence-based way of taxing alcohol. We need to find the right balance. I very much hope that today’s debate will provide the Chancellor with beer for thought for his Budget tomorrow.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your stewardship, Sir Roger. I too congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on bringing this matter to our attention.
Tomorrow’s Budget day is also International Women’s Day, so I thought it would be apt to begin my remarks by quoting the great female poet of the 20th century, Sylvia Plath:
“The beer tastes good to my throat, cold and bitter”.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have Frank Zappa, who said:
“You can’t be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline—it helps if you have some kind of football team, or nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer.”
That probably sums matters up. They are just two of two of the vast number of people who, like us, have enjoyed what is widely believed to be the oldest and most consumed alcoholic beverage in the world.
According to estimates by the British Beer and Pub Association, around 30 million adults visit a pub at least once a month, and beer accounts for around two thirds of alcohol sold in pubs. In economic terms, the pub sector contributes £23.1 billion to the British economy and £12.6 billion in tax to the Exchequer. It also supports nearly 900,000 jobs, 42% of which are for under-25s. Brewing alone employs over 100,000 people, as many Members have referred to today.
Of course, that picture has to be counterbalanced by the health impacts of alcohol, which have already been touched on by Members today. Public Health England estimates that alcohol harm costs about £21 billion a year generally and specifically costs the NHS £3.5 billion. Consequently, when we debate this issue, we really must consider it in that wider context.
Of course, many traditional drinking establishments are now under threat, not least because business rates revaluation is coming into effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said. In fact, in my constituency we have had to say goodbye to several novel establishments, including the Talbot, the Elm House, the Wyndham Hotel, St George’s Tavern and the Stand Park, some of which I have drunk in myself in the past. We tried to make the Priory a community pub but could not succeed, and the story is the same right across the country. None the less, we still have many great pubs and long may it remain so. In my constituency, in the Crosby area, there is a micro-pub called the Liverpool Pigeon. That has given a really good boost to the sector and to the confidence of the local community, so I say “Well done” to the Liverpool Pigeon.
Pubs are more than just small businesses. As many Members have said today, they are often community hubs. Increasingly, they offer other goods and services, such as food, hot drinks and meeting spaces, and even libraries and postal services in some places. In my constituency—and, I am sure, in many others across the country—we have church parish clubs, including St Benet’s and St Elizabeth’s and even one called the Holy Ghost, which play a similar role to community pubs. The Holy Ghost is not the top of the pile, except perhaps in theological terms. My constituency also has the Royal British Legion and the Royal Naval Association comrades clubs. All those establishments help to support our communities in a whole range of ways.
I think all hon. Members would acknowledge that pubs are an important community asset and that we must do all we can to help them to succeed, not withstanding the health issues. We always need to have those issues in mind, but we should not let them overshadow all other considerations.
As hon. Members have said, it was announced in the 2016 Budget that the duty on beer, spirits and most ciders would be frozen for 2016-17; that freeze followed three consecutive years of duty cuts on a typical pint of beer. On the other hand, duties on all other alcoholic drinks, such as wine at or below 22% alcohol by volume and high-strength sparkling cider, rose in line with the retail price index. Will the Minister say what effect that has had on prices for customers and what mechanisms are in place to monitor the effectiveness of these measures?
Of course, the industry welcomed the duty freeze, and Oxford Economics has produced research supporting the argument for a beer duty cut, to protect jobs and investment during uncertain times as the UK leaves the European Union. Labour was not opposed to the freeze on beer duty. However, in distributional terms the freeze favoured those who consume more of the relevant types of drinks. The equalities impact statement relating to last year’s freeze noted that
“any changes to alcohol duties will have an equalities impact that reflects consumption trends across the adult population”,
but it failed to outline what the specific equalities impact is with regard to gender. It would be helpful to get that assessment at some point. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that wine, the tax on which was not frozen, is the most popular type of drink among women, while the most popular types of drink among male drinkers of all ages are normal-strength beer, lager, cider and shandy. We must take that factor into account as well. Additionally, many trade bodies have questioned why wine has been singled out for a duty rise, and I invite the Minister to comment on that issue, either today or in the future.
Of course, it is only proper to point out the Government’s continuing duty of health care, and I will re-emphasise that. It is absolutely crucial, but having said that, let us strike a balance. The Government acknowledged in their policy paper that the freeze last year was
“likely to lead to a minor increase in overall alcohol consumption”.
Will the Minister provide information on whether such an increase did occur and, if so, what mechanisms are in place to monitor it?
As I have said before, Labour is committed to securing the long-term future of pubs and the wider hospitality sector. Action must be taken to give pubs a fair chance to be profitable and to make a go of things, as well as give some of the independent small businesses a chance to grow, which is absolutely crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield raised the issue of business rate revaluation, which needs thorough examination. I point the Minister in the direction of Labour’s five-point plan, which will be a good starting point for her. We are calling for an overhaul of business rates to support local high streets and small businesses, including pubs and clubs, and I hope she will take these ideas on board, because this debate is not all about beer duty. It is also about helping pubs in a range of other ways.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I thank colleagues from all parties in the House for what has been a typically vivid and enthusiastic debate. It has been wonderful to hear so many fantastic pubs and breweries—both large and small—getting a name- check today in the House, which they deserve. I will not repeat them all, because there were so many mentions of people’s local star businesses, but I pay tribute to all of them. Debates such as this one are so valuable, because they allow Members to bring real colour to a debate about duty by demonstrating the impact that duty has had or could have on businesses in their own area.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for opening this debate on behalf of our hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay and others here are advocates for the important role that pubs can play; we have heard today about pubs’ community role, as well as their wider economic role.
I congratulate both the all-party group on beer and the all-party group on save the pub for the work they do. Of course, the all-party group on beer is led by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), who took us through his own extensive history of pubs. However, bearing in mind that he was born in 1963, I hope that his experience of Boddingtons in the 1970s came very much at the end of that decade and not at the beginning.
I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said that it was important that this sector was not overlooked. I can reassure the pub and brewing industries that their interests are never overlooked in Parliament; they have fantastic advocates in Parliament, who are passionate and articulate champions, and they come from up and down the country and from all parties. As a result, industry concerns are regularly brought to the attention of Ministers. I myself have taken part in debates such as this one as a Back Bencher; I responded to similar debates as the Minister with responsibility for public health; and now I am responding to this debate today as the Minister with responsibility for tax.
I will try to respond to as many of the issues raised this morning as I can without repeating some of the points that others have made. As I am sure Members will realise, I cannot pre-empt anything that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will announce tomorrow. [Interruption.] I will resist all blandishments on that front.
Turning to beer duty rises, the Government of course recognise the importance of the UK pubs sector and its contribution to promoting responsible drinking. I mentioned my previous role as Public Health Minister. In that role I made the case for pubs as advocates of responsible drinking. That was not always the most straightforward thing to do, because there is always a balance in reconciling the undoubted problem our country has with alcohol in some regards against the fact that we love our pub and brewing industry. Actually, pubs are very much the answer in that regard. They bring together those two ambitions: they encourage people to drink responsibly while at the same time doing all the other good things they do, such as providing employment and contributing to community life.
As we have heard, the sector’s footprint covers every constituency across the country. If I am allowed one namecheck, it is for the fantastic Sambrook’s Brewery in my constituency. Along with other Members, I managed to get one of my local ales into the Strangers Bar. I know that many of us have taken that opportunity over recent years. We appreciate the contribution that all breweries—large and small—make to local economies and the wider beer market. The rise in the number of small breweries has increased diversity and choice in the beer market and promoted consumer interest in a much larger range of beers, which has benefited all brewers and the industry as a whole.
We have heard about the action taken on the beer duty escalator since 2013. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) deserves the praise he has been given for that. A pint of beer is 10p cheaper than it would have been had the beer duty escalator not been ended in 2013. That has disproportionately benefited pubs, given that two thirds of the alcohol sold in pubs is beer. The British Beer and Pub Association—it stays closely in touch with Members and briefs them—feels that the action taken since 2013 has increased confidence. I heard that in person from the head of a well known brewery who came in as part of the delegation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale last week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said, when we talk to people involved in the industry, we can hear the impact that confidence has. Sometimes it is hard to put an exact figure on its impact on a particular part of our economy, but I have heard that from people.
The BBPA estimates that more than £1 billion is being invested by brewers and pub owners each year, and that impacts on employment decisions across the supply chain. I draw the House’s attention to the ways in which the Government have supported the innovative domestic brewery industry other than by duty cuts and freezes. The shadow Minister noted them in his contribution, and they include supporting the employment of younger people through some of the changes made there, boosting research and development for small and medium-sized enterprises and reducing corporation tax on company profits from 28% in 2010 to 19% from April. In 2020, it is moving to 17%. Cutting the tax on profits encourages reinvestment and innovation.
Toby Perkins
Does the Minister recognise that there is a real debate about the value of a reduction in corporation tax on the profits that businesses make as compared with the fact that we have the largest corporate property tax in all of Europe? We are expecting businesses that often are not making a profit to see their business rates tax bill go up and up.
Jane Ellison
The hon. Gentleman brings me to the next section of my speech, which is about business rates. I am not surprised that colleagues across the House have raised that issue. We recognise that business rates can represent a high fixed cost for some businesses. I will not rehearse all the facts about the 2017 revaluation. I think we all acknowledge that there was a long gap between revaluations, but I emphasise that for those who face an increase in business rates as a result, there is a £3.6 billion transitional relief scheme. It will support them by capping and phasing in rises in bills. The Chancellor has already said that he is working with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to provide additional support for the hardest hit businesses.
As the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and others have said, pubs are valued for business rates around the idea of a fair maintainable turnover. An approved guide on the valuation of public houses for business rates has been agreed between the Valuation Office Agency and all five bodies representing pubs, including the British Beer and Pub Association and the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers. That formula has been agreed, and that is a welcome step that provides more certainty for pub operators over their business rates bill.
It is also worth noting that in the Budget 2016, the Government announced a £6.7 billion business rates reduction package to benefit all ratepayers. I draw the House’s attention to the switch of the annual indexation of business rates from the retail prices index to the main measure of inflation, the consumer prices index, from April 2020. That will represent a cut every year from 2020. In 2020-21, that benefit will be worth £370 million, and it will grow significantly thereafter.
I will turn to a number of the issues raised by Members. A number of people have made the case—I am familiar with it and recently had the chance to hear it in person from industry representatives—that duty cuts boost Exchequer revenues. It is fair to say that even if we allow for other additional tax revenues, the industry analysis we have seen shows that duty cuts still have a net cost to the Exchequer. For example, because the public finances assume an increase by RPI each year, the duty changes from Budget 2013 onwards are estimated to have reduced total alcohol duty receipts by £800 million for 2016-17. That implies that to make up for that, Government would have to raise taxes in other areas of the economy, cut spending elsewhere or increase the deficit. I put it on record that cuts and freezes have a real impact on how the public finances account for things.
A number of Members have raised the issue of lower duty rates on low-strength beer. I recognise some of the challenges around the point at which that line is drawn and around brewing to that level. High-strength beer is taxed more than the equivalent low-strength product, but the 2.8% threshold is set by European Union law and is being reviewed by the Commission at the moment. In the industry meeting, we explored the impact and discussed where the threshold should be.
Members have rightly discussed the challenge around the on-trade and the off-trade and discussed how pubs can encourage responsible drinking. Current rules do not permit the Government to apply a different tax treatment to the same product. We cannot tax alcohol sold in shops at a different rate to alcohol sold in pubs, but we recognise the role that pubs play in promoting responsible drinking. In 2014, we took action on very cheap alcohol by banning sales below duty plus VAT in England and Wales.
Liz McInnes
I appreciate the point that the Minister is making about different rates of tax, but is it not true that minimum pricing for alcohol would apply only to alcohol sold in supermarkets and retail outlets, and not to alcoholic drinks sold in pubs? Is that not correct?
Jane Ellison
I suspect that is a debate for another time. It is certainly a debate in which I took part in my previous role. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will stick to the topic of the debate, lest we get drawn into minimum unit pricing, as it is a complex issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) spoke about the long history of the brewing industry in her constituency. She is another strong advocate for the brewing industry, and she rightly mentioned beer exports, which were worth £531 million in 2015, up 10% on the previous year. I reassure her that no duty is payable on exported alcohol, so the link between duty cuts and exports is not a direct one, although I take her point about general confidence within the industry.
The issue of high-strength alcohol has been challenged. I think the House is unanimous in wanting to tackle excessive alcohol consumption and the related health harms associated with the strongest products. The question is how we do that, but the point has been well made and the Government are of course reflecting on that.
I hope I have covered most of the points raised. I have not been able to respond to the whole thrust of the debate, although more will be said tomorrow in the Budget. The debate has been a valuable opportunity to discuss the issues, and it has been interesting to see so much common ground.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution I talked about alcopops—I know that might be a separate issue—and the advantage that high-street supermarkets have over the pubs. Do the Government intend to address that imbalance, the unfair advantage that high streets have over pubs, and the control of the alcohol that is sold?
Jane Ellison
Again, that is perhaps for a wider debate, but, as I recollect from my time as Public Health Minister, the industry was rightly praised for the extent to which it stepped up to address issues with certain products. A lot of alcopop products have been phased out by some producers who decided to change their portfolio. One or two speakers referred to the bigger chains and the fact that they have tried to shift their portfolios as they recognise the challenges that certain products pose, especially for younger drinkers. It is worth putting on the record a recognition of the industry’s actions in that regard, although there is always the challenge to do more.
I hope that I have been able to reassure Members on some issues. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said that the industry wanted to make sure it was not overlooked, and I can reassure him that it is not. Its voice is rightly heard loud and clear across the House and within Government. We have regular meetings and dealings with the industry and we listen very carefully to all the points made.
Peter Dowd
I take the point that the Minister makes about the industry not being overlooked, but it is important to put this in context. For example, according to the industry, the business rates rise will put a 15% increase on pubs’ costs and 23% on restaurants’ costs. That is an additional £300 million to £500 million a year. The Minister should perhaps give more consideration to that.
Jane Ellison
If the shadow Minister thinks that the Government have not given consideration to business rates in recent weeks, he has not been looking at the newspapers. Of course it is an important issue and we have given consideration to it. Many establishments in different parts of the country will gain from the business rates revaluation. More businesses will see their rates cut or frozen than will see an increase. For those that see an increase, transitional relief is available, so it is important for people to look at that. No doubt people will look at the impact of that fiscally neutral revaluation in their own areas.
To return to my previous point, the industry’s voice is rightly heard loud and clear in Government. It has powerful advocates in all parties in this House. The debate has been constructive and has brought out important issues. I have heard all hon. Members’ contributions today and will take them as representations ahead of tomorrow’s Budget.
Steve Double
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, which has been positive. There has been a great deal of unity among all parties on the importance of the sector to our economy, to jobs particularly for our young people, to our communities and to the Exchequer, and on the vital role that pubs play. I can reflect on the comment that the Minister made and recognise the reduction in beer duty and the drop in the amount of beer duty going to the Exchequer because of that. However, because the industry has grown and employed more people, I suspect that the overall tax take by the Exchequer has not dropped too much because extra income tax, national insurance and other taxes have been paid as a result of the growth. So there is a balancing act.
There has been a clear message from the debate today. Lowering beer duty has a positive effect on the industry. We have heard about an increase in confidence and about increasing investment to enable the industry to produce better beer and more beer more efficiently. That contributes to the overall growth of our economy and will become even more important once we have left the EU. We must ensure we have a very robust beer and pubs industry in this country that can play its part in making sure our economy is strong going forward.
I am grateful to the Minister, who has listened and taken on board the points made. I am grateful for her reassurance that the industry is in the minds of Government as they make decisions. I am sure we all look forward to—let us hope—good news tomorrow from the Chancellor.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered beer duty.
Coast to Coast Walk
(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
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Coast to Coast Walk.
It is a pleasure to move this motion for debate today. In 1973 the legendary fell walker Alf Wainwright set out from St Bees in Cumbria on a walk he called the Coast to Coast. Stretching 190 miles from the North sea to the Irish sea, his route took him through no less than three national parks: Cumbria’s Lake District, my constituency’s Yorkshire Dales and the North York Moors. In the 40 years since, not a day has gone by when those footsteps have gone unfollowed.
In Yorkshire, we are perhaps not renowned for our generosity, but when it comes to our nation’s most precious treasure of all, there is surely nowhere on Earth that is more giving. With polls regularly naming the Coast to Coast walk one of the world’s greatest, I would venture to say that there is no better showcase of Britain’s peerless natural beauty.
We all know that our new Prime Minister is a great walker and, in yet another sign of her excellent judgment, on her visit to Germany last year she chose to present Chancellor Merkel with a copy of Alf Wainwright’s Coast to Coast book. I understand that Chancellor Merkel is herself a keen hiker, so although Tony Blair and President Bush may have preferred the golf cart in Camp David, surely it is only a matter of time before Chancellor Merkel and the Prime Minister negotiate while strolling together on the Coast to Coast. I would recommend that when they do, they take to heart Wainwright’s very wise advice:
“There is no such thing as bad weather, only unsuitable clothing.”
With all the fame and prestige, it might seem self-evident that the Coast to Coast walk would be one of Britain’s 15 official national trails. However, it is with regret that I report that this remarkable route is yet to be officially recognised and has not taken its rightful place alongside what are, in many cases, far less celebrated walks. Despite its renown and the thousands who walk it every year, the Coast to Coast does not even appear on Ordnance Survey maps. That means that as popular as the walk is, attracting the visitors that it does, there is much less opportunity to promote it and attract even more visitors, which the rural economy needs. More concerning still, its lack of official status means that none of the official funding provided to national trails such as the Pennine Way and Offa’s Dyke is available to the Coast to Coast. That is why in April last year I met members of the Wainwright Society at Surrender bridge in Swaledale, to launch the Coast to Coast “Make it National” campaign.
I am privileged to say that since that day, the campaign has garnered a coalition of formal support from no fewer than 53 local, district and county councils along the route, the national parks and, of course, members of the Wainwright Society, custodians of the legendary walker’s legacy. The Minister will no doubt be excited to learn that the campaign has also attracted two celebrity backers, in the form of Julia Bradbury from “Countryfile” and Eric Robson, host of the BBC’s “Gardeners’ Question Time”. I am also privileged and thrilled to have received the support of colleagues here in Westminster—indeed, from every Member of Parliament along the route, including the hon. Members for Workington (Sue Hayman) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and my hon. Friend the newly elected Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison). I am delighted that three of my colleagues are here today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is a particularly keen user of the Coast to Coast, so I can only hope that his famous two-year trek across Afghanistan and Pakistan has provided him with the necessary skills to deal with the more cantankerous locals he might encounter. I understand that the Coast to Coast even has its friends in the Cabinet. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), makes regular use of his SAS training and walks the 190-mile path in just eight days.
Our campaign has three simple aims: first, to preserve one of our best-loved national treasures; secondly, to help more people discover this iconic walk; and lastly, to give a helping hand to the north’s rural economy. I will speak first about preservation. As I mentioned, national trail status comes with a modest amount of public funding of about £100,000 a year. That may not be much in the budget of a country or even a county council, but for the Coast to Coast, that sum could make the difference between the slow erosion of rain, wind and bracken and an iconic walk that is preserved for the next generation.
The money could be used to signpost the route, keep bogs off the path and check the creeping advance of hawthorn, making the path easier for walkers to follow. To the credit of the local authorities, the route has been relatively well maintained and is mostly in great condition, but as the years go by, more and more issues arise that they do not have the resources to fix. The crossing point at the A19 dual carriageway at Ingleby Arncliffe is one example. At the end of a hard day’s trek, carrying a heavy pack, walkers have to dodge traffic travelling up to 70 mph to get across. With national trail status, we could make a strong case for a footbridge to be built.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his tremendous campaign, which I and many colleagues are very happy to support. Does he agree that, as tourism is so critical in both our constituencies these days, and as the route passes over the North York Moors and through Rosedale, which is the most beautiful part of the North York Moors, it is critical to the public houses and restaurants in those areas that we get designation as a national trail?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is absolutely right: the rural economy is vital. As I will touch on later in my speech, it is worth billions and billions of pounds to constituencies such as his and mine. If we want to make sure that the countryside is not just a museum but a living, breathing place where people can live and have jobs, we need to ensure that businesses can thrive. National trail status would help with that.
At Nine Standards Rigg in Cumbria, the bog has become so bad that areas of the path have become virtually unwalkable. With national trail status, we can ensure that the Coast to Coast is kept as safe as possible, giving people the confidence to undertake one of Britain’s most magnificent journeys.
That leads me to the second objective of our campaign, which is to help more people discover the Coast to Coast. Funding would help keep the path accessible to everyone from fell walking fanatics to young families such as my own, but national trail status would also be an enormous asset in promoting the Coast to Coast in the UK and abroad. Indeed, for proof of the impact that official status and well organised promotion can have in rural areas, we need only look to our national parks. Since their creation in the 1950s, they have boomed. Receiving about 100 million visitors a year, national parks sustain 68,000 jobs while generating more than £10 billion for the economy.
That brings me to the final objective of our campaign, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned: supporting rural prosperity. In constituencies such as ours, the Coast to Coast is more than an institution that is close our hearts. It is one of the most vital arteries of our rural economy. Lining the path’s 190 miles are not only spectacular views but hundreds of communities and businesses. Texas has oil, Australia has gold mines and north Yorkshire has its countryside.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this really good debate. Of course, north Yorkshire, the Esk valley and East Cleveland had ironstone and alum mines. Part of the Coast to Coast route includes historic sites such as Kildale and Rosedale. It also goes through my constituency from Guisborough all the way to Eston. Westminster also has a local link, because, of course, the ironstone in Big Ben more than likely came from those mines. In my constituency, we have the Cleveland Ironstone Mining Museum. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Cleveland Way and the Coast to Coast walk received funds and recognition, that would boost tourism to that mining museum, which is a crucial link to our historical lineage as a North Yorkshire community?
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Gentleman for informing us of that wonderful link between the ironstone mines in his constituency and Big Ben. I did not know about that museum, and I would be delighted to visit it with him. I agree wholeheartedly that promoting the walk would have many knock-on benefits and bring people to our areas to enjoy all the things that we know about and take for granted, and which we would like to open up to the rest of the country and the world. I hope that will be the case.
VisitEngland estimates that those who go on walking holidays spend about £2 billion annually. For businesses in our constituencies, that makes the iconic status of the Coast to Coast a vital source of custom. During the election campaign I called into one such business—a local pub like only Yorkshire makes—in the village of Danby Wiske near Northallerton. The landlord told me just how important the walk is to the prosperity of his business. The hundreds of walkers who stop by for a well earned pork pie and a cold pint of Yorkshire bitter in the summer months are the difference between a loss and a profit for his business. He is not alone. Coast to Coast Packhorse in Kirkby Stephen is a successful local start-up that transports walkers’ luggage to their next stop. Businesses along the Coast to Coast, perhaps including the museum that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, tell the same story.
When we talk about infrastructure investment in this House, as the Government rightly do, we all have a similar image in our minds—gigantic bridges, high-speed railway and motorways—but for rural areas, infrastructure such as the Coast to Coast can be just as vital because it allows communities to capitalise effectively on their national assets. I know public money is tight, but national trail funding is an investment that would be repaid many times over, both in the long-term economic benefits it would generate and in the communities it would help to sustain—communities whose hands repair our dry stone walls, tend our forests and keep our fields green and lush. If they were to disappear because of a lack of jobs of investment, every one of us would be poorer.
Natural England is currently focused on its coastal path project, due to open in 2020—an ambitious national trail that showcases the best of our coastal areas. As that programme moves towards completion over the coming years, I urge Natural England to look closely at finally giving the Coast to Coast the recognition it deserves. For now, a feasibility study would reflect the widespread support that the campaign has received and support the message of so many businesses from St Bees to Robin Hood’s Bay. Officially promoting and protecting the route would do so much for their prosperity.
The Coast to Coast route is part of the legacy of a unique man whose contribution to the natural world is unparalleled. Across mountains and fells, wandering through valleys and villages, it is an inspirational crossing of the north of England. In the words of Alf Wainwright himself:
“Surely there cannot be a finer itinerary for a long-distance walk!”
I hope the Minister will consider the case that the “Make it National” campaign has put forward and do all he can to encourage Natural England to launch a feasibility study as soon as possible. The Coast to Coast is already a national treasure. It is time to recognise it as a national trail.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, let me take the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) to her first excursion into of the joys of Westminster Hall. Sadly, as she knows, she is bound by parliamentary convention and will not be able to intervene until she has made her maiden speech, but we look forward to her doing so in the near future. It is a pleasure to see her here.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
May I also say that it is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) attending this debate, which is obviously of great importance to her constituency as the Coast to Coast walk starts there? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) on securing this debate to highlight his long-running campaign for the well known Coast to Coast path. As he explained, the path was set out by the pioneering fell walker and author Alfred Wainwright in 1973, and my hon. Friend made a very strong case for it to become a national trail.
All hon. Members agree on the importance of the existing family of national trails in England, which were designated as such under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. They are long-distance routes that are maintained to a higher standard than other public rights of way, and they cover more than 2,000 miles in England. All have rights for walkers, and some are also open to horse riders and cyclists. I know that people care a lot about our national trails, and I recognise the value and the range of benefits that they bring. There can be no doubt that they are an important means of connecting people with nature. They are popular: there are at least 70 million visits each year to places that a national trail passes through. Visitors include local people, day visitors and international visitors to England. People come to enjoy some of our finest landscape and scenery, to get fresh air and hopefully to enjoy our finest weather. National trails are important to walkers and users, as they provide health and exercise benefits. They are also major tourism assets and attract a variety of visitors, who spend money that makes a significant contribution to local economies and rural regeneration.
My hon. Friend spoke of his campaign for the designation of the Coast to Coast path as a national trail. The path goes from St Bees to Robin Hood’s bay—a length of just over 190 miles. I am told it can be walked in about 11 to 15 days, although I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) might do it slightly faster, given his enthusiasm for walking. It takes walkers from the north-west coast, through the Lake District and parts of the Yorkshire dales, and then finally through the North York Moors before finishing on the east coast. About 70 miles of the total 190 miles is within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks), which highlights its importance for him.
My hon. Friend said that local people have a long-standing interest in the designation of the path. I congratulate him on the local support he has obtained for his campaign and on the enthusiastic responses received from various local authorities whose areas the path crosses. He has also made it clear that every hon. Member representing a constituency along the route of the path supports his campaign.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the key responsibility for making any proposals to designate the Coast to Coast path as a national trail lies with Natural England, which is responsible for the provisions of the 1949 Act. Under section 51 of the Act, Natural England has a power to propose new national trails to the Secretary of State. To make such a designation, all the local authorities, including any national park authorities, within whose boundaries the route will pass have to be consulted. Natural England must then prepare a report setting out various matters such as the route, maintenance costs and likely capital outlay for creating a trail. The report is submitted to the Secretary of State, who may approve, modify or reject Natural England’s proposals.
My hon. Friend has been in contact with officials at Natural England since late 2015 or early last year, and he has met Natural England’s chairman, Andrew Sells, to discuss the matter further. Natural England has provided my hon. Friend with information about its powers under the 1949 Act with respect to national trails and the process for designating a path. Natural England has said that any proposal for a path to be designated as a national trail would need to secure a considerable amount of local support from all of the access authorities through which the new national trail would pass, as well as from landowners and land users.
As is often the case, and as my hon. Friend mentioned, money is the issue with the designation of new national trails. Natural England has indicated to him that while it supports the idea of designating the Coast to Coast path as a national trail, it has no plans to designate any new national trails. At the moment the Government’s priority is to develop coastal access proposals under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 for the England Coast path, which is to become a national trail as each stretch of the coastal walk is completed. Resources are now focused therefore on the delivery of the England Coast path, which we are committed to completing by 2020. To date, we have opened up public access along 338 miles of the English coast, along with additional spreading room for people to use for recreation and enjoyment. Once complete, the England Coast path will double the total length of national trails in England. Recently, I met local representatives of Natural England to discuss proposals to complete the coastal path around Cornwall.
My hon. Friend asked whether Natural England, working alongside the relevant authorities, would undertake a feasibility study to scope out the actual route of the Coast to Coast path and to see what is required for it to be designated as a national trail. As I have said, Natural England has no plans to designate any new national trails other than the England Coast path, and any such feasibility study might divert Natural England’s existing resources away from its work on that path. Once a decision is taken to designate, there is under the process provided for by the 1949 Act something akin to a feasibility study, including, for example, exhaustive consultation with local authorities and an assessment of the required maintenance costs. That is what I believe my hon. Friend is asking for, which would be the first stage of designation, rather than a separate feasibility study.
Once the England Coast path has been implemented in 2020, Natural England might be able to look at options for the Coast to Coast walk. I am sure that hon. Members with an interest in that will want to look at whether future party manifestos might include issues of this sort. In the meantime, I point out that other funds are available, such as those to promote tourism in rural communities. Perhaps alternative sources of funding can help to raise the profile of the Coast to Coast path in preparation for possible designation. It should also be remembered that nothing prevents local authorities along the path from increasing either their level of support for it or the amount they are willing to spend on its maintenance. There is no requirement to leave such activity to Natural England; in the interim, local authorities may invest in the path.
I recognise the value that users place on the experience of the Coast to Coast walk and the tourism value that it can bring to local communities. As I have pointed out, many other long-distance regional and trans-regional paths in England have the support of local communities and access authorities along their route in recognition of their value, although not all of them are national trails. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) for his lively campaign, however and for setting out so ably the case for the walk to become a national trail. I hope that he understands that limitations on our budget mean that we cannot consider that yet, but I encourage him and other colleagues to maintain pressure on local authorities and perhaps, in a few years’ time, once we have completed the England Coast path, to revisit the issue with Ministers.
Question put and agreed to.
O’Neill Review
(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 Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Before I call Mr Hollinrake to move the motion, I shall let you know that eight colleagues are trying to catch my eye, in addition to the Front Benchers and the mover of the motion, so I will impose a voluntary time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches. Please—I beg you—keep interventions to a minimum. We will see how it goes. I may have to impose a compulsory limit as we go along, but I hope not.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the O’Neill review into antibiotic resistance.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. In advance of this debate, I penned an article for PoliticsHome titled, “Antibiotic resistance—the new Black Death?” As I was writing that headline, I could sense outraged people saying, “A typical politician grabbing a sensational headline to terrify the public once again,” but it reflects the devastating conclusions of the review on antimicrobial resistance, which involved some of the world’s leading scientists, academics and economists, including its chair, Lord O’Neill, the world-leading economist and former Treasury Minister.
The O’Neill review’s report states that bacteria are gradually becoming more resistant to antibiotics, and its most grim prediction is that 10 million lives will be lost globally every year by 2050. That is more than are lost to cancer and similar to the number of deaths caused in the 14th century by the black death, which killed some 75 million people between 1346 and 1353.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend cites 10 million deaths, but the effect will not be the same everywhere. Was he as shocked as I was to discover that the figure for Africa is more than 4 million? Does he think that more research should be done to ensure that the right resources are in the right places?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The key element of the fight against antimicrobial resistance is its global nature. We absolutely must not isolate ourselves from the rest of the world—we must collaborate—but we must take national action, too, and I will come on to that shortly.
That figure is of course a prediction—it could be lower, but it could also be higher. Predictions have been made about other contagions, such Ebola, Zika, HIV and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and our scientists, academics and clinicians thankfully have managed to mitigate the worst effects and worst predictions for those diseases. But there are three reasons for us to be more alarmed this time: first, antimicrobial resistance is already happening; secondly, the problem is spreading rapidly and by all available means; and thirdly, research is not being carried out on anything like the scale required.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
A quarter of all the deaths that are predicted to happen as a result of drug resistance will be caused by tuberculosis, a disease that already kills 1.8 million people a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that research and development is essential if we are to develop a vaccine to prevent tuberculosis? No epidemic has ever been fully beaten without a vaccine.
Kevin Hollinrake
I absolutely agree. The difficulty is that due to the reward mechanisms in the system, such research and development is not happening. I will turn to that shortly.
This is not an apocalyptic prophecy. Antimicrobial resistance causes some 700,000 deaths globally and an estimated 12,000 deaths in the UK every year—similar to the number of people who lose their lives from breast cancer. Quite simply, if the bacteria that cause infections become resistant to antibiotics, people die. This issue is listed in the national risk register of civil emergencies, a five-year Government register, which states that an
“increasingly serious issue is the development and spread of”
antimicrobial resistance and points out that much of modern medicine will become unsafe. Minor surgery such as organ transplants, bowel surgery, cancer treatments and caesarean sections will become high risk—there will be more illness and more deaths.
Dame Sally Davies, our chief medical officer, pointed out that antibiotics have extended life by an average of 20 years—20 years of our lives may therefore be lost—and 40% of our population could die prematurely if this situation is not resolved. Operations would become unsafe due to the risk of infection during surgery or chemotherapy. Influenza pandemics would become much more serious. The national risk register states:
“The numbers of infections complicated by AMR are expected to increase markedly over the next 20 years. If a widespread outbreak were to occur, we could expect around 200,000 people to be affected by a bacterial blood infection that could not be treated effectively with existing drugs”.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we heed the O’Neill review’s recommendation that antimicrobial use in farming must reduce if we are to address the frightening consequences that he is outlining? In particular, we need to move away from intensive farming, which is reliant on the prophylactic use of antimicrobials.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend is right that bacteria can move from animals into humans, and the O’Neill review was clear that we need to take action in agriculture as well as our health services.
The national risk register states that we will be unable to treat some 200,000 people with existing drugs and
“around 80,000 of these people might die.”
That is a Government report.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Is it not true that it takes about 15 years for a new antibiotic to get to the marketplace? Given the position that he has just laid out—deaths and resistance are happening already—that is quite frightening.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We need to take action now because of the delays in producing new drugs.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Is it not self-evident that the prevention of the occurrence and spread of infection must be in the first line of the battle against this problem, and screening people on admission to hospital to determine who might be resistant and carrying infections would be very useful?
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Gentleman is right. Some 50% of prescriptions are needless, and diagnostics would mean that a lot of drugs were no longer prescribed.
We talk glibly about tens of thousands of deaths—Stalin once said, “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic” —but the reality is that these are our partners, our brothers, our sisters and our children, so we must act.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, but is not the key to find new antibiotics? Is he aware that several antibiotics originated from organisms in soil? That is how penicillin was found, and the first lead on a new antibiotic was recently found in soil. Does he agree that protecting our soil is key to our future? Given how much soil is being eroded and degraded, the Government should treat that as an important issue.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion of the natural environment, and she makes a very good point.
The World Health Organisation has stated that antimicrobial resistance is
“one of the greatest challenges for public health”
and that the problem is increasing and we are
“fast running out of…options.”
Antibiotic resistance is just one form of antimicrobial resistance—others concern viral and fungal infections—but my focus is antibiotics, which the public more readily understand and should have real concerns about. Bacteria undergo an eternal battle for survival, and natural resistance occurs as a result of bacteria fighting that battle, but when we use antibiotics—particularly when we overuse them—that natural resistance accelerates significantly and becomes super-charged, and we end up with many more antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the debate. He is right to highlight the scale of the challenge not just here but globally: it is difficult for countries to bring forward large-scale programmes to deal with the problem of antimicrobial resistance. Does he agree that, apart from inappropriate prescribing, one of the key issues in this country is people not always completing courses of antibiotics, which increases the challenges and problems of bacteria developing resistance?
Kevin Hollinrake
I defer to my hon. Friend’s in-depth knowledge in this area. I recognise my father’s habits in taking antibiotics when he felt a bit unwell—he had a little cupboard in the corner of his lounge. That is a problem, and that is why we need to improve the education on treatment of illnesses for which people are prescribed antibiotics.
The point about antibiotic resistance spreading is that it can be spread in so many ways: on aeroplanes; in our water; from contact with unwashed hands of people who carry bacteria resistance; coughing and sneezing; and from animals to humans. Some Members may have come across the excellent BBC Radio 4 drama “Resistance” —the first episode was aired on Friday and the second episode is this Friday—which talks about the transference from animals to humans. That means we must tackle this problem both in agriculture and in our health services.
Bacteria do not recognise national borders, so, as many hon. Members have already pointed out, this is a global problem. We would think that with those apocalyptic visions of the future we would be spending an awful lot of money on tackling this issue, but that is not the case. About $100 billion is spent every year on cancer research, but only about $5 billion is spent every year on tackling antimicrobial resistance. The reason for that is the commercial return that large pharmaceutical companies will get from bringing forward a new antibiotic to tackle this issue. Almost by definition, any new drug is held as a last line of defence, so there is not a significant commercial return for the pharmaceutical companies who we rely on for such new drugs. About $50 billion a year is spent on antibiotics but only about $5 billion a year is spent on patented antibiotics, which is equivalent to one cancer drug. It is a better commercial activity to be involved in cancer research and cancer drug development than in antimicrobial resistance. There has been a huge reduction in the number of pharmaceutical companies involved in research and development—in 1990 there were 18 and in 2010 there were only four—and no new classes of antibiotic drugs have been developed in the past 25 years.
Of course, the O’Neill review has studied that and come up with clear and compelling recommendations such as rapid diagnostic testing, which the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) referred to. Yesterday we had a Twitter debate, which was interesting, listening for an hour to people’s experiences. Many clinicians got involved in that particular Twittersphere, and we trended nationally at one point, which was certainly a new experience for me. One thing that came across was the pressure that clinicians were under to prescribe antibiotics to people who felt ill. Obviously, if we had diagnostics that could show people that they did not carry something that could be treated by an antibiotic, they would be much less likely to put that pressure on doctors.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a good point about educating patients so that they appreciate that they do not have to come out of the GP surgery with a prescription in their hand if a diagnostic test can be carried out to prove that antibiotics will not work in their case.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is right. I had a test myself at a drop-in session in Portcullis House that showed me that I was not ill—I did not think I was ill, but they told me that I was not, which was reassuring. Again, we need to ensure that prescriptions are given when they will be effective. One other area that we do not seem to have control over at the moment is the online sale of antibiotics: whether through UK-based pharmacies or those based overseas, it is too easy to access drugs without a proper prescription.
The second key point that the O’Neill review highlights is the need for a global public awareness campaign so that people are aware of the issues. Again on Twitter yesterday, a student who had undertaken some analysis said that 80% of the people she had spoken to had no awareness of antibiotic resistance. We need a significant national and international effort to draw public attention to the problem. As people have already said, we need a reduction of usage in agriculture. That is clearly set out in the O’Neill review as one of the four main recommendations.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the dangers of antibiotic resistance. Does he agree that as well as not prescribing antibiotics for illnesses, it is important to recognise when there are alternatives that will reduce the use of antibiotics overall? For example, there is research being done at Newcastle University into using antiseptics for urinary diseases.
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, what we need is a mixture of solutions. The UK by its own admission is mid-range across Europe in its use of antibiotics in agriculture. That is one thing, but we have been world leaders on this issue and for me mid-range is not where we need to be; we need to be at the forefront and world leaders in terms of best practice, whatever aspect of this issue we are dealing with.
There are four key recommendations in the O’Neill review’s 10 main recommendations. The last one is on market entry rewards to solve the problem of pharmas not investing in research and development, as well as a possible levy on drug companies that do not invest in research.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The World Health Organisation has made it clear, chillingly, that resistance to last resort antibiotics is present globally, so we have to act. Does my hon. Friend agree that we will not create vital new drugs until we align better the public health needs with the commercial incentives, and that Governments need to correct what is the most dangerous market failure in history?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is correct, and the review sets that out clearly. At the moment, if there is not a commercial return, it is difficult for pharmaceutical companies to invest in this field, although some are. For example, AstraZeneca recently sold its late-stage small molecule antibiotic business to Pfizer and so stepped out of research and development, but others, such as MSD, are still investing. It cannot be right that some companies are willing to invest—perhaps for altruistic purposes—when others are not. The O’Neill review discusses whether there should be a reimbursement or an insurance model, so that pharmaceutical companies can be sure that they will get a certain amount every year for drugs if they do develop them. It cannot be right that some contribute and some do not, so a levy for those that do not seems sensible to me. I do not think it should be left simply to big pharma to solve the problem.
The O’Neill review talks about a global AMR innovation fund—GAMRIF—to make funding available for smaller third sector organisations. Having Antibiotic Research UK, the world’s first charity in this field, in my constituency is how the issue was brought to my attention. It is doing fantastic research. From donations made by individuals, it has got hundreds of thousands of pounds that it is investing in “resistance breakers”, which is blending drugs together to repurpose existing antibiotics. That again is one of the recommendations in the report. Yes, big pharma, but we have also got to make some funding available to the smaller organisations, too.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am happy to give way my right hon. Friend, who has been a leader on this issue globally.
Mr Osborne
I congratulate my hon. Friend on highlighting this issue, and the wide range of Members here shows the degree of support across the House. He is now on the nub of the problem: there will not be an international levy unless Britain leads the argument internationally; no other country will do it. David Cameron established the review and Jim O’Neill has provided the answers. The British Government now need to double up their efforts and make sure that this is one of the major things we campaign for at the UN, the G20 and the like. We have made a good start and we have an extremely capable Minister, but now we need to finish the job.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful for that intervention and for my right hon. Friend’s work on the issue in the past. He gives me an ideal opportunity to close my comments; I know you are keen to get other Members in to speak, Mr Streeter.
The UK is a world leader on this in both words and actions, but we need to do much more. The former Prime Minister—and the current Prime Minister, I am sure—and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer are leaders on this on the world stage and have drawn it to the world’s attention, as has Lord O’Neill. It is hugely important that we maintain that leadership. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of colleagues and the clear plans of Ministers for how we will act now to meet today’s challenge, because the fear is that tomorrow will be much worse than today.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members of the voluntary four-minute time limit. There are about to be Divisions in the House.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing the debate. For time reasons, I will focus only on the use of antibiotics in farming. We know that, just as there is a clear correlation between rising levels of human use of antibiotics and growing antibiotic resistance among humans, higher use in farm animals undermines antibiotics’ effectiveness in human medicine.
Too many of the superbugs listed by the World Health Organisation as posing the greatest threat to human health are also found in retail meat and food animals. At the end of last year, yet more studies found antibiotic-resistant E. coli in British supermarket pig and chicken meat and MRSA in UK supermarket pork. It is encouraging that DEFRA has now—after being rather complacent about the routine use of antibiotics in farming, it has to be said—committed to a 20% reduction by 2018, in line with the O’Neill review’s recommendations, but more action is needed.
The Government have said that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is working closely with the sector to embed responsible use of antibiotics, but we know that is simply not happening. Routine mass medication of groups of animals, either on a purely preventive basis or when a few animals within the group are sick, is still far too frequent, particularly in the pig industry. Last March, the European Parliament voted through proposed new regulations that included a ban on preventive group treatments, but the trialogue between the Parliament, the Council and the European Commission has been delayed yet again until September. At the time of that vote, the then shadow Health Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), and I, in my then capacity as shadow Environment Secretary, wrote to our counterparts to ask them to respond positively to the proposals, but we received a pretty opaque response. Will the Minister say whether the Government fully back the European Parliament’s position? It may take several more years before an EU ban, so I urge the Government to take action now and follow the Netherlands and the five Nordic countries, which do not permit such treatments.
There have been welcome moves by the British Poultry Council, but the British pig industry has not moved as fast. Colistin, which is a last resort treatment for life-threatening infections in humans, is now one of few options doctors have left for treating carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae—CRE—which has been described as the nightmare bacteria. It is important to me because my niece and several of my constituents have cystic fibrosis, and colistin is used for treating lung infections arising from CF. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust described growing colistin resistance as a
“matter of life and death”
for such patients. Only last year, new products were licensed by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in a move that Professor Timothy Walsh, one of the scientists who originally discovered colistin resistance, described as “sheer, utter madness”. He says that that last resort antibiotic will become useless as a drug within 10 years if its usage in veterinary medicine is not stopped.
The Government also urgently need to set specific targets for “critically important antibiotics” because of their importance to human health. The Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics has called for an 80% reduction in the use of CIAs in farming in five years, and a 95% reduction in 10 years—a call I endorsed this time last year—but sales fell by only 5% in 2015. We need far greater reductions. We also need more ambitious sector-specific targets. As I said, the poultry industry is doing more but antibiotic use is extremely high in the pig industry—more than five times higher per pig than in Denmark and the Netherlands, which are our competitors. As has already been said, intensive farming goes hand in hand with the overuse of antibiotics, which is something the Government need to encourage farmers to move away from.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this important debate. I will focus on Lord O’Neill’s call for antibiotic prescriptions to be informed by a rapid diagnostic test “wherever one exists” by 2020. Such tests do exist and have for probably at least 25 years. I know that because I tried to launch such a test previously. At that stage it was about better prescribing, but it is now more about tackling the huge problem of antimicrobial resistance, which Dame Sally Davies has said is as big a risk as terrorism and climate change.
Why are we still only talking about these point-of-care and diagnostic tests, which could make a huge difference? I think it is partly due to the way that in vitro diagnostic tests are block funded through centralised hospital labs. In Scandinavia, point-of-care tests are a lot more widespread, including for C-reactive protein—CRP—and funding is decentralised. There is not yet a mechanism for such tests to be funded in the UK. It is so important to look at how such tests will be funded, whether they are to be used in a GP surgery or local pharmacy. It has been calculated that £56 million could be saved in prescribing and dispensing costs alone if point-of-care tests were introduced, as they can be vital in deciding whether to prescribe antibiotics.
Let me explain. High levels of C-reactive protein are found in somebody with a bacterial infection. The level is normally only slightly raised when the patient has a viral and not a microbial infection. When my hon. Friend was tested, the results showed that he was either healthy or had a viral infection. Point-of-care CRP tests are available and can be carried out by GPs, practice nurses and community pharmacists, and they take just four minutes to determine whether a patient needs antibiotics or not. It sounds very simple, and it can be. As I said earlier, patients feel they have only had their money’s worth from a GP appointment if they come out with a prescription, but studies have shown that giving them a point-of-care test can also leave them feeling satisfied and as though they have had their money’s worth. In one study, 90% of respondents felt reassured by a point-of-care CRP test if they were not prescribed an antibiotic.
The tests are very simple. Patients have their finger or thumb stabbed and a small drop of blood is taken. It is then tested within four minutes, while the patient waits in the doctor’s surgery. Lots of studies have shown a reduction in antibiotic prescribing, including by 30% in one and 23% in another project, which was cost-neutral; the cost of carrying out the tests versus prescribing is very effective. I am mystified as to why we have this problem yet are not tackling it with tests that are already on the market, which is in line with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. I ask the Minister: why can we not change the funding streams for these tests to make sure that they are carried out exactly where they are needed?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I was not expecting to be called so soon—[Interruption.]
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Despite your pleasure, Mr Grady, there is a Division in the House.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
We will recommence even though the Minister and the mover of the motion are not present. Sir Kevin Barron will speak now, and we will come back to Patrick Grady’s speech later. The debate will end at 4.33 pm.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this very important debate. We will all be aware that the World Health Organisation says that antibiotic resistance is one of the most significant threats to safety in Europe. Resistance is driven by overusing and inappropriately prescribing antibiotics, and it leads to higher medical costs, prolonged hospital stays and increased mortality. The aim of appropriate use is to ensure that patients receive the treatment that is most likely to treat their condition without increasing antimicrobial resistance. That includes ensuring that courses of antibiotics are completed and are not prescribed unnecessarily, and reducing the spread of infection through vaccines and other early interventions.
One area that is often overlooked is dentistry, which accounts for up to 10% of all antibiotics prescribed in the UK. It is essential that dentists play their part in reducing antibiotic prescribing, and I believe that they are willing to do that. The British Dental Association tells me that many patients are not aware that antibiotics cannot cure decay or dental abscesses and that surgical intervention and painkillers are more often the appropriate treatment for tooth-related pain. The briefing sheet that the BDA sent me gives this good example:
“Hundreds of thousands of patients show up at GP surgeries and A&E departments every year with dental pain, but these places are not equipped to help them, and they are sent home with antibiotics to tide them over until they can arrange to see a dentist.”
There should be awareness of that throughout the medical profession.
I agree with Lord O’Neill’s statement that diagnostic technology needs to be improved to ensure that antimicrobials are used appropriately. I am no expert in this area, but the chair of the review board called on the Governments of rich countries to ensure that, by 2020, all prescriptions for antibiotics will be on the basis of surveillance information and a rapid diagnostic test where one is available. The review recommended a diagnostic market stimulus to support the diagnostic technology market. The Minister is not in the Chamber at present, but I hope that the Government will look at diagnostics.
The Government must also look at the factors that have hampered investment in antibiotic development, particularly the low commercial returns on investment. With high costs and long lead times for developing new medicines, there is a need to create an attractive environment for companies to invest in antibiotic development, in order to increase research and development. The current system of antibiotic reimbursement does not provide companies with a fair return on investment. That is driving companies out of the anti-infection market.
Pharmaceutical companies and Government are developing a delinked domestic reimbursement model. That will remove the incentive for companies to promote antibiotic sales, which can accelerate the development of resistance. The proposed model will deliver a return on investment for antibiotics that is delinked from the volume of sales. It will also encourage the appropriate use of new antibiotics by ensuring that they are prescribed based on clinical need and in line with stewardship goals.
I see the time, Mr Streeter, and I am about to conclude. A delinkage model is proposed in the O’Neill report, and we must put our minds to it, but it is very much for the future. What we have to examine now is how we manage patients’ expectations on when antibiotics are and are not appropriate. We should be doing that daily in all parts of the health service.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
The O’Neill report focuses on many things, but I would like to focus on three key points. One is unnecessary prescribing. The second is the so-called disappeared antibiotics—those that should be available, but are not. The third is alternatives—something that Jim O’Neill talks about, but does not elaborate on.
Jim O’Neill says:
“Huge quantities of…antibiotics, are wasted globally on patients who do not need them”.
That is a key challenge for us, but he also says that a study in 2012 of 38 high-income countries found that
“two thirds of the antibiotics surveyed were not available in more than half of the countries. The main reason for this is that drugs manufacturers and distributors discontinue the stock where it is not profitable enough to maintain it.”
The point is that those antibiotics are available, but are not being used because of economic factors.
We looked at this issue in the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I was a member in the previous Parliament, and we found:
“Of the 18 to 20 pharmaceutical companies who were the main suppliers of new antibiotics 20 years ago, just a handful of companies persist in this field.”
It is all down to money, and we will clearly have to address that with funding.
If we go through the back of the O’Neill report, we find that there are hardly any contributions from anyone who knows anything about anything other than mainstream medicine. Between one third and one half of the world’s population live in China and India, where there is integrated healthcare using herbal medicine and mainstream medicine. There are 60,000 hospitals in China, and there will be a larger number of herbal clinics. In India, the Ministry of AYUSH regulates Ayurveda of different types, yoga and homeopathy, of which there are 200 colleges —we probably will not get on to that this afternoon.
In the previous Parliament, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), asked a group led by the deputy chief medical officer, and me as his deputy, to look at regulation of herbal medicine. My hon. Friend the Minister has just published her response. I congratulate her on it and am very much in favour of the idea of getting better regulation through the Professional Standards Authority. However, I have to tell her that she has been badly advised in one respect. She says, on herbal pharmacies:
“Allowing people with no qualifications to put together medicines and carry this out on unregulated premises conflicts with everything else the MHRA does”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2017; Vol. 622, c. 8WS.]
I have to tell her that that is not the case. Professor David Walker, who wrote to her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), made this clear:
“The idea of herbal dispensaries was to allow the preparation of herbal remedies on behalf of individual practitioners, for individual patients, but at a distant location by a third party. This would be safer than unskilled practitioners making products in unsuitable environments.”
So that is completely the opposite. He said:
“We consulted the MHRA about the feasibility of this change in our deliberations and the advice that we received was that it was feasible but…would take considerable work”.
That is the problem—the MHRA do not want to do the work. He went on:
“We felt that this effort would be worthwhile and that dispensaries would improve access to herbal medicines, generate business and improve patient safety.”
If we marry that with the new regime that the Professional Standards Authority has put in place, and if we give the herbal pharmacists from China and India and the phytotherapists in this country oversight of regulation through the PSA, my hon. Friend the Minister will have a powerful tool. However, that will not be the case if she does not have another look at the herbal pharmacies proposal, which we worked on for nearly 18 months. The former Minister, who commissioned the report, is not in his place at the moment, but he would agree.
Patrick Grady
It is still a pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.
Antimicrobial resistance was described earlier by another Member as a market failure. I have also seen it described as a “tragedy of the commons”, which is a phrase that some of us might associate with the hassle we have to go through because of the antiquated voting systems in this House. It is actually an economic term describing where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good by depleting a resource that should be there to serve everyone. That is precisely what has happened through the misuse of antibiotic medicines over the years. It shows that the resistance we are discussing today is an avoidable and man-made problem, and it is therefore in our gift to overcome the challenge.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
One of my concerns is that we view this as though there should be a proper market functioning. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we do not actually want a functioning market, in that we want a new generation of drugs to become available and then, as far as possible, not to be used? We do not want the market to operate; we want the use of such drugs to be in reserve.
Patrick Grady
Absolutely. I wholeheartedly agree. That leads me nicely on to my first point about the particular challenge faced in developing countries.
All Governments in the world have an obligation under the sustainable development goals—it is in SDG 3—to ensure health and wellbeing for all, which includes access to safe, effective, quality and affordable medicines and vaccines. That is about access to medicines; it is not about the right to buy or sell them on the market, it is about treating them as a common good. That is precisely what we want to do, otherwise there is a real risk of backsliding on progress that has been made in tackling neglected and tropical diseases. We heard earlier about TB being responsible for more than 5,000 deaths per day, and about malaria, which is often treated by very strong antibiotics and affects more than 200 million people worldwide a year. That is why there needs to be a broad, co-ordinated response. Drugs that treat TB are often used to treat other infections as well, so in boosting research into neglected diseases there is an opportunity to supercharge the pipeline of development and make more drugs available for treatment as we need them.
I am glad the Minister is back in the Chamber. It would be interesting to hear what further commitments the Government can make. We welcomed the commitment to the global fund, but how is the Department for Health working with the Department for International Development on these issues? In particular, how much of her Department’s spending will be counted as official development assistance when it comes to tackling antimicrobial resistance? The Ross fund was set up by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), who is no longer in his place, and I congratulate him on it. What progress is being made on that fund, and what support will there be for researchers on the ground in developing countries? I am not opposed to using the ODA budget to fund Departments other than DFID, but wherever possible it should be used to support research on the ground in developing countries.
I want to speak briefly about domestic responses. I recently met a constituent, Linda Brooks, who has become the chair of the Scottish steering committee for synthetic biology—an initiative supported by Scottish Enterprise. She is also a manager at the company Thermo Fisher, which supports research in the life sciences sector including pioneering work on antimicrobial resistance and, in particular, the technology of genome editing, which has huge potential. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government provide any support in those areas.
We all have responsibility for the effective use of antibiotics. During the hiatus in this debate I was able to sign up online to become an antibiotic guardian, which Public Health England supports with the encouragement of all the devolved Administrations. It includes a range of pledges to treat symptoms, to talk to pharmacists, to dispose of unused antibiotics carefully, to take the flu vaccine and to always complete the course—I hope everyone will sign up to that pledge.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid we now have to go down to three minutes per speaker. I am sorry about there being no notice of that.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for bringing this crucial issue forward for discussion. Keeping it in the spotlight is vital, to ensure that there is sufficient political will to carry forth the recommendations in the O’Neill report on antimicrobial resistance.
Having worked in the NHS as a consultant paediatrician, and having treated many patients with antibiotics, I have seen at first hand the work the NHS is doing to ensure that they are prescribed responsibly. I have also used the CRP test, which my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) mentioned, many times. However, I would caution that the result of that test is only a small part of a much larger clinical picture, and we should be mindful that a normal result does not exclude serious infection.
Over the years of my clinical practice, many measures have come into force to ensure that the right antibiotic, appropriate for the infection and the patient, is used. One of those is limiting access to the newest antibiotics, and using them only in specific circumstances after discussions with the hospital’s consultant microbiologist. The measures have resulted in a more responsible use of antibiotics within the health service. However, as the O’Neill review identified, such stringent measures do not exist within veterinary medicine, and the use of antibiotics in farming accounts for about 40% of the UK’s consumption of antibiotics.
As a Member for a rural constituency and the wife of a farmer, I believe that minimising the growth of antimicrobial resistance through our agricultural practices is of great importance and must be tackled with the same vigour with which we have addressed the use of antibiotics in human medicine. The O’Neill review made a number of recommendations, including the responsible use of antibiotics in animals, restricting the use of antibiotics that are critical to human medicine, and disease prevention. An effective antibiotic monitoring system can have a huge impact on reducing the use of antibiotics, as shown by the implementation of such a system in the British meat poultry sector, which resulted in a 44% reduction from 2012 to 2015. Restricting the use in agriculture of antibiotics that are of the most critical importance to human medicine is vital to ensure their continued effectiveness. The Department of Health requires continued support to bolster the regulatory oversight of veterinary antibiotics, to ensure that they are used responsibly and to keep back the priority antibiotics.
Finally, we must support our farmers in methods to prevent disease by emphasising improvement in overall biosecurity and herd health, including through vaccination. It is important that we do our part to deal with antibiotic resistance, but we also need to recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) said, that this issue can only really be solved with international co-operation and a push for awareness of the problem, not only at home but within the international community, to help develop the regulatory framework. Much talk is made of a cliff edge where drug-resistant bacteria will be able to defeat the entire arsenal of antibiotics, but we have already reached that cliff edge.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Streeter, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this important debate.
The O’Neill review is a fundamentally important look at the future of medical treatment not just in this country, but globally. TB is one of the most dangerous diseases worldwide and the most lethal infectious disease in history. As has been mentioned, 5,000 people die from it every day around the world and, as the review indicates, more than 10 million people will die from it annually by 2050 if we are not careful and do not contribute to the development of future research and vaccinations.
I am proud of the work of the all-party group on global tuberculosis and that of my co-chair of the group, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert)—I think he has left the Chamber. We have had fantastic support from the Global TB Caucus and RESULTS UK. Both groups worked tirelessly to ensure the proper replenishment of the global fund last year. Eighty per cent. of the funding for the global fight against TB comes from the fund and Britain is the second largest donor. Still, at current rates, eradication will only be possible by 2167, which is not good enough—the speed we are going means that it will take 150 years to eradicate the disease. We have committed to eradication by 2030 but we are not doing enough to achieve it. Hopefully, the O’Neill review will be enough to drive forward the agenda that we need.
We have to work towards not just treatment, but vaccination. The standard treatment currently takes six months and 4,000 pills; it is no wonder that fewer than half of those who start the treatment complete the course. The difficulty of treatment drives AMR and the widespread nature of the epidemic. Hopefully, Lord O’Neill’s review will go some way towards raising awareness of how acute the issue of AMR is for some of the world’s poorest, even in this country. This and previous Governments have led the world on action on resistance. Let them again take up the mantle and drive forward the fight against AMR and help to secure a real vaccination against TB.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I am delighted to serve under your guidance, Mr Streeter, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing the debate. A disadvantage of being the only practising dentist in the House is having to remember that the Commission is watching, so I have to declare it, Mr Streeter.
As the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) will know, as a dentist I am instantly lobbied by the likes of the British Dental Association, and I will stick to that area. As he said, around 10% of the antibiotics that are dispensed are for dental pains and dental problems. Hundreds of thousands of people swarm into GP surgeries and A&Es and they are given pills like lollipops to take away, but the solution is only temporary and does not solve the problem. To ask the Minister one small thing, will she think about working on a system to increase the number of emergency dentists that are available, because dental action, not pills, is needed?
Dental action can take many forms. Part of stopping the broad provision of antibiotics is straight prevention. In the case of dentistry, that is relatively simple. The cause of the majority of dental pain requiring antibiotics is decay and that is totally preventable. I am delighted that Sara Hurley, the new chief dental officer, is really moving on that issue. She is making changes so that kids are taught, from the moment that their teeth arrive right the way through to their school years, about brushing their teeth and using fluoride toothpaste to prevent decay. Many of the hundreds of thousands of patients who go into A&E are children suffering from swollen faces, pain, sleepless nights and so on. They are given antibiotics to tide them over until they have teeth taken out. In England, some 900 kids a week are given general anaesthetics to have their teeth out. That is appalling and preventable. I encourage the Minister to work with the chief dental officer, the health and wellbeing bodies and charities to prevent the need for any antibiotics—or at least, to reduce the antibiotics used—in dentistry by simply preventing dental decay.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for setting the scene.
I could not help but be shocked by the figures in the information that hon. Members received from the Library. The briefing stated:
“If we are unable to slow the acceleration of AMR, future consequences will be worse still.”
It also stated that
“10 million people a year could be dying as a result of AMR by 2050”.
Professor Dame Sally Davies has said that we could well
“return to a time where 40 per cent of the population die prematurely from infections we cannot treat.”
Those are the facts, so what do we do to solve the problem? I will try to hit on some solutions, and I look to the Minister for encouragement.
I want to highlight the work that has been done on the boundary of my constituency at the world-renowned Queen’s University Belfast. Researchers there are leading a €50 million Europe-wide project to develop new drug treatment to improve the lives of patients with cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis. The inhaled antibiotics in bronchiectasis and cystic fibrosis consortium—the iABC—which is made up of world-leading lung specialists from across Europe, will develop new inhaled antibiotics to manage chronic lung infection, which is the main cause of disease and death in patients with cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis. If we look across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for solutions and how to address the problem, we can see that we are doing a grand job on moving forward on this issue. The new antibiotics, which are being trialled over a five-year period and are being developed in response to the urgent need for new forms of inhaled antibiotics, are expected to improve patients’ quality of life by reducing lung infections and flare-ups, improving lung function and overcoming antibacterial resistance, which frequently occurs in patients with those conditions.
The consortium is also funded by the European Commission and involves some 20 organisations from eight countries across Europe. As Professor Stuart Elborn, dean of the school of dentistry, medicine and biomedical sciences at Queen’s University, said:
“There are limited antibiotics available to treat lung infection in cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis, and the bacteria causing them are becoming increasingly resistant to current antibiotics.”
The work being done by Queen’s University has the potential to deliver inhaled antibiotics that will improve the quality of life and survival rates of cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis patients. It is the latest example of the commitment of the researchers and staff at Queen’s University to advancing knowledge and changing lives by working with international experts.
We are looking at how we can best address these issues, so I ask the Minister to tell us what has been done on the partnerships that clearly operate between big business, universities and Government to ensure that the giant steps being taken by the likes of Queen’s University in Belfast can be replicated across the whole United Kingdom. If that can be done, we can solve the problem.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I declare an interest as a member of the board of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. Indeed, I talked to Dr Adam Roberts who is a senior lecturer in antimicrobial chemotherapy and resistance there; he gave me some pointers to the things that he believes are extremely important in this work. I will touch on four of them.
The first thing, as others have mentioned, is to revitalise drug discovery. We are not talking about one or two drugs but 10, 20 or 30 new drugs. That is the scale of what is needed, particularly in the area of anti-Gram- negatives, because there is the least resistance to those drugs at the moment.
The second point, which has been made, is that the pharmaceutical industry as a whole should be involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) rightly said that many treatments, such as more intense chemotherapies, rely on the availability of good antibiotics so that patients do not suffer when their resistance levels are lower. Why should those companies not contribute to the development of antibiotics, if they are not doing so already? As we said, that is challenging commercially. Perhaps we could even look at a tax on those drugs to pay for antibiotics or some other way of raising revenue from those that do not participate.
Thirdly, a public education campaign, which has been mentioned, would help people recognise that antibiotics are not to be taken at every opportunity and that we should consider who is using them, particularly in meat production. I believe that one or two major companies in the United States have already started using meat reared without antibiotics, which I welcome. The fourth area, which has also been mentioned, is regulation of the sale of antibiotics online. It is a major loophole that must be closed, and the United Kingdom can play a role.
Finally, I draw a parallel with malaria, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) mentioned. As a result of the development of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria, the use of the very effective anti-malarials has declined, because people no longer see anti-malarials as the only treatment that can be provided when their child gets a fever. Consequently, although resistance exists, it has become less of a problem in some places. Also, initiatives such as the Medicines for Malaria Venture have created a much stronger pipeline of anti-malarial drugs through co-operation among the pharmaceutical industry, charities such as the Gates Foundation, the United Kingdom and other Governments and the Global Fund to fight malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. Such co-operation is critical.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I remind colleagues that this debate must conclude at 4.33 pm. Our winding-up speeches will begin now, but I hope that we will be able to give two or three minutes at the conclusion of the debate for the mover of the motion to have a final say.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and to take part in this important debate, which has been well informed and highly consensual. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing it. This issue is one of the greatest global health challenges facing our generation. I agree thoroughly that it is potentially devastating and that it is already happening.
[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]
Worldwide, antimicrobial resistance currently kills an estimated 700,000 people annually, and approximately 70% of known bacteria have developed resistance to one or more antimicrobials. The O’Neill review sends a clear and stark warning to us all that we must act for the sake of our economy and, more importantly, our health. Lord O’Neill estimates that by 2050, 10 million people globally could die each year because antibiotics are losing their power to tackle common infections, and that a quarter of those deaths will be caused by tuberculosis, whose attributes make TB bacteria more likely to develop resistance. It is worth noting that the O’Neill review final recommendations highlighted that
“tackling TB and drug-resistant TB must be at the heart of any global action against AMR.”
It is also projected that antimicrobial resistance could cut global GDP by 3.5% in the same time period, which amounts to $100 trillion. I am not even sure how many zeroes that is, but it is a frightening sum. Action is needed at a local, national and global level to improve knowledge and understanding of antimicrobial resistance, to conserve and steward the effectiveness of existing treatments and to stimulate the development of new antibiotics, diagnostics and therapies.
To those ends, the Scottish National party-led Scottish Government are taking their role seriously. Last March, the Scottish Government announced a £4.2 million research grant to investigate the prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections, as well as to research new ways of using existing antibiotics more effectively and efficiently. Scottish Government funding was provided to a consortium of researchers led by the University of Glasgow, working with other Scottish universities, to establish a new Scottish Healthcare Associated Infection Prevention Institute.
Antibiotics are not only critical for treating bacterial infections, they are a cornerstone of routine healthcare, as they prevent infections following surgery and cancer chemotherapy. In Scotland, more than 80% of antibiotic use is within primary care. Overuse and inappropriate use of antibiotics can unnecessarily increase the development of AMR. As limited new antibiotics are under development, it is vital that health professionals and the public work together to optimise how antibiotics are used to preserve their effectiveness for future generations.
Some progress is being made. The latest Scottish figures for 2015 show a 2.4% fall in one year in the number of antibiotics prescribed in primary care, a reduction of 84,490 items compared with 2014. As per the recommendations of the UK five-year antimicrobial resistance strategy, a Scottish “One Health” report will be published in 2017. The report will contain antimicrobial use and resistance data for humans, animals and the environment, in line with the aims of the global “One Health” approach, which spans people, animals, agriculture and the wider environment. There is little doubt that a present and serious challenge faces us; what is less clear is how best to tackle it.
It seems to me that we have two principal problems, both of which have been covered by hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. First, pharmaceutical companies do not have a financial incentive to develop new antibiotics. Even if a company invests in developing a new antibiotic, it needs to be held back until we are resistant to other antibiotics. However, while the antibiotic is being held back, the time on its patent is still ticking down, meaning that the company has less time to recoup the money that it has invested developing it. Therefore, the SNP would like the UK to accelerate its leading role in developing solutions to incentivise the development and management of new antibiotics, promote re-investment in antibiotics and appropriate use and reduce the risks for both payer and investor. I look forward to any comments that the Minister might have on that aspect.
Our second major problem is the use of antibiotics in livestock, which we then consume via the food chain. The evidence suggests that the amount of antimicrobials used in food production internationally is at least the same as in humans, and in some places is higher. For example, in the US, more than 70% of antibiotics that are medically important for humans are used in animals. This form of antimicrobial usage is likely to rise as a result of economic growth, increasing wealth and food consumption in the emerging world.
When properly used, antibiotics are essential for treating infections in animals, but excessive and inappropriate use of the drugs may be a problem. It is therefore important that we play our part in working towards the O’Neill recommendation of
“a global target to reduce antibiotic use in food production to an agreed level per kilogram of livestock and fish, along with restrictions on the use of antibiotics important for human health.”
The SNP encourages everyone to play their part in reducing the unnecessary use of antibiotics, raising awareness and pledging to be an antibiotic guardian. I have not yet followed the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and registered, but now that I know it is easy to do, I will do it today.
In November 2015, Scotland’s Health Secretary, Shona Robison, said that the rise of drug-resistant infections is an issue that must be tackled in Scotland and around the world. Marking European antibiotic awareness day, Robison also pledged to be an antibiotic guardian, in a scheme run by a joint UK initiative to encourage everyone to become an antibiotic guardian by making a personal pledge. As part of European antibiotic awareness day, the Scottish Antimicrobial Prescribing Group, alongside UK partners, launched a target of 100,000 people signing up to become antibiotic guardians, including one in 10 prescribers and one in 100 other healthcare professionals.
Inevitably, any solution will have to be multi-factorial and involve a large range of stakeholders including Governments, non-governmental organisations, industry, the pharma, food and agriculture sectors, academia, research, health professionals and the public at large. If we become completely resistant to antibiotics, operations and procedures currently considered routine will become a lot more dangerous. The medical profession in Britain has become a lot better at not prescribing antibiotics unnecessarily. We must maintain that stance, develop it further and encourage others to follow.
My final plea to the Minister is not to allow UK contributions to international efforts to tackle AMR to become diminished. I seriously hope that the issue does not become a casualty of any post-Brexit isolationism.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on bringing this important debate to the House. He gave an eloquent and knowledgeable speech clearly setting out the issue and the matters to be discussed following the O’Neill review. I thank him for that.
An estimated 50,000 deaths occur every year due to untreatable infections, rising to 700,000 globally. That is why it is only right that we do all we can to address antibiotic resistance. It is believed that the number of deaths will rise to 10 million a year by 2050 if no significant action is taken. As we have heard from a number of Members, deaths from drug-resistant infections could exceed deaths from cancer.
This is an incredibly timely debate. Only a couple of weeks ago, the World Health Organisation published a list of 12 bacteria for which new antibiotics are now needed. Some strains of bacteria have built-in abilities to find new ways to fight off treatments that can then be passed on to other bacteria via genetic material to make them drug-resistant too. I find it a bit scary to consider what we are up against. This is a battle that we have to win.
I also thank other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) gave a very knowledgeable speech about the use of antibiotics in farming; other hon. Members touched on the subject as well. I really think we need to get a firm grip on it internationally, with the UK leading the way. Ten other Members spoke in this very active debate: my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), the hon. Members for Erewash (Maggie Throup), for Bosworth (David Tredinnick), for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who speaks for the Scottish National party. Their speeches were all thoughtful and knowledgeable, albeit brief because of time constraints.
I will touch on two key points: raising public awareness, and supporting research and innovation to combat antibiotic resistance. It is generally accepted that antibiotic resistance is a natural process—bacteria naturally evolve to become resistant to certain drugs used to fight them off—but it has been exacerbated by humans. As Dr Hsu of the Singapore Infectious Diseases Initiative has said, the causes come down to
“a single axiom—abuse and overuse of antimicrobial drugs.”
Concerns have also been raised that the development of new antibiotic drugs has dried up, contributing to the situation. According to the World Health Organisation, we are left in a precarious position. The WHO’s director general, Dr Margaret Chan, describes antimicrobial resistance as
“a crisis that must be managed with the utmost urgency.”
That urgency applies here in the UK, too. In 2014, the chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, said that
“we could be taken back to a 19th century environment where everyday infections kill us as a result of routine operations.”
We could be taken even further back: as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, this could be the new black death. That is not as melodramatic a statement as people may first think. Antimicrobial resistance is a really serious problem that we need to address here and now, so that those predictions do not come true.
I do not always do this, as I am sure you have noticed, Mr Hollobone, but I must give credit to David Cameron’s coalition Government, who were global leaders when they announced Lord O’Neill’s review into antimicrobial resistance. The review’s 10 recommendations show just how complex and multifaceted the issue is and how wide-scale the actions needed to address it are. The review’s final report was published in May 2016 and the Government responded at the end of last year, so now is a good time to ask the Government for an update.
One of the review’s key recommendations was to introduce a large-scale global awareness campaign to reduce the demand from patients to be prescribed antibiotics when they are diagnosed with an illness. I am a firm believer in public awareness campaigns relating to health issues, especially cancer. My hon. Friends and I fully support such a campaign for antimicrobial resistance and we want to see the Government working hard to achieve it. The review’s recommendation was for an international awareness campaign, but what does the Minister plan to do here in the UK to complement that international work? That is a pertinent question because a 2015 Wellcome Trust study found that people in the UK did not fully understand antibiotic resistance and how it affects their health. They did not understand that antibiotic resistance is to do with the bacteria in people’s bodies, rather than a lack of antibiotics or the cost of them; it is not just a case of doctors being awkward. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister told us what relatable public awareness campaigns she is planning to ensure that people understand more about the problem and about what they can do personally.
I have already mentioned the problems with combating antibiotic resistance caused by the drying up of innovative developments in drug technologies. The O’Neill review identifies that the low commercial return on research and development for antibiotics makes them less attractive to pharmaceutical companies and reduces the chance of new drugs being developed. To reverse that situation, it recommends considering market entry rewards to encourage companies to develop new or improved drugs, especially in areas of urgent need. I hope the Minister will explore that issue further in her reply.
Public and private funding is being made available to help to combat these issues. On 20 December, the Minister referred to
“international programmes to tackle AMR, including the Fleming fund and the Global AMR innovation fund, which represent more than £300 million of investment over the next five years.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 1294.]
There is also the incredible work of the Longitude Prize, which is in the middle of its competition to develop
“a cheap, accurate, rapid and easy-to-use point of care test kit for bacterial infections”
to help to address antibiotic resistance. That is important work and we support it.
In summary, we cannot afford to get antimicrobial resistance wrong. Millions of lives depend on our tackling it. It is not far away; it is happening right here, right now, and it affects us all, so it is important that we do all we can to address this growing problem, both in the UK and internationally.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
If the Minister will be kind enough to finish just after 4.30 pm, that will give Mr Hollinrake time to sum up the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this very well attended debate and on his ongoing commitment to highlighting this issue. I pay tribute to the all-party group on antibiotics, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) for their leadership. I also commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), who is no longer in his place. He really set the issue squarely on the international agenda during his time as Chancellor.
As many hon. Members have described well today, antimicrobial resistance has the potential to lead to 10 million deaths by 2050—more than are caused by cancer—and a loss to global productivity of £100 trillion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, the figures are on a scale that is hard to comprehend, but the good news is that the ramifications of AMR are now widely acknowledged, and we can be proud that the UK has played no small part in that. Our chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, has led a global campaign to get AMR and the lack of new drugs in the development pipeline high on the global political agenda.
We have used the UK’s antimicrobial resistance strategy and our response to the O’Neill review, which we published last September, to drive change at home and abroad. This has led to the landmark UN declaration on AMR in September, which was adopted by 193 countries. The declaration recognises that AMR is an issue that relates not just to human health, but—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) and the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) rightly said—to animal health, agriculture and the environment, with a significant social and economic impact. It puts AMR squarely not just on the global development agenda, but on the global security agenda.
As numerous hon. Members have mentioned, a key Government commitment in response to the review was to work with international partners to develop a global system that rewards companies for bringing new, successful products to market and makes them available to all who need them. There are a number of options for addressing the market failure, but the O’Neill review suggests using a system of market entry rewards to incentivise companies to bring new products to market. A number of international organisations, including the Boston Consulting Group, commissioned by the German Government, have looked at the issue more recently and come to similar conclusions, which is helpful in building an international consensus.
The UK supports that approach, particularly options that involve private sector contributions, but although a global solution is needed, different countries have different perspectives. In some countries, lack of access to effective antimicrobials is as great a risk as resistant bugs. The WHO estimates that 30% of people in developing countries do not have access to essential medicines, rising to 50% in sub-Saharan Africa. The UK is working to reach an agreement at the G20 to acknowledge market failure. The G20 has commissioned the OECD to consider potential solutions, and it will consider a range of options. The UK will support alternative systems that can effectively tackle market failure in a cost-effective and sustainable manner that ensures a long-term, sustainable supply of new antibiotics but also provides access to all.
While Lord O’Neill made it clear that interventions to stimulate the antimicrobials market should be administered at global level, he was also clear that at national level we must have better purchasing arrangements that conserve antimicrobials and do not incentivise unnecessary use. That is why the Department of Health is working with industry, through a joint working group with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, to consider reimbursement approaches that support these aims and how reimbursement models that de-link revenue from volume can be operationalised. It is essential that such a scheme is workable, so I will report back to Members when I am able to do so.
Colleagues are right that we will not make progress if we do not improve our stewardship and diagnostics, and cut avoidable infections and inappropriate prescribing. One of our ambitions in that regard is to halve the number of healthcare-associated Gram-negative blood stream infections by 2020. Delivery of that ambition is being led by NHS Improvement. Our initial focus is a 10% reduction in E. coli infections by 2017-2018, because there are established interventions to prevent such infections, and we are making some progress in this area.
A second ambition is to halve inappropriate prescribing by 2020. This work is now being led by the chief pharmaceutical officer at NHS England, with support from Public Health England, but the challenge is to identify the proportion of current prescribing that is inappropriate, so that we can safely reduce our use. Our experts are working to set a baseline, so that we can clarify our ask to prescribers. This will build on work that is already under way to reduce unnecessary prescribing.
I can report that there has been some progress in this area. In November 2016, data showed that total consumption of antibiotics by humans in England fell by 4.3% between 2014 and 2015, which is the greatest change that we have seen since the early 2000s. We are making progress, but our experts believe we can go further so we have put incentives in place through the NHS quality premium and commissioning for quality improvement schemes—which is quite a mouthful—to encourage further reduction, and we will maintain that system for a further two years, so that we can embed those changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton also said that over-the-counter antimicrobials were a key area. It is illegal for websites based in the UK to sell antibiotics online without a prescription. Some websites offer online consultations with doctors, but they must abide by the General Medical Council guidance on remote prescribing, and it is extremely important that people exercise caution in how they use online care providers, especially when it comes to seeking medicines or treatments that may not be appropriate for them.
Regulatory agencies, such as the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Care Quality Commission, are monitoring the safety and efficacy of prescription medicines and those selling them. Following an internal review of all 43 online services that are registered, the CQC has brought forward a programme of inspections, prioritising those services that it considers might pose a risk to patients. It will obviously report soon on that work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the hon. Member for Bristol East were absolutely right that the Department of Health needs to work closely with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate to reduce the use of antimicrobials in livestock and in fish farmed for food. Between 2014 and 2015, we saw a drop of 10% in sales of antibiotic for food-producing animals, but we know that we need to go further. So we are now in the process of setting sector-specific targets, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, to ensure that we achieve our ambition of 50 milligrams per kilogram weight of animal by 2018.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) was also right to highlight the need for better diagnostics if we are to achieve our stewardship ambitions. O’Neill was clear that that was necessary for better clinical decision making in both animal and human health. There is great potential to make better use of the diagnostic tests that are already available in a range of settings, including for self-care and monitoring in pharmacies and other high-street services. So NHS England has a programme in place not only to improve the use of the diagnostic tests that we already have but to identify the priority needs for new tests, so that we can work with researchers and industry to support the development and uptake of those tests. NHS England is also working with NICE to identify how its programmes could support more rapid uptake of effective diagnostic tests. If my hon. Friend would like us to, we will write to her with the details of that work.
In the end, this challenge is a global one that requires global leadership, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton has said. The UN declaration was the start of a longer process to make sure that all countries develop and implement a national action plan, and it is essential that the follow-up process, which was agreed in the declaration, is put in place as soon as possible, to ensure that no time is lost in getting to where we want to be before we go back to the UN General Assembly in 2018. Within that timeframe, we will continue to support other countries to tackle antimicrobial resistance, including providing help to build capability and capacity to develop good surveillance systems in low and middle-income countries, through our £265 million Fleming fund and our £1 billion Ross fund, exactly as the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has said.
Lord O’Neill also recommended the establishment of a global innovation fund of $2 billion by 2020. The UK co-hosted a side event at the UN in September 2016 that brought together a package of pledges from Governments around the world to tackle AMR, totalling more than £675 million, which is a really considerable start in achieving that recommendation.
All of this work means that we now have unprecedented levels of global collaboration in research in the UK, co-ordinated by the AMR Funders Forum and supported by the Medical Research Council. We are now working hard to promote research and innovation in AMR globally, which includes making a further £50 million commitment towards setting up a global AMR innovation fund, to increase global investment in AMR and support the development of new drugs and diagnostics.
In closing, I thank all Members—
Nicola Blackwood
I will close now but follow up later.
I thank all Members who have attended today. The high turnout and the quality of debate speaks to the fact that AMR is more than a domestic health challenge and more than a global development challenge. It is truly a global security challenge, of a scale that requires long-term political leadership to drive through the international change, the up-front investment to break the cycle of market failure in drugs development and the urgent action needed to improve diagnostics and cut inappropriate prescribing, and to ensure that patients complete their courses of medicines in an appropriate way.
We can be proud of the genuinely leading role that the UK has already taken, both domestically and on the international stage, but my commitment to all Members here today is that we shall not miss a step in driving forward on research and development, on stewardship and on international co-operation. As a science superpower with an integrated healthcare system, we are uniquely well placed to meet this challenge and we are determined to do so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Before I ask Kevin Hollinrake to sum up, I detect that there may be some Members in the Chamber who are here for the debate on social care in Liverpool. We have a half-hour debate on student loans before we get to that debate; everything has been held up by the Divisions in the main Chamber. I am just trying to be helpful to Members who might here for another debate.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I thank the many colleagues who have contributed this afternoon to a very constructive debate; there has been a lot of consensus in this Chamber about what needs to be done. I also thank the Minister for her clear and comprehensive response to the many points that have been made; for the commitment she expressed at the end of her response, which is very reassuring; and, of course, for her great knowledge of this area.
It is quite clear from all the contributions that we have heard today that there is no one solution to this issue. There will have to be a holistic solution—a mix of solutions— across both the health and agriculture sectors; that point has been very clearly made this afternoon. That will also involve the different research laboratories that can contribute to this process. Obviously, the big pharmaceutical companies are a key element in making sure that we have the right remuneration mechanism for them and of course, our world-leading universities will also be involved, as well as other clinical institutions.
However, as I said earlier, the third sector is also important. Having the world’s first and only charity that specialises in combating antibiotic resistance in my constituency, I obviously feel honour-bound to support its fantastic activities. It is a collection of some of the UK’s top scientists. It has put an awful lot of work and money into this area, and its initial research has gone very well, using resistance breakers to repurpose antibiotics. Again, that is a key recommendation in the O’Neill review. As I say, the charity is making this progress and it is absolutely desperate to get the right kind of support. Any help we can give, in terms of pointing Antibiotic Research UK in the right direction to get the sources of funding it needs, would be useful. Its approach is innovative. It perhaps does not meet all the criteria that would normally be applied for this kind of research, but I absolutely believe that ANTRUK is certainly part of the short-term solution to this problem, if not the longer-term solution.
As others have already done, it is right that I thank Lord O’Neill for his tremendous work, as well as all the other people who contributed to his report. It is fair to say from what we have heard this afternoon that all the questions and answers are in the report; we just need to ensure that we execute well and follow through on the recommendations in the report.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) said, leadership is a key part of this issue. We were very lucky with the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, who put it front and centre. They took global action and showed global leadership on it, which is critical. With leadership, all things are possible; there is no question about that. It is incredibly important that we continue to show that leadership in Parliament and Westminster.
It was tremendous to have so many contributions to this debate, not only from the Minister and former Ministers, who have so much knowledge of this area, but from those who have shown leadership at the highest possible level. It is great to see the UK front and centre, speaking out on this important issue on the world stage.
I thank you again, Mr Hollobone, for your time. It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to contribute to this very important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the O’Neill review into antibiotic resistance.
Sale of Student Loans: Regulation
(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 Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Would those not staying for the half-hour debate on the regulation of the sale of student loans please be kind enough to leave quickly and quietly? This debate can last until 5.3 pm.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered regulation of the sale of student loans.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I think this is the first time I have been involved in a debate when you have been in the Chair. On your past record, I know that you will be fair and lenient.
I have two universities in my constituency, Coventry University and the University of Warwick. I have come across Members who have attended the University of Warwick, and some who have attended Coventry University. Many students at those universities have expressed concern to me regarding the sale of student loans. It is possible that to a certain extent, the Government are heaping more debt on students that they can ill afford, against a background of further education budgets receiving a 27% cut. The education allowance and the bursaries for midwifery have been abolished. Those things raise questions about the Government’s real intentions regarding skills, whether in the national health service or manufacturing.
On 6 February, the Government announced plans to sell off student loans taken out between 2002 and 2006. Conservative Governments have previously tried to introduce that policy, but they have never been successful. Indeed, the former Business Secretary, Vince Cable, scrapped the move in 2014, saying that it would not help the aim of reducing Government debt. Why are the present Government continuing to pursue the policy? With the sale of Royal Mail, we have seen how difficult it can be to achieve value for taxpayers. It could be argued that the taxpayer lost out in past privatisations. It can be controversial if the price paid seems too low, with short-term profit put ahead of the public interest. If the student loans are expected to be profitable, why are the Government not keeping them and helping the taxpayer?
The market has little experience of buying such debt, and it will be priced conservatively. It is therefore questionable whether value for money can be achieved. It has been widely acknowledged that the Government will make a loss on the sale. The price the loans are sold for is expected to be lower than the face value. It has been described by the Financial Times economic correspondent, Martin Wolf, as “economic illiteracy”. As I said, I have two universities in my constituency, so I am very concerned about the proposal, as are the students.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend knows that like him, I represent two universities. He is a powerful advocate for universities and students, and he will know that students are worried about the impact on their repayments. The Government have given assurances that the repayment terms will not be affected, but there is an enormous lack of trust given that they have already retrospectively changed those terms. Does he agree that the best way for the Government to reassure students would be to use the opportunity of the Higher Education and Research Bill to give a cast-iron guarantee in law that no retrospective changes to terms of repayment will be made?
Mr Cunningham
I agree with my hon. Friend. Frankly, retrospective law is always bad law. The three previous sales were of mortgage-style student loans. There have been no sales of income-contingent loans. In 2013, the Government announced that the final sale of outstanding loans had been made to Erudio Student Loans for £160 million. There have been problems with those loans and a number of complaints about their handling. Can the Minister guarantee that the loans we are discussing will not be resold to overseas buyers? What mechanisms will be put in place to protect students?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend knows of my interest in this issue. I have only one university in my constituency, the University of Huddersfield. My students, too, fear that the sale is an ideological fix. We heard this morning in Justice questions that the Government are selling off a young offenders prison—it is ideology that is behind this. Does he agree that we should have an independent commission to look at the issue? I have never seen a compelling economic case for the sale.
Mr Cunningham
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is about time we stopped social engineering with education. We are getting to a point where we want some sort of commission established. I hope the Minister will announce that when he responds to the debate.
Will the personal details of students be secure? How will repayment work for European Union students? How will Welsh students be affected? The National Union of Students has consistently expressed concerns that such a sale is not in the interests of students, graduates or taxpayers. What implications will the sale have for students?
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I have the University of West London in my constituency. I do not have as many universities as my hon. Friend, but has he received emails, as I have, from students who are concerned that the indecent haste to sell off the family silver will mean that students who thought they were taking out debt that could go back to the state to fund public services will now be lining the pockets of private companies? It makes no financial sense, as the Financial Times has pointed out.
Mr Cunningham
My hon. Friend has put her finger on it. The Government are clearly taking an ideological approach, rather than a logical approach.
Can the Minister tell us whether there will be protection from adverse terms and conditions? In the future, we may find ourselves in a situation where the terms and conditions of student loans are designed with future buyers in mind, rather than the interests of students. The sale will not protect post-2012 students from further retrospective changes to repayment terms. That is a source of anxiety for many students and may have an impact on people’s decision to go to university. Students are questioning who is really benefiting from their education.
Selling student loans represents a dangerous precedent. It paves the way for future privatisation of the education sector—I hope my colleagues will note that. The NUS is strongly opposed to the idea that profit is made from student debt. Privatising public assets should not be done for short-term profit.
Finally, the Government never learn any lessons. The sale will do nothing to ease the burden of debt piled on students who have faced trebled tuition fees and the scrapping of maintenance grants and bursaries. The Government have already changed the terms of post-2012 loans. How will the sale instil any confidence that more changes will not be made that are detrimental to students?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Bailey, are you wishing to speak? Do you have the permission of the Minister and the proposer of the motion to do so?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
There has been some confusion. I am delighted that you are able to speak, Mr Bailey. We must allow the Minister at least 15 minutes to reply, so if you could, temper your remarks accordingly.
Mr Bailey
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing the debate, and I thank him and the Minister for allowing me to make a short contribution.
I wanted to contribute because I was Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills in 2014 when it examined the Government’s proposals on this issue, which were mooted by the then Business Secretary. The Committee’s report posed a number of questions and made a number of assertions, which are as relevant now as then. Arising at least in part from the Select Committee’s contribution to the debate, the sale was subsequently withdrawn as the then Minister said he did not consider it to be value for money. The basis on which he made that observation is probably as relevant to this sale as it was to that previous attempt.
I would like to pose a number of questions to the Minister about the sale. I understand that the structure of the sale will be different from the previous one—it is not a whole loan sale going to a single investor, but is to be packaged up in the form of bonds. That is what I read in the Financial Times of 7 February. It seems to me that that process will redistribute the risk involved in the sale from a particular company to the bondholders. In view of that, I wonder whether the discount that the Government will give will have to be even greater to attract would-be bondholders to buy.
The arguments about discounts and the potential revenue to the Government were highlighted by a number of academics, and Rothschild, prior to the previous sale. The basic problem is that the dividend stream—the revenue stream—is now determined as 0.25% plus 1%, and of course the retail prices index is running at 3% and is projected to be between 3% and 3.2% in the next three years. It will be difficult to persuade any investors to invest when the return will be less than the rate of inflation.
Rothschild said that the Government would have to give some sort of “synthetic hedge” in order to attract purchasers of the debt. The crucial underlying paradox that comes with marketing the debt underlines the value for money principles that we should be looking for in such a sale. Rothschild estimated that it would realise only £2 billion of the £12 billion that the Government projected—ironically, I see that they are projecting £12 billion on this occasion. If the calculations were done, I suspect that that may well be scaled down to the sort of figure that Rothschild projected before.
Is the Minister prepared to guarantee that the current loan terms will not be changed as a result of the loans being privatised? What are the estimates of future income that the Government would have if this loan book were not sold? What sort of discount would be offered, and what would the total revenue be if they were sold under the processes that appear to be outlined at the moment? Finally, given that Government projections can be wrong—heaven forbid—what processes will be put in place to evaluate the Government’s approach and ensure that there is value for money for the taxpayer?
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing this debate. It provides a useful opportunity for me to set out the Government’s approach to the proposed sale of part of the student loan book. I would like to explain the rationale for the sale and make sure that some important points, particularly those relating to the protection of students and graduates and to our commitment to securing value for money for the taxpayer, are firmly on the record.
We are all aware that tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement to the House on the Budget. I have been re-reading the statement he made in November of last year. He set out then his commitment to fiscal responsibility, and as part of that, he was clear that public sector net debt must be falling by the end of this Parliament. It is vital that the public finances continue on the path to sustainability.
Selling assets can reduce fiscal pressures and allows the Government to invest in other policies with greater economic or social returns. The Government’s policy is to sell assets where there is no policy reason to own them and where it is value for money for the taxpayer to do so. There is clearly no policy purpose to continuing to hold the student loan book on the Government’s balance sheet.
When we provide student loans, our purpose is to ensure that people who want to pursue higher education and have the qualifications that come from it are able to do so, regardless of their personal financial situation and with no limit, now, on their numbers. As soon as a loan is issued to support a student as they study, its purpose has been met. As I will explain in more detail, the planned sale would have no impact on the position of students or graduates.
A comprehensive assessment indicates that we have a good prospect of achieving value for money. The sale process is designed to achieve the best possible price to benefit taxpayers. As additional reassurance, I must emphasise that we will only proceed with the sale if market conditions remain favourable and the final value-for-money assessment is positive.
I know there is interest in the reasons why a private investor might be interested in the student loan book. The student loan book generates a long-term, inflation-linked set of cash flows, through an efficient and established collection mechanism. Our engagement with the markets has shown that that is attractive to investors—crucially, at a price that represents value for money for the taxpayer.
Mr Sheerman
Could the Minister tell us who the Department has been consulting—which experts, City firms or organisations have been giving the advice that this is a viable enterprise?
Joseph Johnson
There has been a process of engagement with the market, which has been conducted on behalf of the Department by a number of financial advisers, including Barclays and Rothschild among others. Our engagement has shown us that this is attractive to investors at a price that represents value for money for the taxpayer.
The private sector is willing to take on the risk and uncertainty of future repayment cash flows because it values this long-dated asset, while Government are looking to transfer that risk and generate cash for reinvestment in policies with greater economic and social returns. I hope hon. Members will therefore agree that there is a strong rationale for selling part of the student loan book. It is good financial management by the Government; it can help support policies with greater economic and social returns; and can be achieved without affecting the position of students or graduates.
Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), asked whether terms might be changed. I can tell them that investors have no rights whatever to change terms as a result of any sale process.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister will understand why students find his reassurances quite weak, given his track record. Would it not be easier simply to accept the amendment to the Higher Education and Research Bill, which would embed in law a requirement to make no retrospective changes to the terms of repayment?
Joseph Johnson
As I said, as a result of this privatisation process, investors will gain no right to change the terms and conditions of the student loans they hold, so students will not be impacted by the sale.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I am worried that the Minister seems reluctant to agree to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), which would assure students that the terms will not be changed in the future.
Joseph Johnson
I have just given exactly those assurances. After the sale of this part of the student loan book, terms and conditions will not change as a result of any actions by the investors who go on to own them.
The sale process we have launched covers loans issued under the previous system, which operated before 2012. Specifically, the loans in scope are those issued by English local authorities only, and which entered repayment between 2002 and 2006. A loan enters repayment the April after the student leaves his or her course, so most of the loans in the scope of the sale were taken out between 1998 and 2002. Some loans taken out after that date might also be in scope if they entered repayment in 2006. Loans issued by the devolved Administrations are not in scope, and nor are loans to EU borrowers, who became eligible to apply for a student loan from an English local authority only in 2006.
Dr Huq
Has the Minister has seen the Financial Times article from 8 February, which says that the Government are in a unique position to be the lender because they are able to monitor graduates’ earnings? How will private companies do that? The article’s headline is, “Selling off student loans makes no sense”. Does the Minister have any comments on that? That was not the Socialist Worker, but the Financial Times.
Joseph Johnson
I cannot be held accountable for the views of the FT. The Government have made it clear that we will proceed with a sale only if it represents value for money. There will be a rigorous assessment, and, as per the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008 passed by the last Labour Government, the Government will be obliged to produce a report to Parliament within three months of the sale explaining the whole process. Parliament will have an opportunity to assess that point in great detail.
The sale will comprise the future repayments on the outstanding balances on a selection of these loans, which have a total face value of about £4 billion. The retention value to the Government is lower and is calculated using the standard Treasury Green Book methodology that was developed for asset sales. It also accounts for Government subsidy of the student loan system. The loans that are being sold have already been in repayment for 10 years or more, and therefore much of their original value has already been paid back to the Government.
A securitisation structure will be used for the sale to enable the Government to maximise value for money for the taxpayer. Under that structure, the loans will be sold to a new independent English-domiciled company known as the issuer, whose sole purpose is to own the loans on behalf of investors. Investors will purchase notes issued by the issuer, and the issuer will make payments on the notes using the repayments made on the underlying loans. The sale is a competitive process open to all eligible investors. Market testing reassures us that the different tranches of notes are expected to be attractive to a range of potential investors, thereby promoting an efficient market and optimal pricing.
I emphasise that the sale will not affect the position of graduates or students. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Student Loans Company will continue to service loans in the scope of the sale on the same basis as equivalent unsold loans. As I said earlier, investors have no right to change any of the current loan arrangements or directly to contact people with student loans, including those in the scope of a sale.
Joseph Johnson
I have dealt with that point.
The sale will categorically not result in private investors setting the terms or operating the collection of student loans. Furthermore, it will not alter the Government’s policies towards student finance and higher education. Under the current system of student support, whose framework has been in place since 2012, we will continue to offer a comprehensive package of financial support to eligible students. That is part of ensuring our economy works for everyone. The current system is and will remain fair and sustainable. That is why the OECD praised our student loan system and said that we are one of few countries in the world to have figured out a sustainable approach to higher education finance.
I am happy to explain where we go from here. The sale process began on 6 February and will last for several months. The final timings and the number of loans in the scope of the sale remain subject to market conditions. As announced in last year’s autumn statement, the sale is expected to be the first in a series of pre-2012 English student loan sales, targeting £12 billion of total proceeds by the end of financial year 2021. Each sale will be subject to an assessment of value for money.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry South for giving me the opportunity to discuss the proposed sale of part of the student loan book. I am clear that it represents an opportunity for the Government to reduce fiscal pressures and invest in other policies with greater economic or social returns. I am unequivocal in my commitment that we will do it without the sale changing the position of students and graduates. I look forward to engaging with the hon. Gentleman and colleagues in this House in the coming months on this important process.
Question put and agreed to.
Social Care (Liverpool)
(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 Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Would those who are not staying for the next debate please be kind enough to leave quickly and quietly? I see we have some of Liverpool’s finest in the Chamber.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered social care in Liverpool.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This is the third occasion on which I have raised the issue of adult social care in Liverpool in this place over the past two months. That is because major cuts in Government funding combined with rising needs are creating a situation where too many people are left feeling vulnerable in their own homes. Scarce hospital beds are occupied by people who are clinically fit to be discharged but cannot leave the hospital because social care is not available. That is bad for those individuals and for the national health service.
I realise that this is a national issue, but the debate puts the focus on the specific challenges that Liverpool and the Liverpool city region face. Mayor Anderson and Liverpool City Council have done their very best to protect the people of Liverpool from the impact of unprecedented Government cuts, but adult social care has not escaped the consequences of the Government’s actions over a long period.
Adult social care covers a wide range of services, including domiciliary support—helping to dress, feed and bathe people in their own homes and, where appropriate, ensure that the correct medication is taken. Depending on the individual situation, that could involve several visits a day to an individual’s home. In other cases, it might require one visit a day, but whether it is one visit or several, it is absolutely essential to allow that individual to lead an independent life. The provision of adequate adult social care enables many people to remain safely and confidently in their own homes, rather than feeling vulnerable or having to move to more expensive and much less satisfactory residential care. Adequate adult social care can bring peace of mind and provide a lifeline.
Let us look at what has been happening to Liverpool City Council’s funding. Liverpool has now lost 60% of revenue support from the Government since 2010, and by 2020 that figure will have risen to 68%. Furthermore, having looked at revenue support systems, the Government plan to eliminate revenue support entirely under a new funding settlement. That will have serious consequences for a city with a low tax base and with 80% of its population in council tax bands A and B.
Liverpool council is a very responsible authority and has already identified £90 million of additional cuts that it is required to make in the coming financial year. The council continues to do its best to protect services, but it has not been able to stop substantial cuts to its spending on adult social care, which has been reduced from £220 million in 2010 to £154 million in 2016. It is anticipated that that figure will be reduced to £130 million by 2020.
Yes, the Government have their better care fund and yes, the local authority has a limited ability to raise an extra precept. The better care programme is expected to allocate £39 million to Liverpool when its funding is due to be reduced in such a significant way, but that will still leave a massive gap. Neither the Government’s better care fund nor the council’s ability to raise extra tax can fill the gap caused by the withdrawal of central Government funding. The scale of that withdrawal is unprecedented.
At the same time as the Government are reducing support, demographic pressures and costs are increasing. The Office for National Statistics estimates that the percentage of people in Liverpool aged 65 years or more will rise from 14.6% in 2015 to 16.1% in 2024. It is wholly unrealistic to expect people in the fourth most deprived local authority in the country to fill the gap. The sums simply do not add up. To illustrate the situation, a 1% increase in council tax in Liverpool will raise £1.4 million; a 1% cut in central Government funding means a loss of £3 million. That is a totally unacceptable situation and one that cannot continue without inflicting severe cuts on services that are very important to the people of Liverpool.
I said that Liverpool was the fourth most deprived local authority in the country, which is correct, and there is great poverty in the city, but Liverpool City Council, through its pioneering spirit, its enterprising approach and its ability and willingness to innovate and work with others has been able to move Liverpool from being the most deprived local authority in the country to that No. 4 position. It is bad to be the fourth most deprived authority, but it is a tribute to the city council and its partners that they have been able to make progress in Liverpool. Furthermore, that progress has been made without proper funding from Government—indeed, Government funding has reduced, and that is the critical feature.
Social care packages in Liverpool have already been cut from £14,000 to £9,000, which has affected many vulnerable people, and many more are anxious. Many people in great need are being reassessed to see whether the care they receive can be maintained, which often induces great anxiety and apprehension, even if ultimately their care remains similar to what it was. That, too, is an important factor that is not always considered.
On the day that I visited the Royal Liverpool university hospital, 135 patients who were clinically fit to be discharged remained in their beds because social care was not available for them at home. That was in spite of the efforts of hospital and local authority staff to find suitable care packages for them—the money was simply not there. That figure, the accurate one for the day I visited the hospital, reflects the general situation and shows one of the problems caused by the cuts to social care in Liverpool. Those cuts have arisen solely because of cuts in Government funding.
The situation affects many people, and it can only deteriorate unless action is taken. What should be done? Let us look at what is happening now. Mayor Joe Anderson, cabinet member Paul Brant and Liverpool City Council as a whole must be commended for their work to promote partnership with the NHS and innovation, which involves new work with the clinical commissioning group and GPs to integrate health and social care. “Step Up” centres for intermediate care are being pioneered and the council plans to promote innovatory joint work with community health services. A joint working party is considering new ideas.
All those things are extremely important and demonstrate the city council’s willingness to innovate and work with other partners. Such work should be supported better by central Government. Whatever innovation takes place in Liverpool and however much the council is willing to work with other people and for integration, Ministers cannot escape the fact that more funding is needed. The issue is long term, but the crisis is now and immediate action is required. It is a crisis that Liverpool City Council cannot resolve on its own, nor can the people of the city fill the financial gap unaided.
I call on the Government to recognise their responsibilities and to announce an immediate allocation of targeted funding for adult social care in Liverpool. I recognise that that must be part of a national approach, but funds must be targeted to meet the needs of local communities. That will enable vulnerable people to live independently and safely in their own homes, as well as enabling the NHS to deploy its resources efficiently. Liverpool City Council should be congratulated on the resilience, innovation and flexibility that it has displayed, but it cannot resolve the crisis alone. I call on the Minister to act as a matter of urgency.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I am required to call the Front Benchers at 5.40 pm and the debate may run until 6.03 pm. That gives us 32.5 minutes of Back-Bench time and three Members have given me their names, the first of whom—who wrote a very nice letter—is Maria Eagle.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on obtaining this crucial and timely debate. She set out in full and with great clarity the situation facing Liverpool and other local authorities in the city region, as the council seeks to set a lawful budget while desperately trying to keep going the public services on which so many of our constituents depend. She set out in great detail and with pertinent facts and figures many of the things that I was going to say about Liverpool. I endorse her speech fully—it was excellent.
Liverpool has had £420 million cut from the city budget since the Lib Dem-Tory coalition imposed cuts in 2010. There has also been the never-ending slashing of public services provision by this Government and their predecessor, and another £90 million has to be found. To illustrate that, Liverpool raised £147 million in council tax in the last financial year, but it spent £151 million on adult social care. I will emphasise that: Liverpool is having to spend more on adult social care alone than it can raise in council tax.
My hon. Friend set out some of the other concerns and problems. The demand for social care assessments is rising. Despite the cuts she described to the money that can be spent on adult social care, the demand for help of those depleted services from our citizens and constituents has increased by 15%. The demand for social care assessments in Liverpool has gone up from 18,000 a year in 2020 to 21,000 a year now. As she set out, Liverpool supports 9,000 people annually to some degree with a care package at home. That is fewer than half of the people who have asked to be assessed, so it is clear that only those with the highest needs get help, and they may well not get a level of support from which they benefit and which might keep them out of more acute services for longer with a better quality of life.
Liverpool City Council announced in its budget proposal that it intends to increase council tax. It will of course do so reluctantly, because many of our fellow citizens will find it difficult to afford an increase, but that course of action must be taken. I say in all sincerity to the Minister that it is not credible to claim that the shortfall that results from resources being cut by 70% can be made up by efficiency savings. I could not lose 70% of my resources and make up the difference in efficiency savings.
My constituency of Garston and Halewood also covers part of the Knowsley metropolitan borough, which is a smaller authority but, thanks to this Government and the Lib Dem-Tory coalition Government that preceded it, it faces financial challenges that are just as severe. Its revenue is currently £148 million. It has had to make cuts of £86 million since 2010 and will have to find a further £17 million over the next three years. That is a total loss for a small authority of more than £100 million. Both Liverpool and Knowsley are among the top five hardest hit local authorities. Knowsley’s income will have gone down by 56% by the end of this process.
Knowsley raised £43.2 million in council tax in the last financial year, yet it spent £47.1 million on adult social care alone. Are we seeing a pattern here? Just like Liverpool, Knowsley had to spend more on adult social care alone than it was able to raise in council tax this year. The pressures on the social care budget are huge. Because the population is ageing and people are living for longer—something we should all celebrate—Knowsley expects to face additional pressures of £10 million in the next three years for adult social care alone.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the picture she paints is grim, particularly for Knowsley? Does she, like me, envisage a time in the not-too-distant future when Knowsley simply will not be able to meet its legal responsibilities unless additional funds are found to ensure that adult social care is available?
Maria Eagle
I well understand my right hon. Friend’s concerns. Indeed, the fear is that it will simply be impossible. Knowsley has not had 56% of its statutory obligations removed—just 56% of the money with which it is supposed to meet them. Knowsley, too, is looking at a council tax increase of 4.99%, with 3% ring-fenced for adult social care. This will be the first time that it has increased council tax in five years, and it will do so reluctantly, but that will generate just £1.9 million a year—a total of £3.8 million over the three-year period. That will pay for only just over a third of the pressures that are expected in adult social care alone.
Some additional money will come through the improved better care fund, and there will be one-off allocations—albeit of less than £1 million—through the adult social care fund, but none of that will meet the pressures that are apparent now. I say again to the Minister in all sincerity that one-off payments cannot deal with permanent pressures that are increasing relentlessly day by day when budgets have been cut so drastically.
Unfortunately, Government actions elsewhere mean that those pressures could easily increase rather than decrease because of what is happing in the health service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned. Greater pressures on our NHS hospitals and acute services, which have financial problems, the Government’s never-ending austerity mania and real-terms reductions in resources for the NHS over the next few years mean that our NHS services, too, are under enormous pressure. That is where the Merseyside and Cheshire sustainability and transformation plan comes in, but that aims to offset £908 million of financial pressures on the local NHS. It has changed from something that was welcome as a way of improving co-operation and transforming our services into something that is simply about saving money over the next few years. I am afraid that that will not make things easier.
There has been a lack of consultation between the STP leaders and the councils. Neither of the councils that I have mentioned feels like they have been consulted at all about the proposals that are supposed to be going ahead for the NHS, despite the fact that they will face pressure from hospitals that want to get people back into the community—but to what? There is ever-decreasing resource in the community to help look after them.
Tomorrow’s Budget is a chance for the Chancellor to tackle some of those problems with vigour. We hope that he will, but if the Government’s briefing in the newspapers is to be believed, it looks like he will not. It is reported that he will announce an emergency fund of £1.3 billion to tackle the social care crisis. That is only half of the £2.6 billion that the Local Government Association estimates the spending gap will reach by 2020, and it appears that the Chancellor will direct it at schemes that aim to tackle bed-blocking. Knowsley will not benefit from such money, because it has tackled that problem already. Indeed, the Minister always prays Knowsley in aid when he tries to say that bed-blocking is not a problem in some authorities. Knowsley has lost 56% of its resource, and it now looks like it will be punished for being efficient while less efficient local authorities get a slice of the money that the Chancellor will give out tomorrow.
Apparently, the Chancellor will also establish another long-term review of social care funding. Although that is welcome, because this needs to be tackled in the end as a proper long-term policy issue, it will not tackle the problems that Liverpool and Knowsley face now. I must also observe that both Governments the Minister has been a member of have done the same, and they simply ignored the proposals that ended up emerging. The shadow Cabinet of which he was a prominent member before 2010 sabotaged the attempts by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) to have cross-party talks about a solution seven years ago for a cheap election poster alleging that Labour was proposing a death tax. So we will see.
Meanwhile, the social care crisis in Liverpool and Knowsley worsens and the Government simply pass the buck, play politics and offer zero leadership—I am afraid we have come to expect that from them. Those who lose out are the elderly and the vulnerable, who rely most on the services that this Government’s actions decimate the most.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I apologise for being a moment late in coming over from the Select Committee on Health. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this important and timely debate on behalf of all our constituents.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. If the hon. Lady would like to sit, she is most welcome to do so.
Luciana Berger
That is kind, but I am fine. Thank you so much.
This is a pertinent and serious issue that affects thousands of people across the area that my hon. Friends and I are privileged to represent. I also endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). I will seek not to reiterate but to add to the comments that have already been made. I will raise some of the additional pressures that Liverpool has faced in the nearly seven years since the cuts were first introduced in 2010 and add some personal reflections from constituents who are experiencing those cuts at first hand. We are ultimately here on behalf of our constituents, and we should share their experiences with the House so that we understand the tragic human element and implications of the cuts. I will also reflect on my own experience of being in an accident and emergency department in Liverpool on a Friday night just a couple of weeks ago and seeing the number of ambulances waiting there. At least 10 paramedics were waiting to book people in, many of whom were older people. We know from the figures that delayed discharge is a significant challenge, and I believe that issues in accident and emergency departments are compounded by cuts to social care.
As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside and for Garston and Halewood, 5,000 fewer people in Liverpool are receiving support via care packages than in 2010. I have connected with two constituents about that issue in the past week alone. One, a lady called Sobia, is paralysed. She used to receive overnight care, but despite her condition becoming worse and even though her children are now of an age when they are going to university and are not as available to care for her as they were previously, she has seen that care stopped because of the cuts to social care in Liverpool.
In the past few weeks I have intervened on behalf of one of my constituents called Veronica, who had additional support to help her with various things. She is still waiting for some of that care to be reinstated. I have every sympathy with Liverpool City Council for the difficult decisions it is having to make in the current circumstances; the council is under significant pressures, as we have heard. Those pressures do not look set to get any easier. In particular, in the Liverpool city area we have demographic pressures—as many places do across the country—with the growing, ageing population. We know that the 65-plus age group is set to grow by 50% in the next 20 years. That is a significant challenge for any area to contend with, particularly given the cuts that have been incurred so far.
Liverpool City Council faces financial pressures as a result of the introduction of the national living wage. It is to cost £13.9 million in 2017-18, rising to £24.7 million by 2019-20, which is not an insignificant sum for the council to contend with. The Law Commission is also reviewing a specific piece of legislation, and I hope that changes will come forward soon to help Liverpool City Council cope with the 400% increase in deprivation of liberty safeguards applications, which cost £1 million a year. We know that that needs some attention, and I hope that changes to the legislation will have some impact, because that is £1 million of the significantly larger sum that the council has to contend with.
The demand pressures we see locally are also significant. We know that every week Liverpool City Council is arranging care packages for up to 100 people leaving hospital, which is a 51% increase compared with last year. There are also a lot more complex home care cases, which cost a significant sum and may require two carers calling four times a day. We know that adult social care assessment requests have risen by 15% since 2010, up from 18,000 a year to 21,000, and are expected to rise to nearly 23,000 by next year. There were also 5,715 requests for support from new clients, which was a 10% increase on the previous year.
We as constituency MPs, on behalf of our constituents, are contending with the challenges today. I have shared just a few of the additional challenges—financial pressures, demand pressures and demographic pressures—that mean that Liverpool City Council faces even more challenges as the years progress. It is on that basis that I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friends. We need the Government to give serious attention to this matter.
Social care cannot be dealt with separately from our wider health service. The two go hand in hand. It is no surprise that more people are turning up to our accident and emergency departments or our GP surgeries when 5,000 fewer people get care packages today than did in 2010, given that we know need has increased. The Chancellor will give the Budget tomorrow, and I look forward to hearing in the Minister’s response what representations he and his Department have made to ensure that social care is given the attention and resource that it desperately needs and deserves on behalf of the thousands of constituents who do not receive care but deserve it and the thousands more elderly people who will need it in the future.
I have not reflected specifically on constituents who might need mental health support but are not getting what they need and deserve today and going into tomorrow. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. We see and experience in our surgeries and weekly visits constituents who have to contend with the daily realities of not getting the support they need and deserve. We anticipated something in the autumn statement but there was nothing. On behalf of all our constituents, I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us some glimmer of hope that tomorrow there will be something that positively impacts on all of our constituents’ lives.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), my constituency neighbour, on securing this important debate and on her speech, during which she laid bare any claim by the Government that they have any intention other than passing the buck for the health and social care crisis.
The Minister will be aware that, in the past few weeks, one of the main local hospitals in Liverpool has reported that an almost unprecedented 20% of its capacity has been taken up by people who do not need to be there. That, of course, has a knock-on effect and reverberates across the whole NHS system. The Government’s myopic approach has led to cancelled elective surgery, delays in A&E and ambulances backing up at hospital entrances, resulting in an incredibly inefficient use of already overstretched NHS resources. More importantly, it is not in the best interests of patients and patient care.
Keeping people who do not need to be in hospital in expensive NHS beds, instead of making provision for their illnesses to be treated at home or through other resources, is a wasteful and nonsensical way to spend taxpayers’ money. The Secretary of State has claimed that delayed discharge is not just about social care funding. Perhaps when the Minister responds, he would care to identify a single local authority that has had the same Government funding cuts inflicted on it as those in Liverpool and yet has managed to avoid a delayed discharge crisis. I await his response with anticipation.
A recent report by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Institute for Government identified that people were waiting longer for critical hospital services such as A&E and cancer treatments. It highlighted the fact that delays in transferring people from hospitals into social care have risen by 40% since 2014. The Government cannot wash their hands of the crisis that has been created in Downing Street. They cannot simply shift the blame for the shambles they have presided over for the past seven years on to the shoulders of councils such as those in our area.
I should declare an interest in what I will say next, as a candidate in the Liverpool city region metro Mayor contest. If I am elected in May, I offer to work with the Minister’s departmental officials and the leaders of the six districts in the Liverpool city region to convene a health and social care summit, to examine the current situation and look at how we might work together across the piece at what could be done better. As my hon. Friend said, there are some innovative approaches and best practices in our area, and the Government might even learn something if they took part. Councils in our area have already shown the leadership on social care that the Government are singularly failing to, so that summit is a chance for the Government to answer their critics, see for themselves the pressures that local authorities are having to contend with on a daily basis and work to tackle the problem at source.
We have a duty of care to ensure that health and social care work is as seamless and joined up as possible within the current structures of responsibility and funding restrictions. However, the Government need to accept their duty in relation to health and social care. In our area, the so-called social care precept would not even go close to backfilling central Government cuts to date, as we have heard, and it is seen as a scam to shift the burden of funding on to the shoulders of local taxpayers. Liverpool has a predominance of terraced streets—what we used to call two-up, two-downs—so the imbalance of band A and B properties means that for every 1% increase in council tax in our area, we raise about £1.4 million to £1.5 million. However, with a similar 1% increase in some of the leafy suburbs down here, councils can raise more than £5 million. That situation perpetuates the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, and we will see tomorrow whether the Chancellor recognises that the cuts being inflicted on councils such as Liverpool, Halton, Knowsley, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral have gone too far, and whether a fairer settlement is offered.
We are doing our bit in our city region. The Government now need to accept their responsibility to the elderly and their families and carers. They have often tried to use a sticking plaster to offer a solution, but they know that a sustainable solution must be found to this growing problem. I hope that all the relevant factors—including demographic, socioeconomic and health inequality data—are included in any formula that the Treasury uses to calculate additional funding need. Perhaps tomorrow’s Budget will see yet another sticking plaster applied to the crisis in social care and in our hospitals, but mark my words: it will be no more than a temporary measure at best. At worst, it will be more smoke and mirrors that will fall apart just days afterwards upon further scrutiny. I cannot believe the Government will allow that to happen.
At Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that Liverpool’s director of adult social care, Samih Kalakeche, had handed in his notice because he was tired of being held responsible for axing services for the elderly and vulnerable in our city. Mr Kalakeche told The Observer:
“Frankly I can’t see social services surviving after two years. That’s the absolute maximum. If we don’t do something within the next six months, I believe social services will not exist by 2018-19. This isn’t scaremongering, this isn’t me asking you to feel sad for me—whoever is making decisions out there has looked at social care as the Cinderella of the service…People are struggling, people are suffering, and we’re really only seeing the tip of the iceberg.”
I think those comments are directed fairly and squarely at the Government’s door.
However, it is not only Samih who claims that. Last month, the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, Lord Porter, said that services supporting the most vulnerable people in our communities were at breaking point. He said that
“extra council tax income will not bring in anywhere near enough money to alleviate the growing pressure on social care both now and in the future. The social care precept raises different amounts of money in different parts of the country. Social care faces a funding gap of at least £2.6 billion by 2020. It cannot be left to council taxpayers alone to try to fix this crisis. Without genuinely new additional government funding for social care, vulnerable people face an ever uncertain future where they might no longer receive the dignified care and support they deserve. This is not only worse for our loved ones but will also heap further pressure and wasted expense on the NHS.”
Opposition Members could not agree more.
I know that our area, like the other 150 councils in England, will not get a sweetheart deal from the Government—sorry, I of course mean a memorandum of understanding allowing for a pilot of business rate retention. In any case, such deals are yet another example of the Tory approach that “to those that hath shall be given”. For example, Westminster City Council raises so much money in business rates that it could probably afford to actually pay its residents to live there instead of taxing them. However, there are certainly limits to what can be achieved in our area at a local or even sub-regional level with the current inadequate resourcing.
I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who welcomed the Government’s social care commission. I do not think we need another commission; I think we all know what is happening in our areas. The Government need to start listening to people—to patients, carers and families who have to go through terrible circumstances on a daily basis. It is time for action, not for commissions. Our elderly family members and our overstretched and all-too-often under-rewarded social care workers deserve nothing less. I hope the Minister will talk about action in his response.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing the debate and on the excellent way in which she opened it. We have heard about the real pressures on social care in Liverpool from my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). We have heard about the 5,000 people who have lost care packages, about cancelled surgeries and about patients stuck in hospital.
To be clear, the funding crisis in social care is, in my view, one of the Government’s own making. The Chancellor failed to recognise the crisis and provided no extra social care funding from central Government at the autumn statement. Indeed, Ministers continued what they had already started in shifting the burden on to councils and council tax payers through increases in the social care precept. I will say more about that, but we have heard very well in the debate how that is not a sustainable solution.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside said, Liverpool still has to make a further £19 million of cuts by 2020, taking the cuts to its Government funding to a staggering £420 million—the equivalent of a 68% reduction since 2010. The cuts to grants and the increased reliance on council tax have hit cities such as Liverpool very hard; we have heard about some of the impacts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, a serious weakness of using council tax to fund social care is that both demand for social care and the relative value of the council tax base vary so much across the country.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady when she is in full flow, but there is a Division in the House. We will come back in 15 minutes and carry on where we left off.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Welcome back. The revised finish time is now 6.18 pm.
Barbara Keeley
As I said, a weakness of using council tax to fund social care is that both the demand for social care and the relative value of the council tax base vary across the country. Census data show that in Surrey 40% of over-65s have a long-term condition that limits their day-to-day activity, but in Liverpool that figure is much higher, at 62%, and there is a strong link between long-term conditions that limit day-to-day activity and care needs. A 1% increase in council tax would raise £6.2 million in Surrey, whereas an equivalent rise for the same size population in Liverpool would raise only about half that sum—£3.4 million. Therein lies the problem.
As we heard in the debate, this year the 2% social care precept raised £2.8 million in Liverpool. That is not enough to cover the £9 million that Liverpool reports is needed in the care sector just for increases in the national living wage. Liverpool’s Mayor did some months ago suggest a 10% council tax increase to pay for social care, which would have needed a referendum. That proposal was similar to the one for a 15% increase from Surrey County Council. As we know, Surrey appears to have got a sweetheart deal from the Government when it suggested that increase in council tax, so I would like the Minister, when he responds, to tell us where Liverpool’s deal is.
As we heard, last month Liverpool’s director of adult social care resigned, stating that councils are in danger of failing to meet their statutory requirements. He said:
“People are struggling, people are suffering, and we’re really only seeing the tip of the iceberg.”
Only those with the highest needs are getting help. I worry that financial pressures in social care are now leading to failures and serious reductions in the quality of care that people receive. That was underlined by the Care Quality Commission bringing prosecutions against the owners of Mossley Manor, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside. The neglect and poor care of residents at that care home was shocking. The CQC said that there was
“a continued and serious risk”
to the lives, health and wellbeing of residents. It is welcome that the owners have been prosecuted by the CQC, but I am worried that failures such as that are now a symptom of a wider problem.
The number of care home providers forced to cease operations because of deregistration has increased from 34 two years ago to 54 this year. A recent BBC “File on 4” programme reported that 23,000 allegations of abuse had been made against care staff working in people’s homes. In the programme, the new local government ombudsman, Michael King, said that there is a growing problem with standards of home care. The CQC says that more than one quarter of care homes require improvement or are inadequate, and that figure rises to 41% for nursing homes. The King’s Fund has said that adult social care is rapidly becoming a “threadbare safety net” for the poorest and most needy older and disabled people.
Falls in the quality or availability of social care are clearly having a knock-on effect on the NHS. We heard, rightly, about examples of that from Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood talked about sustainability and transformation plans and the need for STPs to make savings, which is the ridiculous position we seem to be in, but as the Health Foundation has said:
“The vision contained in many STPs…on preventing ill health and deterioration of illness, of care delivered closer to people’s homes…will be impossible without a vibrant social care sector.”
As we heard in the debate, it is impossible to have a vibrant social care sector with the funding issues in Liverpool. The Government have tried to shift the burden of funding social care on to councils. In the Budget tomorrow, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes responsibility and both makes available the £2 billion needed immediately and suggests a longer-term plan, which is needed to put social care on a more stable footing.
Those who lose out are the thousands of people who need social care in cities such as Liverpool, but are now living with unmet care needs. That also hits their families, particularly the unpaid family carers, and the thousands of people in the care workforce, who are now working under very poor terms and conditions. A very large proportion of them are on zero-hours contracts; often, they are not even paid the minimum wage, are not paid for their travel time and have very poor prospects or no pension.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has offered to convene, if he is elected Mayor—I wish him all the best in the forthcoming election—a health and care summit to look at the issues and explore solutions. I hope that he is able to do that, but I know that my hon. Friends and I are not happy to accept a threadbare safety net. We want a decent and fair social care system, and we want it to be funded.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
If the Minister would be kind enough to conclude his remarks no later than 6.15 pm, that would allow Mrs Louise Ellman three minutes to sum up the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. This is a serious subject, and we have had a number of serious contributions. I will answer some of the points that have been made, before talking more generally about the Government’s approach to adult social care, both now and for the remainder of this Parliament.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on bringing this debate to the Chamber, because this subject matters. If there is one thing on which we can all agree, on both sides of the political divide, it is that the whole care agenda is very important to very large numbers of people. The care industry employs more people than the NHS: it employs 1.5 million people. As the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, many of them are not well paid. I think she said that some of them do not get the minimum wage. If she has evidence of that, she needs to come forward with it and we need to prosecute, because that is illegal.
However, it is right to say that 1.5 million people work in social care—more than in the NHS—and that number will grow over the next decade or two decades. Depending on how he gets on in the forthcoming election, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) may find that his responsibility in that regard is increased greatly. As well as those 1.5 million people, to whom we should all be grateful—I do not think I could do that work very well—6 million people across our country give informal care. Of those, some 300,000 are aged under 18. It is estimated that one in 30 people in schools are giving informal care to an adult or sibling. We should all reflect on that, because that number will also increase over the next decade or so.
A number of Members have made the point that the precept raises less in Liverpool than it does in Surrey. The hon. Gentleman said that many more houses are in council tax bands A or B, and the consequence is that the precept will raise less. That is self-evidently true, and the Government accept that. That is why the way in which the improved better care fund is and will be allocated to councils takes into account the moneys that are available from the precept, so that the total is in accordance with the relative needs formula.
There is one thing I want to get absolutely straight. I do not want to spend the next 18 minutes bandying numbers around, and I am happy to write to all the Members here about the numbers that I am about to give. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside correctly said that the Liverpool spend on social care was £154 million in 2015, and she said that it is budgeted to be £130 million by 2020. I think those were the numbers she used. The number that we have in cash terms—I will write to Members with this—is £194 million by 2020. That is a real-terms increase of 18% between now and 2020. I have spent quite a long time with officials today to make sure that those numbers are correct. The amount that Liverpool City Council will receive from the improved better care fund in 2019-20 is £26 million. That dwarfs the amount that the precept will raise.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister said that he does not want to keep on bandying figures about, but as we all know, the difficulty is that the funding that he and the Government keep talking about is back-loaded. The problem is happening now—5,000 people have lost their care packages now, and the problem has been happening since 2010. It is not helpful, in this totally stressed situation, to talk about money in 2019-20.
David Mowat
I was just making the point that the figure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside used was £130 million and the figure I have is £194 million. I accept that that number is not for today, and I also accept, as I have said many times in the Chamber, that the social care system is under pressure throughout the country, and Liverpool is part of that.
Steve Rotheram
I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. I quoted a former director of adult social care in Liverpool, Samih Kalakeche, who said:
“If we don’t do something within the next six months, I believe social services will not exist”
by the time that the Minister believes we will get the additional funding.
David Mowat
Today is not Budget day. I accept that the systems are under pressure. The precept has raised something, and Liverpool’s budget for social care is increasing next year, but it is fair to ask whether it is increasing enough given the pressures we are under—that is a reasonable point. My point about the £194 million figure was in response what was said earlier. Although I and the Government accept that there are pressures, it is important that we share accurate numbers with each other.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside also made the good point that there is now an increasing tendency for care to be provided in people’s own homes. If we look at the care home market over the past decade, we see that roughly speaking there are the same number of beds today as there were 10 years ago, and that is clearly in the face of a considerable increase in demand. That is because far more people are now being looked after through domiciliary packages in their own home, and that is the market we need to get right and make effective.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) raised the potential issue of councils being punished in the Budget for being efficient. I will be very disappointed if that is the case—it is not my understanding of what will happen—but it is a fair challenge, and we will have to see about that when the Budget comes out.
The hon. Lady raised a number of points about the STP. We all share the STP area, and there is work to do on it. I will make this point, however: she talked about cuts of £908 million, but those are cuts against an increase in demand—they call it the counterfactual—of 4% or 5% over the next period. The truth is that Cheshire and Merseyside will be getting real-terms increases in funding for every year up to 2020. Nevertheless, that does not mean that there are not challenges, for some of the reasons we have heard, such as demographics and all that goes with that.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) asked for a glimmer of light and hope; hopefully, between myself and the Chancellor tomorrow, we can achieve that. She also raised the cases of Sobia and Veronica and their care packages. It is difficult for me to respond to that, other than to say that the Care Act 2014 set out statutory requirements for what councils need to do. If those statutory requirements are not being met, and the way she described those cases implied that might be the case, that is clearly against the law and there is recourse either to the local authority itself or to the ombudsman. I would be happy to talk to her about that in more detail.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton made a number of points and started by talking about delayed transfers of care. He rightly said that I have talked on a number of occasions about variations between councils in delayed transfer of care performance. I will say that DTOC is not the only measure of the effectiveness of a social care system; it just happens to be one the easier ones that we can get a metric around. The fact is that if we look at the 10% worst and the 10% best councils in the country—Liverpool is round about the middle—the level of delayed transfers differs by a factor of around 20 or 30. I absolutely concede that social care systems work better with more money, but it is not just about money, because that is about different working practices and different people doing things in different ways. It is right that we have the debate about that, as well as about the need for more money.
The hon. Gentleman challenged me to name some councils that were much better than Liverpool in terms of delayed transfer of care, within a similar budget environment. I do not know what the budget environment is, but I have a list I can give him of councils that have fewer delayed transfers of care. As I said, Liverpool is not a particularly bad council, and I do not want to imply that it is, but Durham, Kirklees, Sunderland, Barnsley, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and St Helens all have at least 10 times less delayed transfers of care than Liverpool. I was taken to task at a recent Conservative councillors meeting, in which people said that having a good social services department is not just about delayed transfer of care; it is to do with a whole lot of other things. I absolutely accept that, but in a sense the hon. Gentleman started it, so I wanted to give him those figures.
Steve Rotheram
Will the Minister therefore pay tribute to Liverpool for what it has done and its innovative approach? My question was about councils that have had similar cuts to Liverpool of around 60%. None of the councils that he mentioned has had the same degree of cuts as Liverpool City Council.
David Mowat
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some councils that were in the south and I picked some that were not, but fair enough—I accept his point. He mentioned that, depending on the result of his election, he would have a summit. I would be delighted to attend, if he were to invite me—although who knows where I will be by then.
David Mowat
Indeed. On Thursday, I am going to Liverpool to give a talk at a care conference. I would be very happy during that visit to come along and talk to the council about some of the issues raised here today. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, I am sure that the Government can learn from Liverpool. Frankly, we can all learn from each other. When I went to Whiston hospital and saw discharges to St Helens and to Liverpool, I saw some wonderful things happening there. Anyway, the offer stands.
Maria Eagle
I am sure that all councils in Merseyside would be happy—I know that Knowsley would—to see the Minister on Thursday if he has a bit of spare time. Does he agree that it will be a bit of a blow if the Chancellor’s reported actions tomorrow reward those with a poorer record with smaller cuts to their resources than Knowsley’s? Knowsley has a good record on delayed discharges, but according to the formulation listed in some of today’s newspapers, it will end up getting very little, if anything.
David Mowat
I thought that I had said that I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be wrong to punish those that are doing better. She mentioned that Knowsley is one of the stronger councils in that regard; St Helens is even stronger. It would be completely wrong if that were the basis of the allocation. Frankly, that is not my understanding.
I want to talk a little about what the Government plan to do on social care. Part of that involves recognising the pressures that exist. One thing that we get into quickly in social care discussions is a debate about adult social care and frail people—people on the borderline between being ill and being old. If they are ill, they are in hospital under the NHS, and if they are not, they are old, and care is either means-tested or provided by the council. That is a difficult area.
One third of the pressure on councils such as Liverpool arises not from older people but from people with severe learning difficulties, autism and disabilities more generally. Over the past decade, thankfully, the health inequality from which that cohort suffers has decreased considerably, and the life expectancy of people in those categories has increased. The cost to local authorities is clearly severe. In addition, the Government are determined to press ahead with a programme called Transforming Care, which came out of the Winterbourne View case. Too many people with severe learning difficulties were in institutions and long-term hospitals, with all that goes with that. We are moving them into communities with the help of local authorities. There is a plan to move some 3,000 people out of institutions—places hopefully much better than Winterbourne View—and into care. All of that creates pressures of the sort that we have been hearing about in this debate, but that does not mean that it is not the right thing to do.
Luciana Berger
Does the Minister acknowledge that those 3,000-plus people should have been moved a lot sooner? According to various reviews, we should not be in the present situation, with too many people still in that type of accommodation who should not be there.
David Mowat
That is a fair challenge. We have a plan, and we are implementing it in that process. Winterbourne View was about seven years ago now. I have met a number of parents of the children affected and there has been a lot of pressure from them to go as far and as fast as we can. I make the point that every one of those facilities is a project of its own in terms of finding other accommodation and putting in place care—sometimes round-the-clock care. To answer the hon. Lady’s question directly, I would like us to go faster, but I think that we are doing as well as could be expected given the starting point. However, it is a fair challenge.
Barbara Keeley
I do not know whether the Minister watched last week’s Channel 4 “Dispatches”, “Under Lock and Key”, which showed some serious cases of young people who were not better off in their institution, a private hospital. It seemed very difficult to get them moved out into the community. I know that it was a different part of the country, but there were young people in that institution from across the country. It is great to have a plan, but we see programmes week in and week out showing failures, as I have highlighted.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
In responding to the intervention, the Minister needs to make his last point.
David Mowat
I beg your pardon. I will finish at 6.15.
I saw the programme, and it gave us great food for thought. It is a Government priority to get those people moved. We have done some 1,500, but yes, there are 3,000 left in places like the one in Northampton, and it is not good enough. It is a long process, and it is not something that any of us from either side of the House can do just by clicking our fingers.
I will now sit down. This has been a good debate. I will write to all Members here with the figures that I have given, because the figures are right. It is fair to have this discussion, but it must be had on the basis of correct numbers. Even with those correct numbers, I accept that some of the pressures that we have heard about exist.
Mrs Ellman
I am very pleased that so many of my hon. Friends who represent Liverpool are here today; in fact, we almost have a full house. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), although he is abroad with the International Development Committee, which he chairs, is here with us in spirit and in thought. It shows how important the issue is to Liverpool and to the city region. We may dispute specific figures, but there is undoubtedly a massive gap in the funding to meet the needs of people in our area, and the biggest reason for it is the massive and ongoing cuts in Government funding. Whatever individual figures we might dispute, those are the basic facts, and they are not in dispute.
I thank the Minister for much of what he said, for his recognition that there is a problem and for his willingness to meet representatives of Liverpool City Council when he is in Liverpool on Thursday. I accept that invitation on their behalf; I am pretty sure that they will agree. It is a welcome move, but nothing can detract from the fact that we need significant additional funding to make services available to all the people who need them. The problems are in two areas. The issue relating to the NHS and discharges from hospital is very important, but it is not the only issue. Care packages that enable people to live independently in their own homes are essential, but in Liverpool the number of packages has already been drastically reduced from 14,000 to 9,000, and we do not know how much lower the figure will fall.
I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about light and hope—I thought that it was very encouraging—but the first test will be tomorrow in the Budget. I am sure that we will all scrutinise what is said carefully; let us hope that it brings light and hope to the people of Liverpool.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered social care in Liverpool.
Written Statement
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Council: February 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
The Energy Council, chaired by the Maltese presidency, took place in Brussels on 27 February.
The Council began with a presentation by Vice-President Šefcovic on the Commission’s second state of the energy union report, emphasising that 2017 should be the “year of implementation”. He emphasised the importance of co-operation between Council, the Commission and the European Parliament, and the need to adopt the clean energy package swiftly. The Commission stated that the EU was largely on track to meet its 2020 energy and climate change targets, but that some member states were still reliant on third countries for their energy supply and there was a continuing need for diversification.
Commissioner Arias Cañete then gave a presentation on the clean energy package, comprising legislation covering energy efficiency, renewables, electricity market design and governance of the energy union. He saw this as a significant opportunity to prepare European energy markets for the future and highlighted the importance of consumer interests across the whole package.
Nearly all member states considered that the Commission’s timetable of agreeing the proposals by the end of 2017 was too ambitious and that it needed to be more realistic.
On the energy efficiency proposals, a number of member states explicitly expressed support for the Commission’s proposals for a 30% EU-level binding target. Others were more cautious, and were of the view that the legislation should be in line with the October 2014 Council conclusions and by inference propose a 27% indicative target.
On the renewable energy proposals, a number of member states stressed the role that bio-energy can play and wanted the associated proposals for sustainability criteria to apply to bio-energy. Others stressed the need for the proposals to take account of national specificities and that member states should determine their own energy mix.
Member states were generally supportive of proposals to improve the design of electricity markets as a key step towards a successful energy transition and a fully functioning market. However, a number of member states did raise concerns over the Commission’s proposals to phase out regulated tariffs, arguing that such tariffs should be allowed and that the package should not lead to liberalisation of price regulation, as this could result in higher prices for some consumers. Some member states also highlighted the Commission’s proposals to introduce “regional operation centres” considering it unacceptable to give these bodies extensive decision-making powers. A few member states stressed the importance of interconnection if the internal energy market is to operate effectively.
On the governance proposals, member state views were mixed. Some stressed the need for flexibility, others the need for ex-ante rules to address the question of what would happen if the EU were not on track to meet its targets.
The Council then received an update from the presidency on progress on negotiations on the energy efficiency labelling regulation and the gas security of supply regulation, in which the Council is now in discussion with the European Parliament.
The Czech delegation invited member states to attend the 12th meeting of the European nuclear energy forum taking place in Prague.
Finally, the Commission presented the ocean energy forum road map highlighting the important role that ocean energy could play in meeting the EU’s climate and energy objectives.
[HCWS521]
House of Lords
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 7th 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 108-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 67KB) - (3 Mar 2017)
13:03 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 131 / Noes: 336 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
Lord Newby
“( ) No agreement with the European Union consequent on the use of the power under subsection (1) may be ratified unless it has been approved by a national referendum.”
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it may be downhill all the way from this point.
This is a very straightforward amendment, which would require any Brexit deal to be put to the people to approve or to reject. It is based on the principle that, having asked the people whether they wish to initiate the Brexit process, only the people should take the final decision.
In asking the people to do this, we are not sidelining Parliament. Clearly, Parliament should debate and vote on all the options at the end of the negotiating process, as we will discuss later, but Parliament was completely at odds with the views of the people in advance of the referendum. If Parliament took a decision that went against the majority popular view, having given the people the initial decision-making role in the process, we would be faced with widespread and justifiable anger that would be corrosive to our national life for many years to come.
I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for his drafting advice, which he so generously gave me in Committee. I hope that he feels that, even if he cannot agree with the amendment before us, it at least avoids some of the shortcomings he saw in its predecessor.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am grateful for that generous tribute. Will the noble Lord advise us as to whether the referendum he proposes would be an advisory or a mandatory one?
Lord Newby
My Lords, we have already seen the referendum being taken as decisive. Parliament did not decide that it should look at it as merely advisory. I think that any referendum has to be seen as decisive, to the extent that it requires Parliament to act on the basis of it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
I wonder whether the noble Lord can answer my question in relation to the conduct of the referendum. I was unhappy about the previous referendum because 16 and 17 year-olds were not allowed to vote, EU citizens were not allowed to vote and there was no threshold. In his referendum, which of those three would be included, if any? I would have serious doubts about having a referendum without those three points being taken account of.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the noble Lord will recall the attitude that we took when we discussed the previous referendum. We strongly believe that 16 and 17 year-olds should get the vote, not just in referendums but more generally.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, would the noble Lord kindly address the House rather than the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, because we on this side cannot hear what he is saying?
Lord Newby
I apologise. I was saying that, when we discussed this matter previously in respect of the referendum that we have just had, we argued strongly that 16 and 17 year-olds should get the vote, but the details of any future referendum would have to be discussed in the context of a new referendum Bill, which Parliament would have to pass. Perhaps I may make a little progress.
Since Committee, I have had the chance to read the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The noble Baroness’s view was that referenda are best avoided and that the deal at the end of the Brexit process would be far too detailed and complicated to leave to the people to decide. However, she went on that,
“if, as time and negotiations progress, there is genuine evidence of a widespread public demand for a second referendum, that should be listened to”.
I suppose that I should be grateful for that willingness to keep an open mind, but I simply do not think that it goes far enough.
The Minister said that a confirmatory referendum should not be contemplated because trust in politicians was so low, and that,
“There is a sense that Parliament is divorced from day-to-day life”.
Well, we know what the Government’s response to that has been: to try to cut Parliament out of the decision-making process altogether and just to take the decisions themselves. Furthermore, the Government have assiduously argued that asking the people to take the final decision on the most important issue facing the country in generations and on which they have already had a say is anti-democratic. That argument simply defies logic.
The Minister then said, quoting the White Paper, that,
“people are coming together to make a success”,—[Official Report, 27/2/17; cols. 638-39.]
of Brexit. It is certainly the case that business is taking decisions based on the assumption of Brexit. That helps to explain why banks are moving thousands of staff outside the UK, why Ford is downsizing its plant at Newport and why Herriot-Watt is cutting staff. But this is not exactly “coming together”.
Nor are divisions within the country reducing. As I said at Second Reading, the anger of those who wish to leave the EU, which was evident before the referendum, is now being increasingly matched by the anger of those who wish to remain—particularly young people, who see their life chances being jeopardised. I am afraid that there is simply no happy consensus emerging about the alleged sunny uplands of being outside the EU—quite the opposite.
Lord Robathan (Con)
The noble Lord was talking about logic. Could he tell us exactly—perhaps he will come on to this—what would happen were the vote to go his way on a second referendum? If it went one way each, would there then be a third referendum, with the best of three?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am afraid that argument does not do the noble Lord justice. I shall be coming on to the question of the nature of the vote in a moment.
In Committee, the Minister said that a further referendum would jeopardise the “need for certainty” and prayed in aid his concerns for EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU. This really is a desperate argument. The Government have it in their hands to deal with the fears of EU nationals living in the UK now. As we heard in last week’s debate, by doing so it would make it more likely that UK nationals living in the EU receive reciprocal treatment.
The Minister finally talked of a referendum being years ahead on a question we do not know. We are not talking about some point in the far future. A short referendum campaign, no longer than a general election campaign, would hardly impinge on the timetable at all. The Government claim to be confident of getting the negotiations completed within the two-year period, so we know what kind of timeframe we are talking about. As to the issue of what the question will be about—
Lord Dykes (CB)
I agree with those final comments, but does the noble Lord not agree that, bearing in mind that we had the Second World War without a referendum, we joined NATO without a referendum, we had the atom bomb without a referendum and we joined the United Nations without a referendum—we had all those things with no referenda—it is the primordial duty of parliamentarians to restore the true deep sovereignty of the British Parliament, mainly in the House of Commons?
Lord Newby
My Lords, on this issue, Parliament sold that pass when it gave the people the decision about whether or not we stay in the EU. Parliament, having given that decision to the people, should accept in logic that the people should retain that decision-making at the end of the process as well as at the start of it. That is the nub of the argument I am making today.
The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, asked what the question would be about. It would be very straightforward: do you prefer the deal done by the Government or to remain within the EU? I found the Minister’s arguments in Committee unconvincing.
Lord Spicer (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, did not ask the question the noble Lord has just said he asked; he asked whether there might be a third referendum. If the noble Lord cannot give an answer to that, why will there not be a fourth referendum to decide which of the previous three referendums was the real thing?
Lord Newby
I would have thought that that is fairly clear. People voted to start the process and we get to the point where there is a deal. At that point, the people should decide, finally, on whether the deal is acceptable. There would be no need, no point, and no issue for having a third referendum after that second decisive referendum.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
Surely what we voted on was whether to leave or remain—nothing else.
Lord Newby
My Lords, people voted on 57 varieties of the future of this country. The vast bulk of people, as all the polls show, did not vote to leave the single market; now they are being told they have got to. The idea that the referendum vote reflected the settled will of 52% of the people on what they wanted our future relationship with Europe to be is, in my view, extremely simplistic. It is not borne out by conversations with individuals or the polling evidence. I do not believe that that vote should be the last word.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Is it not at least equally simplistic to assume that, after long negotiations and if we have parted company, our European friends and neighbours would wish to have us back?
Lord Newby
My Lords, that will be part of the consideration at the time. All the evidence to date is that our European friends and neighbours are shaking their heads with disbelief at what we are doing and saying, “For goodness’ sake, why are you doing this?”.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
If all our European neighbours are shaking their heads and wondering why we are leaving, why then should they give us a good deal when they know that it might be overturned by a referendum and the UK might stay in the EU? Therefore, they would have no incentive to give us a good deal at all.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think that our European friends and neighbours will negotiate in good faith—
Lord Newby
I must say that I find it deeply depressing, when we have been members of the European Union for these decades, that noble Lords on the other side should have such a difficult and unfriendly view of the people with whom we have been co-operating to solve common problems to the best of our abilities and against a background of hostilities in Europe which cost people, across Europe and in this country over the decades and centuries, millions of lives.
I was attempting to say that I found the noble Lord’s arguments unconvincing and the arguments for giving the people a final say compelling, and therefore I beg to move.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and want to make three simple points.
First, the Government have consistently chosen to attribute to the referendum a wider mandate than the result justified. The majority by which people voted to leave the EU was a small one, and they gave no clues about how the withdrawal should be accomplished. The Government know nothing about the views on the withdrawal of the 28% of the electorate who did not vote. Two other groups—British citizens who live in the EU and 16 and 17 year-olds—were not given a chance to vote, and they are now expected just to accept what the Government negotiate. The latter group will be aged over 18 in 2019 when, on present plans, another cohort of 16 and 17 year-olds will have their views similarly ignored. In 2019, the Government will seek to impose, without any say, a withdrawal deal on a majority of the UK’s population who either voted to remain or who have given no consent to the terms of a deal that will have a huge impact on their futures.
Secondly, as the Government reveal more of their negotiating approach, the public is showing signs of not liking what it sees. This includes many who voted to leave the EU. Dissent is growing over the decision to rule out membership of the EEA and the customs union, despite the views of much expert opinion and promises given earlier by some politicians. The so-called “best deal for Britain” is looking decidedly second best because of the barriers, financial and administrative, to be erected where none exists at present. The refusal to grant those EU citizens working here a prompt right to stay, despite our economic dependence on them for several decades to come, looks to many like another own goal. The Government’s insistence that they can reduce net migration to tens of thousands does not seem to be believed even by the Brexit Secretary, let alone by much of the public. A level of public distrust is building before withdrawal negotiations have even started, and that distrust is being fuelled further by the Government’s reluctance to accept the constitutional need for Parliament to be fully involved in the decision-making process on withdrawal—something that I hope we can rectify with Amendment 3.
My third and final point is about whether the Government really want a deal. I have to say that I thought the cat was let out of the bag last week by the Brexit Secretary when he told Cabinet colleagues to prepare for a hard Brexit so that in 2019 the Prime Minister can walk away from the EU negotiations without any deal at all. This will mean diverting large amounts of public expenditure away from our public services to pay for things such as new IT systems for customs declarations, a new immigration system and new air transport agreements. If that is where we end up in 2019, it seems that the public are entitled to have a say in whether that is a future they want to sign up for, irrespective of any narrow referendum vote three years earlier. The Government simply do not know what the majority of people expect will happen and there is growing public concern over the Government’s negotiating approach. That concern could be much greater when we reach 2019. The British people may well want to change their minds when they realise how adversely they will be affected by leaving the EU. We should provide them with an opportunity to do so by giving them the final say, as Amendment 1 would.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I have added my name to this all-party amendment and if a vote is called, I will vote for it. What struck me about the referendum campaign as I knocked on hundreds of doors in the south Wales valleys, which are all traditional working-class Labour strongholds, is that the people who were voting leave were voting against something. They were voting against the European Union, but they were not voting in favour of anything. In part that is because they were not told by the leave leadership what the alternative would be. In fact, the leave leaders were deliberately unclear and disagreed with each other as to what it would mean. Some argued that it would be a future like Albania while others argued that it would be in the single market, which was again denied by others. In that sense, the leave campaign left the alternative deliberately ambiguous and now we are in a position, or we will be in the coming months, where that alternative will become clearer.
In every other referendum, including the Welsh referendum in 1997, which as a Minister I helped to organise and lead on behalf of Welsh Labour, it was very clear that you were voting either to establish a Welsh Assembly or for the status quo. The same applied in Scotland in 1997, as it did to the electoral reform referendum in 2011—you were either voting for the alternative vote or to keep the status quo, the first past the post voting system. It was similar in the Scottish independence referendum held in 2014. Everyone knew that, whichever way they voted, it was absolutely crystal clear what they would get. What was different about the referendum held on 23 June last year is that that was not the case. It was unlike any other referendum we have experienced where the consequences of voting for or against were clear to voters; this was not, so we are in a very different position.
I am not disputing the outcome on 23 June. This is not about re-running that referendum. This is about making sure that the democratic process remains democratic and that voters have the final say on the eventual negotiated outcome. It seems to me that a process which is started by a referendum should be completed by a referendum and voters should have a final say on the deal that is negotiated, if indeed any deal is negotiated, although the Prime Minister has made it clear that perhaps none will be and we will move into an even more uncertain future.
Perhaps I may quote in support of my remarks from the last Labour Party conference. Composite 1, moved by the TSSA union and seconded by Newcastle upon Tyne Central Constituency Labour Party, stated this—by the way, it was passed unanimously. I speak from the Labour Benches and I intend to remain on these Benches in the future, unless anyone questions that. The composite says that it,
“recognises that many of those who voted to leave the EU were expressing dissatisfaction with EU or national policy and were voting for change, but believes that unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable then the option of retaining EU membership should be retained. The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through Parliament and potentially through a general election, or a referendum”.
That is Labour Party policy and I am speaking in favour of that policy.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I remind him of one or two aspects of the Welsh devolution referendum. I was the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats from 1992 to 1997 and strongly supported devolution to Wales, as he did. It has worked extremely well. However, I remind him that nobody—certainly no Liberal Democrat I knew in Wales—envisaged that, if we did not like the way devolution was set up, we would have a second referendum. We would have considered that view completely idiotic and unconstitutional.
I have been on this side of the House for only the last two or three months, so my memory of being a Liberal Democrat is reasonably fresh. It is clear in my mind that at the time of the European referendum last year the starting point for Liberal Democrats was as follows: there would be one referendum. It was not suggested for one moment that there would be two, three or even four referenda. I see the logic of what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said earlier and think he was rather wrongly put down by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, because he made a perfectly fair point. It was envisaged by Liberal Democrats that there would be one referendum and that it would be in accordance with the law. The law provides that referenda are advisory and subject to parliamentary procedure thereafter. If a referendum result, for good reason, is rejected by Parliament then the result is rejected by Parliament. That is what Liberal Democrats expected—namely, the normal process. We would have heard had it been otherwise.
I want to make two particular points, one tactical and the other constitutional.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
As I remember, to my cost, the noble Lord’s recollection of what positions Liberal Democrats took in the past has not always been entirely accurate. On this issue surely the difference is this. When the Wales referendum was put, it was put on a specific proposition, fully backed up with policy and detail. On this occasion, the proposition put to the British people was to leave or not. They decided to leave. That mandate is clear and the Government are entitled to enact it. But, unless the noble Lord might like to suggest what the mandate is for the particular form of exit the Government choose, there is no mandate to leave the single market, nor to leave the common customs union. Therefore, if there is no mandate for that, why have the Government chosen to use it and follow the most hard-line Brexit possible? If the noble Lord believes that there is a mandate for that, will he describe what it is, given that the majority of the people in this country in opinion polls have made it clear that they do not support this and the Conservative—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
I do not wish to stifle debate but the noble Lord should know that we are on Report, and the opportunity to interrupt a speaker is not an opportunity to make a speech.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, knows, I have enormous admiration for his skill and ability. He is at his best when he makes points with simplicity, but that point was not made with simplicity. I am totally confused by what he sought to say and I reject his argument completely. He knows perfectly well, as all the Liberal Democrats know, that what was put to the country was a referendum in the normal constitutional and legal form. No Liberal Democrat, least of all the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown—perhaps he was too busy eating his hat as a result of his comments on television during the general election—suggested for one moment that there was something different about the referendum that we faced last June. However, I am sure that noble Lords will want me to move on.
The truth of the matter is that we are facing this proposal for the second time—now rather better drafted, thanks to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—because unfortunately the Liberal Democrats do not like the result of last June’s referendum. Nor did I, but my advice to your Lordships’ House, for what it is worth, is: be careful what you wish for. The Liberal Democrats’ record on referenda ain’t so good. Noble Lords will recall the alternative vote referendum, as well as what happened in June. Indeed, I would say that Amendment 1 seeks to compress a huge quantity of extremely complicated issues into a simplistic binary question. It just will not work, and the Government do not need this kind of patronising advice in order to get on with the negotiations.
I now turn briefly to the constitutional issue. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, failed to answer the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, as to whether it would be a binding or an advisory referendum. He sought to answer it by saying that he thought that, on balance, it would be a binding referendum. If that is the basis of this amendment, it is ridiculous, because there is no provision in the law for a binding referendum.
The whole debate we have been having in your Lordships’ House has been about how much respect we should pay to the referendum that took place last June. My answer is that we should pay a lot of respect to it. I do not want to leave the European Union, but I recognise that the referendum has taken us to Article 50, which we must get on with triggering as soon as possible. The Government know perfectly well what they have to do. They know that, if they produce a completely unsatisfactory result, they will face a Motion of no confidence in the other place and will fall. We can well do without messing around with the arrangements which should now be in action.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, I have no wish to get involved in Liberal Democrat internecine warfare but I put my name to this amendment and I support many of the speeches that have been made in support of it.
My noble friend the Minister has done a very skilful job in getting the Bill to this stage in this House, but in Committee he told us to be in no doubt that this country was leaving the EU—no ifs, no buts, and with no idea of the terms. I admire determination but not when it is blind to changing circumstances. I cannot see why any Government would be so adamant about a course of action with no knowledge of the circumstances in which they might take that course.
We do not know what the world will look like in two years’ time. Economically and politically it is at some of the most uncertain stages that I have ever seen in my lifetime. In two years’ time, the EU, the world and our economy could look very different—and, I suspect, not for the better. At that stage, we will be able to look at the deal that our Government have negotiated or, as others have pointed out, at the no deal that they have been handed. Although I am not an advocate of government by referenda, in this situation, having started the process with a referendum, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, pointed out, it seems to me that the only sensible way to bring the process to an end is to put the terms to the public. I have listened to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I do not dismiss the patronising advice that he gave the Liberal Democrats or those supporting this amendment, but I believe that the public need to see what is on offer.
During the course of this Bill, we have heard that, whatever people voted for on 23 June last year, it was not to get poorer. I cannot see that in the end the Government will be presenting them with a deal which does not mean that they get poorer. I believe that at that stage they should have a chance to vote on whether, having seen the future, it is the future that they really want.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, there was a previous referendum on Europe in 1975. On that occasion, it was not taken as holy writ and as something that it was almost obscene to vote against. On the contrary, in 1979 the Labour Party said that it would ignore and vote against the referendum result—there were no difficulties there—and so did a very large number of Conservatives, headed by Mr Enoch Powell. Therefore, I cannot see why the advisory referendum of 1975, where the majority was 33%, should somehow be treated so casually, whereas this referendum, with a majority of, I think, 3.8%, is somehow treated reverentially, with the view that we should all genuflect before the will of the people.
I link this amendment with Amendment 3, which I shall also support. Amendment 3 confirms the view so wisely put by the Supreme Court that sovereignty in this country resides in the two Houses of Parliament. That was the view taken and it is the view that will be proclaimed in Amendment 3. Referendums are always advisory—they are to help Parliament in reaching a view. It is best to have an informed referendum. The last one was not in the least informed; it was a process of serial lying and deception, which added nothing to public understanding. As the facts emerge, I think that public understanding will change substantially.
We need to ask the view of the people again to assist Parliament when the facts are known—when the car workers at Vauxhall, the steel workers at Port Talbot and the car workers at Sunderland will be forming a view on employment, trade and Britain’s economic relationships with a wider world. It would also be when we have had an opportunity to have the views of young people, deprived of voting this time and whose futures are imperilled by this ill-informed, almost non-informed, decision.
Another referendum will not be taken in a one-world universe; it will be taken when the views on Brexit of those other 27 countries, views which are quite important, are also known. As I believe was the Labour Party in 1979 and 1983 in respect of the previous referendum, as well as a growing number of Conservatives, I am in favour of regarding the referendum that we had in June last year as ill-informed, or almost uninformed, guidance. I would prefer informed guidance and that is why I shall vote for this amendment.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having been present at earlier stages of the Bill, for medical reasons beyond my control. The benefit for your Lordships is that I will not be on my feet for long.
I was disappointed to miss the excellent debates at early stages. What unites us in this House, across all Benches, is how seriously we take our role as scrutineers. On our best days, we approach each question not on the basis of tribe or loyalty, but on the strength of the argument and how it might work for the common good of the whole country. On these Benches, we are not a party, nor do we follow a Whip. Today will see a significant number of Bishops appearing, not because we hold ourselves out as constitutional experts but because we are deeply embedded in every local community in England. We may dress the same, but we have independent minds, as anyone observing church politics recently will be well aware. So I speak today not in a corporate but in a personal capacity.
The referendum campaign and its aftermath revealed deep divisions in our society, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, rightly commented—like him, this feels like the most divided country that I have lived in in my lifetime. Whatever the outcome of the next two years, our nation’s future, particularly for the most vulnerable, will be profoundly damaged if we arrive in 2019 even more divided, without a common vision to confront the opportunities and challenges before us. To meet these opportunities and challenges in every aspect of policy and every level of society, we must find a level of national reconciliation. So how we conduct this process is as important as the outcome. It would be dangerous, unwise and wrong to reduce the substance of the terms on which we exit the European Union to the result of a binary yes/no choice taken last summer, and the Government should avoid any inclination to oversimplify the outcome of the most complex peacetime negotiations probably ever to have been undertaken.
But neither is the complexity of a further referendum a good way of dealing with the process at the end of negotiation. It will add to our divisions; it will deepen the bitterness. It is not democratic; it is unwise. Even if circumstances change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, rightly said they were likely to do—even if they change drastically—a dangerous and overcomplicated process is the result of a referendum.
It is beyond doubt that those bringing this amendment and others before this House today, and last week in Committee, are moved by legitimate and deeply principled concerns for our country. To challenge that, as has been done in the press, is entirely wrong. Similarly, those who have argued against amending the Bill have done so not from a deficit of care but from a concern for process and a legitimate desire to reach the best outcome.
Division of our country is not a mere fact to be navigated around like a rock in a stream but something to be healed, to be challenged and to be changed. During many years in which I have worked in countries in the midst of deep division—sometimes armed, sometimes merely civil—I have seen two cardinal errors made in seeking to bring reconciliation and building common vision. The first is to complicate the process; the second is artificially to simplify complicated substance. On this amendment, I fear we risk making the process too complex and the substance too simple. Although I fully understand the good intentions of those who tabled the amendment, for these reasons I will be unable to support it.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendment 1, but I believe we have Amendment 1 and Amendment 3 in the wrong order. If we pass Amendment 3, as I suspect may well happen, that would give Parliament the final say, which is certainly better than allowing the Government to walk roughshod over Parliament and decide for themselves. We cannot ignore the fact that the people, regrettably in my view, voted to leave the EU, although in doing so they did not have a clear view as to the alternative they were backing. If Parliament—or the Government for that matter—has the final say and the people who voted out last June do not like it, we could easily escalate the situation into an almighty crisis. That could be avoided by a confirmatory referendum.
Let us imagine over the next two years that negotiations get nowhere and the Government resort to the WTO basis with no preferential access to the single market. Car factories start closing, as the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, mentioned. Financial services move to Paris or Frankfurt. The EU insists on a €30 billion payment, or whatever, from the UK. EU nationals start quitting key posts in the NHS and expats find that they have to start paying for their healthcare in the countries they live in, or lose pension increments that arise from the UK. At that point, many who voted out will start bleating, “This isn’t what we voted for”. At that point, the only way for the Government to hold their line is to be able to tell them, “Okay, you will get the final say, so let’s see what happens with the final package”. It is therefore in the Government’s best interest to have a confirmatory referendum. I believe that is a very good reason for backing the amendment.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, I am unable to support the amendment. I say so with a heavy heart, but I am extremely conscious of the economic consequences, not least the ones the noble Lord just mentioned, of prolonged uncertainty. I will briefly sum up why. We have had uncertainty in this country from when the then Prime Minister made his Bloomberg speech, but more so since he started his negotiation. The negotiation took 14 months. We have had the referendum. That took four months to organise. So why are there noble Lords here who believe that it could be done in the space of an election campaign? The Electoral Commission’s role is such that it needs to take its time. We would probably run into a referendum around October 2019. If the result was that the country did not like what it got, there would have to be another negotiation, either to revoke Article 50 or to change the terms. That would bring us into the general election. If there is going to be a general election in 2020 anyway, there seems to me little value in having a referendum in early 2020 or late 2019.
That is just the chronology. To imagine that our EU partners would hang around from 2015 to 2020 without making provisional plans for a 12.5% hole in their budget, or for a potentially dramatic change in the relationship of 65 million people with the single market, is somehow not to understand even the EU’s position. I say that advisedly. We have seen HSBC move 1,000 jobs. We have heard Mario Draghi telling us that euro clearing would have to move. We have heard the Irish Government tell us that they are preparing for companies to move their office space. We know that 1.1 million people are dependent on the financial services sector, and their jobs are in line at the moment. The idea that business will hang around for a further four years was rebutted in the evidence we took for the report of the EU Financial Affairs Sub-committee on Brexit and its impact on financial services. We were told in terms that uncertainty was extremely damaging to the sector and that people therefore wished to have a transition period.
Let me conclude with one or two points that relate directly to some of the remarks made by speakers in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, said that a process which is started by a referendum should end with one. I accept the logic of that. The process started with a referendum in 1975. Until last year, the people of this country who are 60 years old or under had not had a say in our future direction. I have to admit with a heavy heart that they did not go in the direction I wanted them to go in, which was to remain, but they made their choice. So the process did start with a referendum and it will end with one. I suspect that what the noble Lord is alluding to is a third and potentially a fourth referendum.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said that we do not know what the world will look like in a couple of years’ time, and I agree with her completely. That is why I look forward to debating the amendments to come about whether Parliament should make an assessment.
I am in a place where I think that referendums are a dangerous tool. Direct democracy, in my opinion, is dangerous. Referendums should be used with great care and clarity. We cannot explain a complicated negotiation result in a referendum, as Mr Cameron found out to his cost.
Lord Robathan
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness that referendums are a bad idea, and I am surprised that everyone else in the Chamber does not agree, especially those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Nevertheless, we had a referendum and, as the most reverend Primate said, it was a binary choice: yes or no. People knew what they were voting for, and they voted to leave the EU. It is unbecoming and, if I may say so, patronising of people to attribute to the individuals of this nation the reasons for how they voted. Personally, in 1975 I voted to stay in and some 40 years later, with my experience of the EU, I voted to take back control of this country and put it in the hands of the British people. That is what I have done, and that is what I suspect that most people are expecting from us. It is patronising to suggest that people did not know what they were voting for.
The logic to which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred is this: what would happen if in a second referendum the people of this country rejected the Government’s negotiating position? No one has an answer to that, so I would say that there must be a third referendum, but I would not particularly want to get into that.
Finally, perhaps I may direct my friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches—I count them as friends and I hope that they count me as a friend from time to time—to an article published in the Times yesterday by a man called Edward Lucas, who outed himself as a Liberal Democrat—I did not realise he was until then—which suggested that this is part of reinvigorating the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats. I would say the contrary. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, suggested that there might be corrosive and justifiable anger, but the great British people have had their referendum and they do not want another one. So we should just ignore this amendment and carry on.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I came into this Chamber genuinely unsure about which way to vote and whether to support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Grocott may laugh, but it is a genuine feeling. He and I have known each other for a long time and I hope he will accept that, in relation to this particular amendment, it is a genuine feeling. I support Amendment 3 very strongly indeed.
I am not sure that the debate has helped me, because we have heard eloquent speeches on both sides, by my noble friend Lord Morgan and by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I intervened on the noble Lord, Lord Newby, because of my reservations about the referendum itself: the fact that 16 and 17 year-olds were not allowed to vote; that EU citizens were not allowed to vote; that there was no threshold; and the uncertainty about whether it was advisory or mandatory. All of that created a huge problem.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I agree. I share that view. However, some people tried to sow confusion and indicated that it had to be accepted. I say to my noble friend Lord Grocott that this is why we need to look carefully at what happens at the end of this long and complicated process.
As I say, I was not sure how to vote, but I am now convinced. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, answered my question. The form of the referendum, its timing, the question, the franchise and all of the other matters will be dealt with in a Bill which will come before this Parliament.
I also support Amendment 3 about parliamentary approval of any deal that is agreed. I envisage—I do not know whether my colleagues agree—that Parliament would then put the proposal to the referendum. That would be the question. So at that time, in that referendum, we would know what we were voting for, unlike the previous referendum. That has convinced me that the way forward is to combine the parliamentary consideration of the deal that is reached and come to some conclusion, and then put it to the people because they will have considered it already. That is the first thing that has convinced me to support this amendment.
The second thing is that I have become increasingly concerned at the tribalism of the Tories on this issue. They are sitting there supporting some kind of concerted campaign to push through the kind of hard Brexit that they want at any cost—and I mean at any cost. The more they do that, and the more they sit there jeering at our partners in Europe, dismissing them as if they were irrelevant in relation to this, the more I will be convinced that we need to make sure that their kind of hard Brexit—
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree, given what happened in Scotland, that every referendum is greeted with, “We will have to have another one because we do not like the result”? What happens if the second referendum is closer than the last one? Will there be a third referendum and a fourth referendum? It is an abrogation of responsibility.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
No. As my noble friend Lord Hain rightly said, in Scotland and Wales what was put to the people was absolutely clear. It was a specific proposal—there was no doubt about it—to set up a Parliament for Scotland and a Parliament for Wales. What we put at the last referendum was not as clear. We did not know the way forward; we did not know the options before us.
Lord Tyler (LD)
Perhaps I may help. I think I am right in saying that all previous referenda have always been confirmatory. They agreed to what Parliament set before the nation. That was not the case, of course, in June of last year.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I find myself, unusually, agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Having seen him on television recently, he has taken me by surprise. They have been confirmative and that is what we are talking about in this referendum. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, agrees that it will be a confirmatory referendum after Parliament has agreed or otherwise the proposal that comes from the Government in relation to Europe. On that basis I will back his amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, there are two scenarios vis-à-vis the attitude of the EU towards our leaving it. One is that it will be absolutely delighted that we are going. A thorn will have come out of its side once the UK has departed and it will be able to proceed with the federal dream it has always had. Therefore, it will want to quickly get on with an agreement and say goodbye to us. The other scenario is that the EU will regard the UK leaving as a hole in the head. As the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, said, it will present it with an enormous budgetary problem. It will probably be contagious and will lead to other countries in the EU wanting to leave as well. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, says that we must trust the EU. Well, hold on. The people who run the EU are not renowned for being overtly democratic. Let us face it: they put the whole objective of the federal dream above all else. Therefore, they will say that we must go to any lengths that we possibly can to ensure that the United Kingdom stays in the EU.
How do you do that? You offer the most appalling deal known to man. Then, knowing that there is going to be a referendum, if this amendment is passed, you can confidently reckon that the British people will vote against that deal and the United Kingdom will stay in the EU. Does that not completely undermine the Government’s negotiating position once Article 50 has been triggered? This amendment should be opposed absolutely ruthlessly.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, there is one other important reason why the final decision on Brexit should be a national referendum, not the approval of Parliament: Parliament has changed. We have abandoned the main principle that we are a parliamentary democracy and that MPs are representatives, not delegates. Instead, we have adopted the doctrine that the will of the people must always prevail. That is the favourite doctrine of dictators and autocrats throughout history. At Second Reading I gave examples, which I will not repeat now. In that debate the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed out that four-fifths of the MPs who voted to trigger Article 50 had voted to remain and believed that Brexit would be against the national interest. The exercise of their own judgment, based on weighing up the argument and evidence in debate, has given way to the new fashion for populist political correctness. The inescapable logic of this approach means that if MPs, at the end of negotiations, came to the conclusion that the result would be equivalent to falling over a cliff, they would still feel duty bound because of the referendum of 23 June to act like lemmings.
Burke has been ditched; Rousseau rules instead. I have always been a devotee of Burke. I once fought a by-election on his principles. In 1972, I was one of the 69 Labour Members of Parliament led by Roy Jenkins who voted for British entry into the European Community against a three-line Whip. Without our vote, Britain would not have joined. My local, left-wing Labour Party in Lincoln was passionately anti-Europe. It told me that if I voted with the Tories, against the party’s three-line Whip, it would deselect me. I did, and it did. So I resigned and fought a by-election in March 1973 as an independent social democrat. The real issue in that by-election was not Europe, but Burke. I explained my reasons at a mass meeting held in Lincoln. I said that I had always been pro-Europe and as an 18 year-old student—some 70 years ago—I joined a club called the Strasbourg club, which argued that Britain should share some of its sovereignty with other European countries to promote peace and prosperity, and that I was not going to change my views because my party told me to. I was supported at this mass meeting by a famous journalist at the time, Bernard Levin, who put the issue quite simply. He said that the choice in Lincoln was between Dick Taverne and a Dictaphone. I won with an overwhelming majority over Labour and the Conservatives, and it was Burke wot won it.
Burke is popular because people like those who stick to their guns. His championship of MPs as representatives, not delegates, has been a basic part of the strength of our parliamentary system. If referendums determined our laws, we would probably still have the death penalty and flogging in prisons. What would be the point of parliamentary debates if MPs had already pledged their vote irrespective of all arguments?
It may be asked why I support the Liberal Democrat amendment in favour of a new referendum. My noble friend Lord Newby gave a very good answer to that. A referendum is one way in which people would have a chance to change their mind. If the Government’s process is followed, there would be no real choice because the only one would be either to accept or reject the end of the negotiations, whatever their result.
I believe that the decision to leave the single market and the customs union makes a hard Brexit almost inevitable. We will not get a special deal for key industries or the right of our service companies to operate in their biggest market. Mr Trump will not abandon his claim for “America first” and we will face a more protectionist world, not a free trade bonanza. We are in real danger of returning to the nationalism and protectionism of the 1930s. If we leave Europe, we will find it increasingly necessary to rely on Mr Trump’s America: a future of Mrs May and Donald Trump walking hand in hand. We should not travel one miserable inch along that fearsome road.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, at Second Reading I set out an argument for a second referendum based on the principle of informed consent, a standard by which individuals are truly given and granted their opinion. I am not going to repeat that argument now, but it remains my primary reason for supporting this amendment.
Much of what I was going to say has been said, but I wish to make one brief point. We are being asked to have faith in the Government and their officers to secure this deal, but the reason given last week for not securing the fate of EU nationals was not that the Government were not willing, but that a small number of the remaining 27 would not play ball. Similarly, we have already been asked to accept that the Government cannot deliver the single market because the 27 have a red line on free movement. As the negotiation moves on from its visible red lines into the hundreds of thousands of details that will constitute this divorce settlement, the 27 will have a multitude of issues on which they do not wish to play ball. Yet by the Government’s own admission they have to accept, or are currently accepting, whatever is offered by the least interested of those 27 nations.
Meaningful parliamentary oversight and a mechanism by which the much-quoted “will of the people” can be tested are not automatic roadblocks to withdrawal; they are merely an insurance policy against a lousy deal.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, we will hear from the Conservative Benches and then from the Labour Benches, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, my simple point is this. Parliament will pronounce for or against the results of the Government’s negotiations to withdraw from the European Union in due course. It may possibly be that in 2019 or whenever the negotiations are completed, Parliament will feel that it would be wise to test the opinion of the country through another referendum, but that should be determined at that final stage and in those circumstances, not now. It would be wholly contrary to our constitution and traditions to make a binding provision for another referendum at this early point.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, the Government seem confident that they can get a good deal, or, that not being the case and they get a bad deal, that they can walk away and WTO trading arrangements will be good enough for us to operate effectively in the world. If that is the position held by the Government, why should they be in any doubt that a referendum would do anything other than give them an even greater majority in support of what they finally resolve?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness is drifting to a Second Reading speech. A specific proposal is before this House: the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I would be grateful if noble Lords could be brief—a lot of people want to speak—and address the substance of that amendment, not other aspects to which they may wish to draw the attention of the House.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
I certainly will not continue to make a speech, but I want to say that the reason why people are asking that this matter eventually goes to the people is that we started with the people. Parliament has said, “We are bound by the fact that people have given us a direction of travel”. When it comes to the end of that journey, they have the right to be heard too.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I regret that I did not speak at Second Reading or in Committee, owing to previous engagements. I want to speak briefly on this amendment, as it reveals what noble remainers really want: they want a second referendum on the result of the Article 50 negotiations in the hope that the people will change their mind.
I hope to spend a minute or two trying to persuade supporters of the amendment why are they are wrong to do so, and to do that one has to look at the bigger picture. What I cannot understand, and what beats me—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry. The noble Lord could have made a Second Reading speech at Second Reading. I would be grateful if he addressed the substance of the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, if the noble Lord wants me to deal with that, I thought I had advice that, as it was a two-day debate and I was not able to be here for the opening speeches on the first day, I could speak on the second. I make no complaint. Owing to a prior engagement, I could not get to the opening speeches and that is why I did not speak. That is really not important or relevant to this debate.
As I was saying, what beats me is why so many noble Lords still fervently believe that the European Union, which is the project of European integration, and its single market, are somehow good things—that is why they support this amendment—when clearly they are not. They have become bad things. As I have said many times in the House over the past 26 years, the project of European integration was honourable when it started: it was to get rid of war in Europe and all the rest of it. As Jean Monnet said in 1956—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord is very courteous. He listens to what I say but chooses to ignore it. I would be grateful if he addressed the subject of the amendment and then let other noble Lords have a say.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I am quite happy to sit down, but I am trying to persuade supporters of this amendment that they are wrong, because the whole project has gone wrong. Is that not something that noble Lords wish to hear?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Okay, I shall skip over why the single market is a bad thing, I shall skip over the strength of our hand—because they have so many more jobs selling things to us than we do to them—and I shall skip over the fact that noble remainers who support this amendment still think that somehow EU money exists, when it does not. After every penny that the European Union gives us, we are still left with £10 billion a year net, which is—I will give noble Lords a new statistic—the salary of 1,000 nurses every day, at £27,500 a year. Whatever happens, we will go on trading with our friends in Europe, because they need it more than we do.
I end with a word of advice for the Liberal Democrats. I fancy that they are considering supporting this amendment. Their very own policy from the election before last—I do not know what it is now because it is difficult to follow Liberal Democrat policy—was that membership of this House should grow to represent and reflect the votes in the previous general election. In the last election, the Liberal Democrats got 5% of the vote. That should give them 43 seats in this House. Instead, they have 102. I will pass over in silence the fact that we got 8% of the vote, which should give us 69 seats, and we have precisely three. More seriously, however, if the Liberal Democrats use this dishonest advantage—by their own standards and manifesto—to vote down the will of the British people and the House of Commons, they will reveal their contempt for democracy and do your Lordships’ House no good at all.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I disagree with the amendment because I see two defects in it, one of which was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, a moment ago. It purports to tie the hands of Parliament—which it should not do—unlike Amendment 3, which we will debate later today, which gives Parliament the certainty of having more options. The second defect is that the amendment does not address the increasing possibility that there will be no settlement, no agreement, and that we fall out.
What I do not like in this debate—I did not like it at Second Reading or in Committee—is the suggestion that in some way it would be illegitimate for the country to think again. There is a frog chorus behind the Minister. Every time he says, “It was decided”, the chorus behind him chants, “Koàx-koáx, decided, decided”. This is the lemming position. No matter how awful the deal turns out to be, no matter how unlike the promises of the leavers the eventual deal turns out to be, no matter how steep the cliff and stormy the sea, we must go over. There is no time to think again; there is no chance of turning back on any decision.
I find that strangely reminiscent of the Moscow I worked in in 1968, when Soviet foreign policy ran on the Brezhnev doctrine. The House will remember the Brezhnev doctrine, which said that once you have voted Communists in, you cannot vote Communists out. It was a very good doctrine for running central and eastern Europe. That seems to be the position of most of the government Back-Benches today.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, will consult his new right honourable friend Mr David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and will come to the conclusion that Mr Davis was right when he said that if a democracy cannot think again, cannot change its mind, it is no longer a democracy. I rather agree.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I am a frog or a lemming, but I was one of the Ministers at the Dispatch Box when we took the European Union Referendum Bill through this House and I think we should have regard to what we decided in Parliament in that Act. A number of amendments were tabled but, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, there was no amendment about thresholds, no amendment to nuance the simple question that was posed, no amendment to say that we would only leave if we stayed within the single market, and, in particular, no amendment saying that there would be a second referendum. Why not? Was it because the alternatives were too complicated? There were only two outcomes of the referendum: either we remained or we left. Was it political negligence by parliamentarians not to table these amendments, or were they content with the Bill and its binary question?
We are having this debate contrary to what was generally considered to be the law, which was that it was the right of the Government, exercising the royal prerogative—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
These amendments were tabled in the previous Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, as a surrogate for the Government. If they were tabled and defeated or withdrawn on that occasion, some people may have felt that there was no point in raising them at a later stage.
Lord Faulks
I find that remarkably unpersuasive.
As a result of the decision of the people, most thought that there was a power for the Government to negotiate and do the best deal possible. We then had the Gina Miller case, but there is nothing in the Supreme Court judgment, in my view, which either expressly or impliedly endorses the amendment advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
This is opportunism motivated by the perfectly understandable view, which I share, that we should not have voted to leave the EU. However, if we vote for this amendment, we will be ignoring what we decided in the European Union Referendum Act, we will be ignoring the vote and we will be ignoring the House of Commons. It is time for a little constitutional modesty on our part.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, because he, like me, sat through most of the debate that resulted in this House, without opposition, deciding that we should have a referendum to determine whether to remain in or leave the European Union. I say that perhaps particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who expressed his strong opposition to referendums. I respectfully say to him that, if that is the case, he should have opposed in this House the Bill that established the referendum mechanism to decide whether we should leave or remain.
I want to make an observation and will then specifically address the amendment. The observation is simply that there has been an awful lot of rerunning of the referendum argument in the discussion so far. I always want to urge this House, above all institutions that I have been able to be involved in, not to ascribe motives to people in elections and to assume that we understand precisely why they voted in the way they did, and then to challenge them somehow on the basis of whether they made what we consider to be the right or wrong decision. Perhaps I have a considerable qualification in this regard in that I have lost an awful lot of elections over the course of my career. Although the motive is always to say that your opponents lied or misled people, or that the people were not bright enough to make the decision, my advice, when they eventually elect you, is to acknowledge that they are a pretty shrewd electorate. That is how we all react to success and failure in elections.
Specifically on the amendment, we still have not had a reply on whether such a referendum would be advisory. I respectfully need to point out to the noble Lords who have spoken that one or two mistakes have been made in arguing this case. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Morgan who said that all referendums are advisory. That simply is not right. The referendum that we held on whether we should have AV or first past the post was based on legislation that this House had passed in the form of the Bill for the AV referendum. That laid out precisely the system that the electorate would put into place, should the referendum be passed.
Lord Morgan
I apologise for interrupting my noble friend. With regard to that referendum and all referendums, this is a constitution based on parliamentary sovereignty. Unlike France, it is not based on popular sovereignty.
Lord Grocott
My noble friend is absolutely right but in this case the Act of Parliament that this House passed to establish the referendum included precisely the mechanism for the alternative vote election that would come into place should that referendum be carried.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, I am in no doubt that the referendum of 23 June was technically advisory but the Government of the day and the leaders of the campaigns had made it absolutely clear that the Government would implement its findings without qualification. It also featured in the governing party’s manifesto in the last general election.
Lord Grocott
I do not disagree with that at all. The debate when the referendum campaign was under way was clearly on the basis that this was a once-in-a-lifetime decision, and we need to acknowledge that as well.
My main points are in respect of the validity of the decision and whether it should be replaced with a second referendum. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, at the time of the referendum it was never said that there would be a second referendum. I hate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes—particularly not on matters relating to Scotland; I have never done so in the long parliamentary careers that we have shared—but I think he said, and he will no doubt intervene and I will be happy to give way if I am wrong, that the choice in the Scottish referendum was absolutely clear. However, it did not come over like that in the way that it was reported in England. There appeared to be a great lack of clarity about things such as the currency that would be used and whether an independent Scotland could reapply, or would successfully be able to reapply, to join the European Union. There is a whole host of uncertainties around all referendums, and I have never heard of one where there were no uncertainties or difficulties to address.
That brings me to the only really substantial point that I think has not been made so far: that somehow or other—this, according to its proponents, is the whole basis of having a second referendum—circumstances will change in a very fundamental way, making it absolutely essential that we again test the opinion of the British people. I cannot avoid a trip down memory lane at this point because this is not the first referendum on whether we should be a member of the European Union; it is the second. The first one was held in 1975 and the overwhelming decision was to remain in the European Union.
Lord Grocott
Please can I finish my point? A lot of people said thereafter that perhaps we should have another referendum, and of course we did. The only problem from the perspective of those who voted no in the first one in 1975 was that we had to wait 41 years to be given the choice. Several generations of 16, 17 and 18 year-olds had become pensioners, so on that occasion there was a long gap between the decision taken in the first referendum and the second one, whereas it is proposed that there should be two or perhaps three years in the gap between referendums on this occasion.
The point I want to make is this: no one voting in 1975 could possibly have anticipated the consequences of a yes vote in that referendum. It was not the European Union then because it has changed its name several times since. It was the Common Market that people voted for or against in 1975.
Lord Grocott
I am sorry and I stand corrected. It was the Common Market, then the European Community, then the European Union and no doubt it will be something else in due course. The people who voted yes in the 1975 referendum did not know that it would triple in size over the ensuing 41 years, that qualified majority voting on all related matters would develop and that we would get a European foreign ministry, 150-odd offices of the European Union around the country, a European foreign affairs spokesman and so on. I am not necessarily criticising that, but I would say that no one who voted yes in 1975 could conceivably have thought that that would be the way in which the European Union would develop. Correct me if I am wrong, but do I recall anyone who voted yes in 1975 saying, “No, the circumstances have changed dramatically and we need to have another referendum to check whether the people agree with what they voted for”? The answer of course is no, that did not happen, and we waited 41 years between the first referendum and the second.
If we adopt the same principle in this respect, we shall have another referendum in 2057. I am a generous man looking for compromises and I think that would be an unreasonable gap between this referendum and any subsequent one. However, it is inevitable that after any decision, whether in a referendum or at a general election, some people will be dissatisfied with the result and will want to have it checked—correction, they will want to have it reversed. That is precisely the motive behind this proposal for a second referendum— unacknowledged in the Bill and unacknowledged during the referendum debate, and now being demanded as an entirely novel proposal. I hope that the House will agree with me that that is not acceptable.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I think that it would be sensible to hear from the Front Benches now. Perhaps we may hear from the Labour Front Bench and then the Minister.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and long debate on a short amendment to a short Bill. While I appreciate that the amendment refers to a ratification referendum, in his opening comments the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to this being an issue about people being able to change their minds. However, there has been a much broader discussion than just the amendment.
As someone who campaigned strongly to remain, and remains bitterly disappointed at the result, I agree with many of the comments that have been made but I am not sure that they bring much to bear on whether a second referendum is appropriate. The demands for a second referendum started even before the ink was dry on the ballot papers of the first referendum. We know that it is rare for us to have a national referendum. In 1975, the incredible Labour Party leader and Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, held a referendum on whether we should remain in or leave the European Community. I think that I am in a minority in your Lordships’ House, but not alone, in that I was not able to vote in that referendum, being far too young, and the Minister probably could not vote in that referendum either. In 2011, the coalition Government held a referendum on whether to change the voting system where Parliament, via legislation, ceded sovereignty to the public, and in 2016, last year, we had the EU referendum.
There is clearly public interest in the EU because both referenda had high turnouts. It was a little lower in 1975, but no one really thought we were going leave and the margin of difference in favour of retaining EU membership, as the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, reminded us, was significant at 33%. However, last year the polls were so close that it probably encouraged the high turnout of 72%. Yet the referendum on changing the voting system motivated fewer than half of our fellow citizens, just 42%. There was never any real public demand for such a change and to most people it appeared politician led.
When we debated this amendment in Committee, I expressed my natural caution about politicians calling for a referendum on any issue. Usually it is called because we think it will endorse the result that we want. I accept that there have been exceptions today and that some noble Lords have made a case for direct or popular democracy, but the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has made clear what his reasons are for bringing forward this amendment. However, there is clearly a difference in the case of a public demand for a referendum, as we have seen, but politicians have to take care in how we respond to that public demand.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others, when he opened the debate and I have read his article in the The House Magazine on this issue, in which he was totally honest about his amendment proposing a further referendum. Despite comments from a number of your Lordships that this is merely about giving the public a say on the exit arrangements, he was very clear that he took the view that the public would change their mind. In The House Magazine he said that it would be “implausible” not to grant a second referendum if public opinion shifted in favour of the EU.
However, there is no significant public demand for a second referendum and, at this stage, there is no significant shift in public opinion. This is being seen by many as merely a campaign to challenge the result of the first referendum. That was reinforced last week when the noble Lord spoke about the purpose behind his amendment. That is exactly the point. A second referendum would not be on the deal or the arrangements but yet again on a principle—or, rather, a mood—of how people felt about the EU the last time.
Before the last referendum—indeed, before the last elections—the Liberal Democrats campaigned for what they called a real referendum, an in-out referendum, on principle. They criticised both my party, the Labour Party, and the Conservatives for not going far enough in agreeing with them. I have a copy of their leaflet with me today. It urges people to “Sign our petition today” and says:
“It’s time for a real referendum on Europe”.
However, nowhere in the leaflet calling for this “real referendum” does it say, “But if you do not agree with us we will try and have another one”.
My understanding from those who were there at the time is that the Liberal Democrats considered—this is absolutely crucial—that, although their policy was to have a referendum limited to the Lisbon treaty, their campaign literature should not say it because they felt that it would not be clearly understood and that any referendum would inevitably turn into “Do you like the EU or not?”. I think that is right, because it is what we saw last year. It is also why the noble Lord’s confidence in having a referendum to show that people have changed their minds is flawed, because after two years of what could be very difficult negotiations it could well become a referendum—in effect—on whether we like, or are happy with, our European neighbours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, this has been another good debate. I suspect that it confirms what many of us already know: that there are a number of your Lordships who passionately believe that the people have made a grave mistake by voting to leave the European Union and that there needs to be a referendum at the end of the negotiations. As I said before, I respect their views and I repeat my wish to bring together those on both sides of the argument—leave and remain—as we continue. But the Government are very clear that the amendment before us is misguided both in practice and in principle. Our reasons are very clear and they start with the democratic path that we have followed so far.
On 7 May 2015, the Conservative Government were elected by 11.3 million people, committed to a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union and committed to honouring the outcome. On 7 September 2015, 316 members of the other place voted in favour of holding a referendum by a majority of six to one. No condition or caveat was attached to the referendum, as my noble friend Lord Faulks pointed out. Parliament agreed on the question, which was simple: leave or remain? On 23 June 2016, 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union. On 8 February this year, the other place passed this Bill unamended—a simple Bill to trigger the process of leaving the European Union —by a majority of 372. This is the democratic path that has been followed, a path that will lead this country to leaving the European Union.
Some argue that we need another referendum, on what I consider to be somewhat peculiar and weak arguments. I refer to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, who said that,
“however it is dressed up, it will be seen as a second referendum. I cannot support that. Our people have already spoken”.—[Official Report, 20/2/17; col. 134.]
How right he is. Listen to Mr Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for North Norfolk, who said that the second referendum would raise,
“the question as to whether we’d remain in the European Union”.
But it was made abundantly clear that the referendum in June was, to quote the leaflet sent to all households in the UK,
“a once in a generation decision”.
There was nothing on the ballot, and no suggestion from Parliament, that there would have to be another referendum if the UK were to vote to leave. During the campaign, the then Prime Minister said:
“I am absolutely clear a referendum is a referendum, it’s a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity and the result determines the outcome ... You can’t have neverendums, you have referendums”.
The next bogus argument is that people did not know enough to make an informed decision. I do not see that approach and argument as particularly liberal or democratic; I see it as somewhat patronising. It is as if we are saying, “We trust the people, but not quite entirely”. That Government leaflet spelled out the consequences and on many occasions during the campaign those on both sides of the argument made it clear that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. For example, Mr David Cameron said:
“The British public would be voting, if we Leave, to leave the EU and leave the Single Market”.
Mr George Osborne said:
“We’d be out of the single market, that’s the reality”.
Mr Michael Gove said that we should be, “outside the single market”. The noble Lord, Lord Darling, said:
“Those wanting to leave the EU want to pull Britain out of the single market”.
My noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford said:
“The Leave campaign has … been clear what Leave means: it means leaving the Single Market”.
These politicians were right to point this out, for if we were to remain in the single market it would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would still see it having direct legal authority in our country and it would mean not having control of our borders. It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all.
The next peculiar argument is that a second referendum is needed to bring the nation together. Here I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. If the argument is that the first referendum divided the nation, a second referendum is hardly likely to unite it—quite the reverse. Rather than bring people together, it would merely encourage divisions to fester.
Let me say a word about the need to come together. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury made a thoughtful and powerful speech. He is right about the need to heal our divisions and to work together to tackle the challenges we face. I would like to put on the record once again my thanks to the Church of England for hosting round tables to do just that. Moreover, others agree that we need to come together by saying:
“If we have to be out then let’s make the best of it”.
Those are the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, who on the question of a second referendum, said:
“Politicians should stay out of that”,
and the report of the event at which he said this—which I assume to be valid and not some form of fake news—continues as follows. Lord Ashdown,
“did not call for a second referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU saying it would be ‘foolish and wrong’ for Parliament to do that”.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
My Lords, let me see if I can make a rather better hash of it this time than I did with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Is the Minister embarrassed by the fact that he keeps on answering the question by referring to an issue that is not addressed? We are not saying that there has to be a second referendum on European Union membership. That is done and we accept that the Government have their mandate. What we do not believe the Government have a mandate for is a brutal Brexit that will take us out of the single market. Can he explain why he believes that he does have that mandate, given that it was set out specifically in the Conservative Party manifesto that they would not do this?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, the Conservative Party manifesto made it absolutely clear that we would respect the outcome, a position that the noble Lord himself took on the night of the referendum. It is absolutely our intention that the Government will deliver on the results of the referendum. I know that the noble Lord is spending Lent eating his own words, but I am sorry to say that he is wrong on this point.
Then there are the consequences of such a referendum. Would it bring certainty? Will businesses clap their hands with glee at the thought of a referendum some years off, the basis on which it would be held unclear, but the consequences of which could be to throw the entire negotiated settlement up in the air? We know the answer. As I have said, the Institute of Directors have called for:
“A commitment across all major political parties … not to undertake a second referendum on either EU membership or the Brexit deal to reduce uncertainty”.
What would happen, even after all this, if the result of the second referendum is still to leave? As some noble Lords have pointed out, would we once again be subjected to people saying, “Actually, we don’t like this answer. Please try again”? Where does it end? Will we continue to hold the same referendum until we get the result that those who support this amendment prefer?
Lord Liddle (Lab)
If, as the Prime Minister said in her Lancaster House speech, no deal would be better than a bad deal, is the Minister really telling us that in the circumstances of no deal he would absolutely rule out a referendum in the future?
Lord Bridges of Headley
Yes, my Lords. It is very clear: we are leaving the European Union. That is the pure and simple answer to the noble Lord.
Lord Bridges of Headley
No, I am sorry, my Lords; I am going to finish. I know that we will come back to this. Forgive me but I will not give way. I know that we will have a lot of debate after lunch about the meaningful vote that we will have, and I am sure that the noble Lord will have a chance then to have his say.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said on Wednesday that the rejection of a second referendum would be the antithesis of democracy. With respect to the noble Lord, I totally and utterly disagree. The referendum itself was democracy in action. We were also told that,
“a second referendum entails risks for which the price is too high”—[Official Report, 21/2/17; col. 160.]
and that:
“A further vote will prolong the uncertainty and cause uproar in the country, or worse”.—[Official Report, 20/2/17; col. 134.]
Those are the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, and I entirely agree with them. Calling a second referendum, as this amendment seeks to do, would undermine the will of the people as expressed in the EU referendum. The people have voted to leave the European Union and leave we will. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which boils down to a single question: is it Parliament or the people that take the final decision on our future in Europe? The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that it should be Parliament but that if Parliament rejected the deal, there might be a confidence vote. There would then be a general election, but a general election is an extremely imperfect way to debate a single issue. I think all parties have found that, as did Mr Heath. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says that the Liberal Democrats might have found that, but with the current leaderships of the two main political parties, does he genuinely believe that a general election would be solely or even mainly on the issue of Brexit? No, my Lords; the general election is a very imperfect tool for dealing with such a specific question.
I have the highest regard for the most reverend Primate, but I am afraid that when he says that a further referendum is not democratic, I simply cannot agree. I cannot see the logic of that and I am sorry to say that I really cannot follow that argument at all.
It has been argued that the people cannot take a decision in these circumstances because it would be a binary choice. It is quite unclear to me why it is perfectly reasonable for Parliament to take a binary choice but not the people. Finally, it has been argued by a number of noble Lords that it is all too complicated for the people to take a final decision on this matter. That is the antithesis of democracy.
I ended my Second Reading speech by quoting Gladstone and, indeed, the Brexit Secretary: “Trust the people”. That was our stance a fortnight ago and it is our stance today. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It may help noble Lords if I explain that we hope to complete this amendment before we adjourn the Report stage for Questions. I hope noble Lords will be able to have some refreshment before 2.30 pm.
Amendment 2
“( ) Once a notification has been given under subsection (1), Ministers of the Crown must make a quarterly statement on the negotiations to each House of Parliament, with an accompanying report to be made available to relevant parliamentary committees.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I have always thought the Government Chief Whip was a very nice man. I do not think he was offering us lunch today but he was offering us time for lunch.
This is a short and, I hope, sweet amendment. It is about the cement between Amendment 1 and Amendment 3. Amendment 1 has been defeated and therefore we are not talking about a referendum at the end of negotiations, but Amendment 3, which I trust will be carried, is about putting the decision at the end to Parliament. Amendment 2 basically states that, in order to make that as good a way of moving forward as possible, we will need to have from the Government—not as a running commentary, or even as a walking commentary, but as a dialogue with Parliament—some feedback about how the negotiations are going.
This is not only about what we are offering as a Government, as a country, but also about what is happening on the other side. We think we will be negotiating with just one bloc—the European Union—but there are 27 countries on that side and there will be ups and downs, elections, changes of personnel and all kinds of things happening within those 27 countries.
Charles Grant of the CER, who is usually correct, has said that in all of this, politics matters more than economics. Therefore feedback from the Government about how the other countries and the European Union are responding will help us to understand the negotiations. As I said in Committee, it would be terrible if we come to that final vote in this House and there are surprises because we do not know what has been happening and how discussions have been going and, even worse, because the Government have not taken the time to listen to our EU committees.
Lord Dykes
What would be the provision for an expression of opinion in both Houses on the later stages of those quarterly reports and negotiations? If people wanted to express an opinion, it might be legitimate for them to do so with a formal vote.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I will leave that to the usual channels, who will discuss it at the time. I deal with content not process. That is why I will be pleased when this Bill is over and we get into the real meat of the negotiations, with which I wish Ministers luck. The task of negotiating will be extremely hard and that is why they could benefit from discussions in the House.
It is important that we should hear back almost the mood music of what is going on. We should hear some detail so that it will not be any surprise. If people think this will all be done in secret then they have not worked in Brussels for very long. It is as leaky as a sieve and we will be reading a lot about the negotiations. It will be more like a colander than a bucket about the things that are going on in there and taking stock will be important. We have already stressed the importance of the devolved Administrations also being involved and to check that they are. We can talk on this.
Therefore, with a nod to this afternoon’s debate and what I hope will be its outcome—that Parliament will get the final vote—if the final deal is to win the consent of Parliament there should be no surprises and a grown-up conversation should go on. I am sure that the Government will not veer off in ways that surprise us, because we do not want to vote down something because it is a surprise. We will want to have a proper vote at that time. To make the final vote a proper one, we ask for these reports to be quarterly, and if the Minister thinks that means only quarterly he needs to think again: there needs to be a minimum of quarterly reports, so that we can discuss how it is going. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. It is important to have a structured schedule and framework for reporting back to Parliament as part of the whole scheme that we are trying to set up, including a meaningful vote, which we will discuss this afternoon.
The European Parliament example has been much prayed in aid. Those of us, like myself, who were in the European Parliament, and others, will know that one of the incentives for making sure that the European Parliament was kept informed throughout the process of negotiating external agreements was that it had the power to reject them at the end. After the European Parliament had rejected several international agreements, the European Council, the Council of Ministers and the Commission finally came to their senses and realised that it was much better to front-load the system so that the European Parliament was kept informed along the way, instead of getting a nasty surprise at the end. In the jargon, that accounts for the “inter-institutional arrangements”, which include reports and the making available of documents throughout the process. It is a much better way of managing it and making sure that the Council’s negotiating objectives are delivered in a “smooth, orderly way”, which, I think, is the phrase often used by the Government about Brexit. There are, therefore, good practical reasons for having a very structured system of reporting back.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talks about everything happening in a smooth, orderly way. I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Everything will leak. The EU Commission is obliged to report to the European Parliament and the whole idea that the European Parliament will say, “This is all secret information, we should not let it out”, seems to me to be for the birds. Everything will leak and we will hear rumours about how far the negotiations have got, or what has happened. At that point, Parliament will demand a debate. The Government will get up, if this amendment is passed, and say, “No, you must wait for the quarterly review in two months’ time”. I do not think so. I think that the House of Commons will say, “Come on, get on with it, we want a response. Why have we heard these rumours? The Government must put us straight on all of this”.
This amendment, therefore, would achieve nothing. Everything will leak from the negotiations. When things of substance leak, Parliament, particularly the Commons, will demand a debate, and your Lordships’ House will no doubt do the same. This amendment is otiose.
Lord Spicer
My Lords, I made the point in Committee that if you want sovereignty of Parliament you should vote as quickly as possible for this Bill and subsequent Bills to get us out of the control of the European Union. I make the point now—it is rather similar to that of my noble friend—that it is highly unlikely that the Government will accept this amendment. If it prevails, we will potentially be into a constitutional issue.
Therefore, one has to ask what options are likely to occur in the event of this House passing this amendment and, as my noble friend has just suggested, the other House passing it back to us, with the Government standing firm. There are three options. First, the Government could do nothing and concede the situation, but I think that that is highly unlikely. To lose control of the Bill at this stage on this issue would be very questionable wisdom on the part of the Government. Secondly, they could create 100 Peers. That is unlikely as well and would be rather dramatic at this stage. Thirdly, they could call a general election. That option should be under strong consideration by the Government at the moment. Through a vote of confidence in the Commons or whatever, they could have it out in the well-known democratic way of doing things—through a general election. I want to put on the record that there should be one round of ping-pong and then we should call a general election.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendment. I tabled a similar amendment in Committee which was rather less demanding than this one, but the Government dispatched it extremely briskly.
I suggest that this amendment might be helpful to the Government. The idea that all the special interest groups affected by these negotiations—the different sectors, companies and pressure groups—will sit still, while stuff comes out of the EU about the possibility of doing damage to their particular interests and concerns, is fanciful. If the Minister and the Government do not have any structured way of reporting back to Parliament, we will find that many of those people will lobby your Lordships’ House and there will be a demand for a huge number of Parliamentary Questions, as well as demands for debates, to deal with the latest set of rumours about a particular sector, industry or agency which may be being transferred back to Europe. The EMA would be a good example and Euratom is another. Therefore, the Government might find that their life was made a bit easier if there was a structured way of reporting back to Parliament about the progress that was being made, especially if it was reasonably detailed and told some of these interest groups what was going on in the negotiations.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does the noble Lord think that Parliament will be happy if they are given the response that, because the quarterly review is coming up and it is two months away, the question cannot be answered today; it will have to be answered in two months’ time when the clock next ticks round?
Lord Warner
The noble Baroness’s amendment is very flexible. It refers to a period of at least three months. There is nothing in the amendment to stop the Government serving their own interests by being more forthcoming more frequently. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not mind having reports made on a more frequent basis.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the Government share the sentiments expressed from the Front Bench opposite—indeed, from both Front Benches opposite. The proposal would be entirely in the interests of the smooth development of policy in this difficult area, which I am sure we all understand is extremely difficult. The more help the Government can get, the better, and I think that they are sufficiently humble to know that.
If there were any slackness on the part of the Government, we would have plenty of means in this Parliament for getting them to respond, but I do not agree with putting that into an Act of Parliament, and the reason for that is simple. If something is put into a general Act of Parliament, the idea is that the courts are the enforcers, but one thing that the courts cannot do, in view of the Bill of Rights, is to interfere in proceedings in Parliament. Therefore, this is useless as a formal amendment, but the spirit of it is first-class. I feel almost certain that my noble and learned friend will be able to accept that, because the Minister in the Commons said just as much in a passage that I may refer to later.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged for the contributions that have been made to the debate. This short Bill has already invoked many hours of debate, so I intend to keep my remarks very brief.
I endorse the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, both as to the appropriateness of this amendment and as to the spirit in which it will be and is being received by the Government. As noble Lords will be aware, the Prime Minister gives a Statement to the other place following European Councils. We know that there will be a Council this month, and indeed quarterly thereafter. That means that a Statement will be made to Parliament at least once every quarter on European issues, and it will be repeated in this House. Of course, that is just the beginning of a much wider process over which this Parliament has control at the end of the day.
DExEU Ministers have responded to more than 600 parliamentary Written Questions, appeared at 13 Select Committees and given six Oral Statements to the House on developments regarding our exit. The Secretary of State has agreed to give evidence to the Exiting the EU Select Committee on 15 March, alongside the Permanent Secretary at DExEU, and will shortly afterwards give evidence to the Lords EU Committee on 22 March.
The Government are committed to parliamentary scrutiny, and Parliament will play a key role in scrutinising and shaping our withdrawal. As my noble friend Lord Bridges observed last week, we have had take-note debates, debates on Select Committee reports, debates in government time and Select Committee appearances. All this will continue in order that Parliament can scrutinise the development of negotiations in so far as is possible to put those in the public domain and in so far as they come into the public domain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to secrets, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to nasty secrets. This may reflect a difference of approach, but at the end of the day there will not be any secrets. You cannot conduct such a process in secret, ultimately, and then expect Parliament to consider that it is being kept properly informed, as it should be, if you have what are termed secrets. We are committed to keeping Parliament at least as well informed as the European Parliament as negotiations progress.
A Bill to repeal the European Communities Act will follow. There will be primary legislation on issues such as immigration and customs, and a vote at the end with regard to the process on the final deal to exit.
With all that in mind, I will pose a few questions. Is the Prime Minister already bound to give a Statement to Parliament after every quarterly European Council? The answer is yes.
Have the Government been willing to give frequent Statements to Parliament? The answer is yes.
Have DExEU Ministers and other government Ministers appeared in front of Select Committees? The answer is yes.
Have the Government listened to Select Committee reports? The answer is yes; we published a White Paper in February this year.
Do the Government aim to respond to the Select Committee reports about Brexit within two months? The answer is yes.
Have the Government said they will give more information to Parliament, so long as it does not undermine our negotiating position? The answer is yes.
Then there is the core question: what is the present Bill about? The Bill is about giving the Prime Minister the authority to give notice of withdrawal from the European Union.
With great respect to the House and to all noble Lords, let us proceed and pass this Bill. It will not be improved by unnecessary decoration and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has already observed, it is not appropriate that this amendment should proceed. As I believe all Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken would acknowledge, it is not necessary that this amendment should proceed in these circumstances. Therefore, I invite the noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister and other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The most helpful exchange—I mean no disrespect to the others—was to hear the noble and learned Lord Mackay support the spirit of the amendment and then the Minister say that he agreed. If I could just bottle that, that will do me nicely.
I want to make only two other points. Although there are of course report-backs after the European Council, the UK will not be there when the European Council discusses our departure. Therefore, it is the other meetings that we are interested in.
My other comment is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, who said that if we dared to suggest that Parliament rather than the Crown should take the final decision, Mrs May might call an election. I am much older than my noble friend who spoke earlier and not only did I vote in 1975 but I remember the February 1974 election very well. Edward Heath basically called an election on who governs Britain. Mrs May would not be well advised to go to the country on, “Do you want the Government or Parliament to govern Britain?”. However, that is beside the point. I thank the Minister for the tone of his response and, on that basis, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Living Standards: Inequality
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what policy lessons can be learned from the forecast of growing inequality in the Resolution Foundation report Living Standards 2017.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, according to the latest data from the Office for National Statistics, income inequality in the UK is at its lowest level since 1986. The key to economic success and to reducing inequality is to improve productivity, which determines living standards in the long run. That is why the Government have established a national productivity investment fund and published a Green Paper on an industrial strategy, highlighting the role of improved skills, infrastructure investment and R&D.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the Resolution Foundation argues that preventing the biggest increase in inequality since the 1980s requires a shift in social policy choices, notably the freeze in most working-age benefits in the face of rising inflation. Will the Government now follow the advice of Iain Duncan Smith and reconsider the freeze? He warned that it was never intended that it should have such a “dramatic effect on incomes”—his words. Would that not be the right thing to do, to protect low-income families in and out of work, for a Government who claim to be working for everyone?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I think we have to have a little context. Savings are necessary to reduce borrowing and to put the public finances back on a sustainable footing after the financial crisis. Between 1980 and 2014, spending on welfare trebled in real terms to £96 billion, while GDP increased by much less. Our approach is a different one. We are committed to supporting working families with a whole host of measures to get people back into work, to innovate, to grow and to put the country on a good footing. It is only a forecast from the Resolution Foundation. Forecasts are not always right, and we are determined to make the changes we need for this country.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any assessment has been made of the effect of the national living wage on reducing inequality and, indeed, whether there is anything more that can be done in this respect?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friend for that question. I believe that the national living wage, brought in in April last year, is a fantastic example of policies that the Government have introduced to make work pay. Looking forward, it will rise again, to £7.50 next month, and it has already given many working people in Britain the fastest pay rise in 20 years.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, observers will have noticed that there is a startling contradiction between the presumption in the Question that income inequality has been growing very sharply and the presumption in the reply that it is doing the opposite. There are different measures, but most of them show that inequality is growing. Would it not be useful if the ONS convened a panel to get a little more clarity as to why figures can be bandied around that give such different descriptions of what is happening?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I think the ONS keeps us honest; it looks at these figures over time and very helpfully updates us. The OBR forecasts are also updated all the time so that we can see what is happening. I come back to the point that the Resolution Foundation is looking at a forecast, but if we look at what has happened, five years ago it was predicted by the IFS, I think, that there would be a rise in inequality. In fact, that has not happened. Actually, things have continued to progress and we have seen a recovery. That is what we need to continue by having the right policies, which this Government are pursuing under our new Prime Minister.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am shocked that the Minister does not recognise that young working families are facing serious financial pressure and are struggling, and that it looks as though it is going to be worse with inflation. Does she agree that part of the reason is the very high rents that most of these families face? Will she be willing, in the Budget tomorrow, to permit local councils to go out and borrow the necessary amounts of money to drive forward development of affordable rental housing? She has often acknowledged that the housing market is broken but all the Government’s solutions are on the demand side, and supply does not increase, especially not in the affordable area.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I would not want to steal the Chancellor’s thunder today. There is certainly some provision for prudential borrowing by local councils, but I come back to the support that we give to working families. The national living wage has already been mentioned by my noble friend. That has provided the fastest pay rise in 20 years. We have raised the personal allowance to £12,500 by the end of this Parliament; nobody had done that before. We are introducing universal credit, which has the benefit of making work pay, so that if you go out and work you are not held back by benefit dilemmas. We are committed to making work pay, and we believe that that is the very best way forward for the people of this country and for hard-working families, which I agree are a priority.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister cannot discount the Resolution Foundation in such a cavalier manner. It has a strong reputation and it produced very real, well-backed analysis. It said that higher incomes will rise, but slowly; that middle incomes are going to stagnate; and that low incomes are going to fall. We know that the base for low incomes is so little that they will be unable to afford to fall without poverty increasing substantially. The Foundation says it will be the biggest rise in inequality since the late 1980s. I do not need to remind the House which party was in power during that period or which Prime Minister—many of whose Cabinet members, of course, are still with us.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I would add that the Resolution Foundation report also says—which is the point I have been emphasising—that economic forecasts can change dramatically and there is no way of knowing just how the future will play out. I believe that the approach we now have—including our industrial strategy, and investment in infrastructure, housing, digital and transport —is making a big difference. We have protected the most vulnerable through the benefit system, which is actually highly redistributive, so that households in the lowest decile get four times the support in spending that they pay in tax, while the highest decile pay five times as much in tax as they receive in pay. We want a fairer society and getting workless households into work and improving productivity and skills is, to my mind, the best way forward.
European Union: Migration
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they expect to use article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to secure a new policy for the admission of migrants to the United Kingdom from the European Union.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s White Paper on exiting the EU was published on 2 February. It sets out the Government’s priorities and the broad strategy for exiting the EU and made it clear that we will take back control of our own laws. There are a number of options as to how EU immigration might work once we have exited the EU; we are considering those options and will consult businesses and communities. Parliament will also have a critical role to play.
Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)
Of course, the so-called main pressure is really from non-EU migrants. Why did not the Government, many years ago, use Article 45 of the TFEU, particularly paragraphs 3(a), (c) and (d), to impose necessary civilised restraints on migrants coming in with authorisation to do so, so that the horrendous hostility to immigrants from all over would not have been so evident in the referendum on 23 June?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I cannot be accountable for what happened in the past. We have been a very, very generous country in terms of letting people come here for the purposes of work. There was a very clear message sent last year about controlling the numbers of people who come into this country from both EU and non-EU countries. That is what we intend to do and we will keep Parliament fully involved in the process.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
On 12 January the Government stated in response to an Oral Question:
“The directive sets out that in order for an EU citizen to reside in another member state beyond three months, they must be exercising a treaty right; that is, working, self-employed, self-sufficient or a student”.
After being asked three times why they did not implement this three-month rule for EU citizens still here without a job, but who were not students, the Government said,
“it is not a failure to implement … This country is more than generous in its implementation of that directive”.—[Official Report, 12/1/17; col. 2059-61.]
First, why do the Government maintain that it is only by leaving the EU that we can reduce EU migration, when they accept that they have not applied the EU directive’s three-month rule as firmly as they could have done, instead considering that they have been “more than generous” in their implementation of that directive? Secondly, how much lower would the net migration figure for EU nationals have been in each of the last five years, had they applied the directive as firmly as they believe they were entitled to do?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as the noble Lord said we have been a very generous country, and certainly when Labour was in power it decided not to exercise the opt-out the noble Lord asked about. In terms of what the figures would have been had we adopted a different process, we are where we are. The country has given a very, very clear message in the referendum and we intend to follow that through by making sure that net migration to this country is in the tens of thousands.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I shall endeavour to be helpful to the Minister: the previous questions have been about the past; I want to ask about the future. Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relates to the free movement of workers, not people generally. What thoughts have Her Majesty’s Government given to the excellent report by the House of Commons Brexit committee? It talks about the rights of UK and EU nationals in relation to the non-work related aspects of immigration policy, including students and family reunion, and EU spouses compared with non-EU spouses. I declare my interests as listed in the register.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am glad the noble Baroness is talking about the future and not the past, which probably neither of us, and certainly I, do not remember. The directive is about the movement of workers and their families. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear about protecting the rights of EU nationals living in this country. We talked a lot in Committee about the fairness of the process and, therefore, protecting the rights of UK nationals in return. The Government do not want to do this on a unilateral basis. We need to think about all the people involved, both UK nationals living in the EU and EU nationals living here.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has actually been very patient with the House during recent Questions in explaining to us the right of residence after five years of work for European citizens, and the right of citizenship after six years. If a European citizen becomes a citizen of the UK, does that mean he or she has the right to remain in this country?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am very grateful to the noble Lord; we talked about this at length the other day. When we talk about the right of residence and comprehensive sickness insurance, that is an EU law, not a UK law, which we implement after five years, abiding by treaty obligations. The noble Lord is absolutely right: an EU national living in this country has permanent residence, and they do not have to prove that permanent residence. He made another valid point, which is distinguishing that from applying for British citizenship. In that application process, which is based on UK law, that person has to prove residence and not be breaking any immigration rules. After six years, they will then be granted UK citizenship, and the noble Lord is absolutely right: they have the right to remain here.
Rural Areas: Income
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what process they use to assess the impact of government policy on people on low incomes living in rural areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this Government are committed to working for everyone in all parts of the country. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for his review of rural proofing. Through rural proofing, we will understand and better reflect in our policies the needs of rural communities, including those on low incomes. The Government are currently revising their guidance on rural proofing, and it will be published shortly on GOV.UK.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome rural proofing and the work that the Minister is doing on it, but why do so many government departments fail to recognise the huge barrier of transport costs faced by families on low incomes in rural areas when they need to access public services? Whether it is young people needing to get to further education colleges or older people needing to access increasingly centralised health and social services, they are so often cut off and excluded by the costs of transport. Surely we cannot allow ourselves to stumble into a situation where you have to be well off to live in the countryside.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is very important that we enhance accessibility. Sparsity and the topography of the countryside mean that there are great challenges. That is why I am particularly pleased that the community minibus fund was launched. It will enable about 300 local charities and community groups across England to receive a new minibus, which will be helpful. Clearly, there is more that we want to do. On the whole issue of transport and accessibility it is important, for instance, that under the post office transformation all post office branches will have banking facilities. There are ways in which we can assist rural communities across the piece.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, as it is National Apprenticeship Week, what are the Government doing to encourage apprenticeships in rural areas?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the Government are committed to reaching 3 million apprenticeship starts in England by 2020. That includes trebling the number of apprenticeships in food and farming from 6,000 to 18,000. National parks authorities, for instance, are seeking to double the number of apprenticeships. It is important that we not only encourage apprenticeships this week but work with employers of all sizes. A new apprenticeship levy is coming into force in April this year for larger businesses. This is an enormous opportunity. Raising the skills of young people in the countryside and across the nation is a force for good.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, the Commission for Rural Communities was established in 2005 by the last Labour Administration, to promote awareness of rural needs among decision-makers across government. It produced some key reports on rural life, highlighting that those living in poverty in rural areas, often in geographical isolation, can be harder to identify and help. But the coalition Government scrapped the CRC in 2013. With the issues of agriculture, trade and food policy on Brexit, what structures are in place to ensure that the interests of rural communities are heard and acted on during the negotiations?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I will make sure that the noble Lord receives a copy of the new, revised rural-proofing guidance. I have been working with my honourable friend Ben Gummer, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on this. It is important that all departments across Whitehall understand the issues of rural communities. As Minister for Rural Affairs, I am on a number of ministerial task forces—connectivity and housing, to mention two—precisely to ensure that the rural voice is heard.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, given what the Minister has just said, is he concerned by the fact that in many rural and underprivileged areas libraries and leisure centres are under threat? These are the very places that offer a glimmer of light to people who lead rather dark lives in terms of entertainment and education.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this rather takes me back to my DCMS days. One thing that very much strikes me is how vibrant so many rural communities are. Certainly in my part of Suffolk, the amount of cultural activities going on—in dance, theatre and music—is incredible. We all want to improve that and have greater accessibility to those things, but the noble Lord may be painting a rather too pessimistic picture.
Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)
My Lords, making work pay is a very seductive slogan, but is the Minister not aware that many of the families who are worst off in our country have someone working in the gig economy? What steps can the Government take to ensure that people are paid properly and earn at least a living wage?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, there is a national living wage and it is an obligation. I am very pleased that it is to rise to £7.50 per hour in April. That is precisely why we want to ensure that, with the increase in tax allowance and more coming through, people at the lower end of the income range are those who we are helping.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, rural proofing does not seem to have reached local government, where many local services have withdrawn from villages into urban centres as a consequence of the deep cuts to local government funding. What advice would the Minister provide to the Secretary of State or his fellow Minister the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, about funding for district and county councils to enable rural proofing?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as I say, the rural-proofing guidance is to go across Whitehall and the DCLG is of course a very important government department in that respect. There are clearly considerable sums of money still going to local authorities and it is for them to decide on the division of the budget. But this predicates something rather more important: we have to have a growing economy to afford all the things we want to do. That is why this country has the fastest-growing economy in the G7, which is important because it is only when we grow our economy that we will have the resources to do many of the things which I am sure your Lordships wish to have done.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister care to correct his assertion about the national living wage and the national minimum wage? Secondly, can he assure me that when the Government put in new free schools in areas where there is no need in terms of numbers, they will consider the needs of the rural economy? I declare my interest as a former chair of Lancashire education authority. Because of the history of Lancashire, we have the largest number of voluntary-aided schools. People have wanted diversity locally for Anglican and Catholic schools, in the main, across the county. Can be we assured that the Government will not come in from Whitehall with little knowledge and step over the needs of the local community? Some of those schools need money and investment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is precisely why I suspect we are going to hear about more investment: we want to enhance the opportunity for children across the country. We have some schools that are simply not up to the standard that we want. That is why we will need to invest more and why I am a champion of rural schools—precisely because we want to ensure that there are opportunities in rural areas, as across the rest of the country. As for the living wage, I will check Hansard. The national living wage will certainly rise to £7.50 per hour in April but I will see whether I have made a mistake.
Operation Conifer
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent statement by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police, whether they will institute a judicial inquiry into that force’s Operation Conifer, with unrestricted access to all relevant information.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the police are operationally independent of government. The investigation of allegations of sexual abuse and how the police conduct those investigations, including whether to commission any form of internal inquiry, are operational matters for the relevant chief officer. It is for the police and crime commissioner to hold their force to account.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, having served in the Home Office for four years, I understand about the operational independence of the police, but this matter has gone beyond operational affairs; it has become a matter of confidence in the police and the police service. The chief constable of Wiltshire has gone beyond the police duties of investigating allegations and following up evidence and has pronounced a verdict of guilty on the late Sir Edward Heath in respect of allegations of child abuse even before his inquiry is complete. The officer in charge of the inquiry, having made a stupid mistake at the beginning, has now been obliged to be withdrawn because of ill health—I think he is having a nervous breakdown. The inquiry is being pursued in a way which looks to many people more like a fishing expedition than a serious pursuit of allegations and evidence. Is it not high time that this operation was reviewed independently either by a retired judge, as in the case of Operation Midland, or by a retired chief constable of recognised efficiency and integrity?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, first, without talking about any individual investigation, I express my profound sympathy with the families and friends of people who have been wrongfully named in the press or who, after they have died, have had defamatory statements made about them. In any investigation, it is a matter for the police. On investigations of complaints against a chief officer, I know, because I took through the Bill that became the Policing and Crime Act, that we have strengthened the independence of the police complaints system and the accountability of chief officers. Any allegations of misconduct against a chief officer should be investigated by the IPCC.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I declare my interest as chair of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation. I join my predecessor in that position in asking the Minister to whom is this chief constable accountable? If it is not the police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon, surely it is not the secret and unnamed group of people whom he has decided to appoint. There are increasing concerns about the conduct of this inquiry, and we need to know to whom this chief constable is accountable.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for that question. He will know that it is not appropriate for me to comment on individual operational matters, which are a matter for the relevant chief officer. As I have said, chief officers are held to account in respect of operational matters by their police and crime commissioner. In line with recognised best practice, Wiltshire Police also recently commissioned Operation Hydrant to undertake an independent review of the investigation to ensure its ongoing proportionality and justification. My noble friend talked about the secret and unnamed group. It is recognised as best practice and that is what Wiltshire Police has done. It has engaged a panel of independent experts outside policing who are providing ongoing scrutiny of the investigation to ensure its proportionality and justification. The membership includes individuals from the legal profession and academics.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The newspaper quotations last month came from an anonymous source claiming to know the views of the chief constable for Wiltshire. This raises the issue of the relationship between the police and the national press and makes the case for Leveson part 2 even stronger. Coming to the role of the police and crime commissioner to which the Minster has referred, the second issue relates to the call for a government-instituted judicial inquiry into Operation Conifer, the investigation by Wiltshire police. Will the Government confirm that the Wiltshire police and crime commissioner has the power to commission such a judicial inquiry into an operation by his own force? Thirdly, will the Government confirm that if any hard evidence actually emerged that the chief constable had made the comments claimed by the anonymous newspaper source, the Wiltshire police and crime commissioner could, under his powers, suspend or dismiss the chief constable? In other words, is the ball not very much in the elected Wiltshire police and crime commissioner’s court?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord raises a very good point about the role of the police and crime commissioner in this situation. Without talking about the specific case about which the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, has asked, it is for the police and crime commissioner to make the decision to appoint, to suspend or to remove a chief constable. In making the decision to compel a chief constable to resign or to retire, a PCC is bound by certain requirements including acting reasonably, acting fairly and consulting the chief constable and the local police and crime panel. A PCC may compel a chief constable to resign or to retire under Section 38(3) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, before we resume the Bill’s Report stage, for the convenience of the House I shall say a brief word about the arrangements for its Third Reading, which we expect to take place this evening. At the conclusion of Report, we will move to the Question for Short Debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. At that point, the Legislation Office will work on making the Bill available for noble Lords who may wish to table amendments at Third Reading. The timescale for this will depend on whether the Bill needs to be reprinted. When the Bill is ready for amendments to be tabled, a notice will put on the annunciator to say so as well as to give a reasonable deadline for noble Lords to table any amendments. We will adjourn during pleasure at the conclusion of the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, with the time for the House to resume for the Third Reading advertised on the annunciator. I am grateful to the House authorities, in particular those in the Legislation Office, for their hard work to support the House on this Bill.
Lastly, I remind the House that when we resume in a moment, the normal rules on Report will apply. The relevant parts of the Companion were printed in today’s list, which was published this morning.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 7th 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 108-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 67KB) - (3 Mar 2017)
18:16 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 366 / Noes: 268 - Amendment 3 agreed.
Lord Pannick
“Parliamentary approval for the outcome of negotiations with the European Union
(1) The Prime Minister may not conclude an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, on the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.(2) Such approval shall be required before the European Parliament debates and votes on that agreement.(3) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to an agreement on the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union.(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.”
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 3 is in my name and the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. The purpose and effect of Amendment 3 is very simple. It would ensure that at the end of the negotiating process, the approval of Parliament would be required for the terms of our withdrawal from the EU. The Prime Minister has accepted that principle: she has undertaken that any agreement with the European Union on the terms of our withdrawal, and any agreement on our future relationship with the EU, will be put to both Houses of Parliament for their approval. She has also promised that this will occur before the withdrawal agreement is sent to the European Parliament for its consent. That must be right: this Parliament must have at least the same opportunity as the European Parliament to disagree with the terms of any draft agreement. The Prime Minister has given an undertaking but the Government are refusing to include the commitment in the Bill. Given the importance of the decision to leave the EU and the importance of the terms on which we are to do that, the role of Parliament must surely be written into the Bill—no ifs and no buts.
The amendment has been revised since the very helpful debate in Committee last Wednesday evening. As suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, during that debate, proposed new subsections (1), (2) and (3) in the amendment set out the undertaking given to the House of Commons by the Minister, Mr David Jones, on 7 February at col. 264. The only alteration to what Mr Jones said is that the amendment does not commit the Government to proceeding by way of a Motion in both Houses. The amendment allows the Government to decide what would be the best means of seeking and obtaining approval from both Houses. That is because of the point made in Committee last Wednesday night by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, with his enormous knowledge and experience of parliamentary procedure.
Proposed new subsection (4), which has also been revised since the debate last Wednesday, requires the “approval of both Houses” if the Prime Minister decides that,
“the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement”,
as to the terms. Parliament must also have a role in those circumstances. It must be for Parliament to decide whether to prefer no deal or the deal offered by the EU.
I will also address a point that has been raised with me by some noble Lords, about what happens if the two Houses disagree when the agreement, or lack of agreement, is put to Parliament. It is of course the Prime Minister who has decided that the terms of our withdrawal are so important that the approval of both Houses of Parliament should be required. The White Paper says, at paragraph 1.12:
“The Government will … put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament”.
The Minister, Mr David Jones, stated in the House of Commons in Committee 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.]
In any event, if this House were to agree this amendment today, it is open to the Government, if they are concerned about this issue, to seek to amend this proposed new clause in the Commons next week to address what happens if the two Houses were to disagree.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
This is a very important point, and I am glad that the noble Lord is addressing it in such detail, but we cannot make our judgments on the basis of what the Government have said they might do. The judgment today must be on the basis of what is in this proposed new clause. I therefore ask the noble Lord, from his perspective, given that the proposed new clause repeatedly says,
“the approval of both Houses of Parliament”,
what, in his judgment, would the solution be if one House said yes and the other said no?
Lord Pannick
As I have said, this is the Prime Minister’s undertaking, but since the noble Lord has asked me—I do not have to tell him this, given his enormous experience—if the House of Commons were to give its approval, this House would, in my judgment, rightly be told that it should be very slow indeed to take a different view from the elected House. If we were to disagree with the Commons, I understand that it would be open to the Government immediately to take the matter back to the Commons for a further confirmatory resolution, which, if agreed, would lead to a further approval Motion in this House. I expect, at that stage, it would be exceptionally unlikely that this House would stand its ground. I repeat, however, that if the Government were dissatisfied with that, which is the consequence of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, it is open to the Government to bring forward an amendment in the other place. Indeed, it was open to the Government in this House to bring forward an amendment to this amendment to deal with the matter.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He says that it is “exceptionally unlikely” that this House would insist in those circumstances on having its way, but that falls some way short of dealing with the point raised by the noble Lord opposite. Does the noble Lord not agree that this proposed new clause, in effect, gives this House a statutory veto on the decision made by the Prime Minister with the support of the other place to implement the decision of the British people to leave the European Union?
Lord Pannick
The noble Lord will form his own judgment; I am putting to the House that this amendment implements the undertaking given by the Prime Minister. She has recognised—in my view rightly—that so important are these matters that it is necessary, and imperative, to obtain the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The constitutional realities, as I understand them, are that this House is exceptionally unlikely to stand its ground against the view of the elected House. However, noble Lords will form their own judgment.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord also agree that there is nothing in this proposed new clause that precludes the approval of both Houses being expressed in an Act of Parliament? If that is correct, the Parliament Act stands behind it.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the noble Viscount. As I have already said, this amendment is different from the amendment that we had in Committee because it does not state by what the means the Government must seek the approval of both Houses. The noble Viscount is absolutely right: it is open to the Government to proceed by way of emergency legislation.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is an exceedingly distinguished lawyer, as we all know. I recognise that, normally, the legal profession seeks precision. The noble Lord is laying before the House an amendment that is imprecise, and he has admitted that; it has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Howard. He uses the term, “extremely unlikely”. Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 has a clear device for breaking a disagreement. Why is the noble Lord, as a lawyer concerned with the precise, not putting before Parliament precise legislation that deals with the matter he recognises needs to be dealt with?
Lord Pannick
I repeat to the noble Lord: I have put in the amendment precisely the undertaking that the Prime Minister has given. If the Prime Minister takes the view that it is appropriate to address specifically in the amendment the means by which any division of view between the two Houses can be broken, it is entirely up to her, when the matter returns to the Commons—if it does—to amend this provision to specify, for example, Section 20. If I had put in the amendment a particular means of breaking a deadlock between the two Houses, I would have been told by the noble Lord and others that that was not the solution we welcome.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Can the noble Lord explain? He has repeatedly said that what he has put in his amendment and wants to put in the Bill is no different from what the Prime Minister indicated to the House of Commons. Surely the difference is that the Prime Minister’s undertaking was that there would be a vote in both Houses on the issue of a deal or falling back on WTO. Reading his amendment, his difference is between no deal and what? What happens? Can he explain?
Lord Pannick
What happens? Nobody knows what will happen: that is the whole point of the difficulty that we face in 21 months’ time. I do not know what will happen. The noble Lord does not know what will happen. I am saying to the House that it is essential that Parliament has an opportunity, guaranteed by legislation, to address the circumstances at the time.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I know that some people in the House do not want to see the flaws in this, but the answer to my question—no deal or what?—is that we end up rejecting the view that the British people voted for: that we should leave the European Union. That is the hidden agenda behind the amendment.
Lord Pannick
If by referring to a hidden agenda, the noble Lord is suggesting that I have some motivation, I assure him that my only motivation is to ensure that Parliament has a guaranteed opportunity at the end of the negotiating process to decide whether the terms of our withdrawal are acceptable or not. That is a basic question of parliamentary sovereignty.
The amendment will not delay notification of withdrawal from the EU. It does not commit the Government to adopt any specific approach in the negotiations. It does not impede them in the negotiations any more than the undertaking already given by the Prime Minister. Crucially, it will guarantee that the Government must come back to both Houses to seek approval for the result of the negotiations.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and wish him a happy birthday. Would I be right in thinking that the difference between what he is advocating and what some other noble Lords are advocating is the difference between parliamentary authority and the royal prerogative? Is he not doing exactly what the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom said in Gina Miller’s case, which he won?
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I was worried for a moment that he was going to sing at me, but I entirely agree with his point. We are considering the Bill because, and only because, as he reminds the House, the Supreme Court ruled as a matter of law that parliamentary sovereignty is required at this stage of notification of withdrawal. I say, not as a matter of law—because I am not arguing a legal case—but as a matter of constitutional principle, that parliamentary sovereignty is as important at the end of the negotiating process. I beg to move.
Lord Heseltine (Con)
My Lords, many of your Lordships have made the point that we are not here to refight the referendum campaign; there is a clear mandate to trigger Article 50. My own personal position has been clearly established since I first joined the Conservative Party in 1951. I believe, and always have, that Britain’s national self-interest is inextricably interwoven with those of our European partners. I deeply regret the outcome of the referendum.
That said, within three days of that outcome, I publicly made three points. First, I urged the Government to get on with the disengagement process, not only because they had a clear mandate to do so but because I thought that delay would only add uncertainty to the damage that the result itself had produced. Secondly, I urged the Government to appoint Brexiteers to the three Cabinet positions that would front the negotiations. It was clear to me then that failure to do so would open the door to the allegation that if only “the right people” had been put in positions to lead the charge, a much better deal would have been done. I also took the view, perhaps naively, that as campaigners for Brexit, it was not unreasonable to assume that they might have answers to the numerous questions that we faced. Your Lordships will be aware that both of these events have now taken place and I am very pleased to say how fully I support the Prime Minister in what she has done.
That leaves only my third point—the most controversial of the three. I said then that the fightback starts here. Like so many of your Lordships, I enjoyed the privilege of many years in another place—in my case, 35 years. I learned the limitations of government in a parliamentary democracy and I learned the role of opposition in such circumstances. Time and again I have been involved, along with many of your Lordships on these Benches, in opposing by every constitutional means in our power the mandate of the elected Government. Not only did we oppose their mandate from the very first day that Parliament met, we began the long process of repealing the Acts of which we disapproved.
In the end, it came down to a belief in the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament. I must make it clear that, in accepting the mandate to negotiate our withdrawal from the European Union, I do not accept that the mandate runs for all time and in all circumstances—48% of our people rejected that concept last year. They have the same right to be heard, as I hope so many of us recognised in those long years of opposition in another place.
We now face a protracted period of negotiation. No one has the first idea what will emerge. No one can even tell us what Governments in Europe will be there to conclude whatever deal emerges. No one can say with certainty how British public opinion will react to totally unpredictable events. To give just one example, I am told that it took 240 regulations to introduce the single market in the late 1980s. I remember the resentment that caused, particularly to small and medium-sized companies. I understand that it may take 1,600 regulations to unravel more than 40 years of closer union—and no one can say how the vital small and medium-sized sector of our economy will react to the circumstances that it will then face.
Everyone in this House knows that we now face the most momentous peacetime decision of our time. This amendment, as the noble Lord so clearly set out, secures in law the Government’s commitment, already made to another place, to ensure that Parliament is the ultimate custodian of our national sovereignty. It ensures that Parliament has the critical role in determining the future that we will bequeath to generations of young people. I urge your Lordships to support the amendment.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I will not take up too much of the House’s time, not least because I think the issue at stake is really rather simple. On 17 January this year, the Prime Minister confirmed in her Lancaster House speech the Government’s intention to,
“put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, on 7 February the Minister of State for Exiting the European Union stated that,
“the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 264.]
This amendment merely gives legislative effect to the Government’s pledge. In doing so it will assist the Prime Minister in upholding her intention, should she or any successor be tempted to resile from it. The amendment will also provide clarity that the Government will require the prior approval of Parliament should the Prime Minister decide to leave the European Union without any agreement at all.
In Committee, some noble Lords on the Benches opposite questioned the need for legal underpinning of the commitment given by the Government to a meaningful vote. The reason is simple. We do not trust the Government on this matter—not because we do not trust the integrity of individual members of the Government but because, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out in Committee, we are only discussing this at all because the Government were forced by the courts and the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to come to Parliament and hear its voice on the matter.
If we want to ensure that our sovereign Parliament, so often championed by the leave campaigners, has a clear and decisive role in scrutinising the final outcome of this process, it must assert its rights in legislation. If the Government are genuine in the commitment they have given on these matters, they should have no problem accepting the amendment. If they are not willing to do so, it will call into question the sincerity of their commitment and only strengthen the argument to pass this amendment into law.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, reminded us last week:
“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 … changes in circumstances”.—[Official Report, 1/3/17; col. 921.]
I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Viscount. That is why I support the amendment. I hope that your Lordships’ House will do so, too.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s latter point, it is perhaps worth recalling to the House what the Minister, Mr David Jones, said in the other place:
“The Government have repeatedly committed from the Dispatch Box to a vote in both Houses on the final deal before it comes into force. That, I repeat and confirm, will cover not only the withdrawal agreement but the future arrangement that we propose with the European Union. I confirm again that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement … to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded, and we expect and intend that that will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 269.]
In the course of the debate, the Minister repeated those sentences three times, and the shadow Secretary of State, Keir Starmer, to whom I paid tribute in the Second Reading debate, said:
“Minister, I am very grateful for that intervention. That is a huge and very important concession about the process that we are to embark on. The argument I have made about a vote over the last three months is that the vote must cover both the article 50 deal and any future relationship—I know that, for my colleagues, that is very important”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; cols 264-65.]
Both Houses will get a vote on the final draft deal, and we do not need any of these amendments. It is a complete distortion to suggest that the amendments before us today—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I shall give way to the noble Lord if he sits down and lets me finish my sentence.
It is a complete distortion to suggest that the Government are likely to renege on those promises or that the amendments that we are discussing today put on to the statute book exactly what was said by the Prime Minister and the Minister in the House of Commons. They do something completely different.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but having read out three times what the Minister said in the House of Commons he has revealed that the Minister failed to answer the question that he and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and others put to my noble friend on what happens if there is a disagreement between the two Houses. Perhaps he could address that, and perhaps he could also put that question to the right person to put it to, which is not my noble friend but the Minister who is going to reply to the debate and who will have ample opportunity to reply to it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I know that the noble Lord is very experienced. If he does not know the difference between a resolution in the House of Commons and putting in statute a power of veto for the House of Lords, I am very surprised to hear him making that point.
The point about the amendment that we are discussing, Amendment 3, is that it is a wrecking amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am not going to give way; I am going to make some progress.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
How can it be a veto since we cannot in fact impose our will on the House of Commons?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble and learned Baroness is very experienced, and she should know that this House is able to impose its will on the House of Commons. By convention, we do not do so, and, if we sought to do so, we would be in very deep water. This amendment is taking us into deep water.
I return to the issue under discussion, which is the amendment. Proposed new subsection (1) says:
“The Prime Minister may not conclude an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) … on the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal … without the approval of both Houses of Parliament”.
So we get to the final hour, at midnight, when the deal is being done, and the Prime Minister says, “Hang on a second, I cannot agree a deal—I’ve got to go and consult the House of Commons”. It is a ridiculous proposal—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
It is not the Prime Minister’s proposal. It is a ridiculous proposal to say that the Prime Minister may not conclude an agreement until this has been sorted.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
No, I am not going to give way to my noble friend.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I promise to give way to him once I have actually made my points about the amendment.
It is a first rule of negotiation that you never negotiate with someone who does not have authority to conclude the deal. The effect of these proposals is to put Ministers in a position where their authority is in doubt and where, in effect, this House and the House of Commons are parties to the negotiation, which has to be conducted between Ministers and people from the EU.
Lord Heseltine
I wonder whether the noble Lord realises that the Ministers or European officials with whom this will be negotiated have all got to go back to every European parliament and the European Parliament before they can conclude a deal.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do realise that. I have the utmost respect for my noble friend, who helped to get me elected in 1983, which may not be one of the most important things on his escutcheon. He has served the party with great distinction. But I have to say to him that it is not the moment for this House to grab the mace and challenge the authority of the House of Commons.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause states that:
“Such approval shall be required before the European Parliament debates and votes on that agreement”.
How are Ministers supposed to deliver that? They are not in control of the timetable for when the European Parliament debates these matters. It is an impossible condition for them to meet.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I beg the noble Lord’s pardon and am grateful to him for giving way. The phrase,
“this will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 264],
is set out in Hansard in the undertaking given by David Jones on 7 February. The more the noble Lord makes his points, the more important it is, it seems to me, to pass this amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If the noble and learned Lord accepts my point then the more important it is not to seek to put it in statute. He did not actually deal with my point. How on earth are Ministers able to ensure that,
“approval shall be required before the European Parliament debates”,
when they are not in charge of the timetable for those debates? I would happily give way to him if he would like to answer that point. He is arguing that this should be put in statute and he should be able to explain how it could be achieved.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I would love to continue this discussion until we reach an end of it, but all I am doing is referring to the words of the Minister himself. It is for him to work out how this undertaking, which he gave to Parliament and which fits exactly with the wording of the White Paper, should be conducted. It is very important that we make this matter clear. The best way of dealing with it is to use the Minister’s words in proposed subsections (1) to (3)—as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has done—and pass the amendment. The House of Commons can look at it again if it wishes.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble and learned Lord is normally very careful and precise. At the beginning of my speech I read out the words that David Jones used in the other House. He said: “We expect and intend” that that will happen before the European Parliament debates. This says that such approval “shall be required” before the European Parliament debates. There is a big difference between “expect and intend” and “shall be required”.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Does the noble Lord agree that the vote in the European Parliament will be about whether the deal that is negotiated will be acceptable, not about whether the UK actually leaves the EU or not?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend is absolutely right on that point. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause states that:
“The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall … be required in relation to an agreement on the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union”.
I put that point to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in my intervention. This effectively gives this House, and the House of Commons, a veto on Brexit. It gives it the ability to prevent us from leaving the European Union, despite the fact that we have had the biggest vote in our history from people requiring that. It would be immensely destructive to the reputation of Parliament and of this House.
Subsection (4) states that:
“The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms”.
That means that Ministers are unable to walk away. This was the mistake that David Cameron made. If he had walked away he might have been able to get a proper deal—who knows? He did not walk away and they knew he was not going to. That is why he got such a useless deal. This ensures that Ministers cannot walk away. For the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to suggest that the amendment is simply implementing the Prime Minister’s promise is a complete misrepresentation.
Lord Pannick
I am sorry; I did not say that. I made it very clear to the House that proposed subsections (1) to (3) implement the undertaking. That is not the case in relation to subsection (4). I take the view—noble Lords will form their own judgment—that it is absolutely vital for this House and the other place to have a say on whether we should leave with no deal or the one that is being offered. I made that very clear.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I have to say to the noble Lord that we know what he is up to, and we know what is going on.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I appreciate that I am in a minority in this House, and not just because I am a Scottish Tory. I am in a minority because I support the views of the majority of people in this country. This House is absolutely full of people who still have not come to terms with the results of the referendum. This is a clever lawyer’s confection in order to reverse that result. That is what we are debating. That is what it is about.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I have already given way to the noble Lord. He can make his own speech.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Well, all right. I will give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry that I am causing him such frustration this afternoon.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Normally in this House we do not speak from a sedentary position.
Lord Naseby
My sedentary comment was that the noble Lord is annoying the House, not just an individual Member.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having arrogated to himself the decision as to what the hundreds of people around this place believe.
The point I was going to raise, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to address, is this. Of course the Prime Minister of this country has the ability to ensure that we leave the European Union without an agreement, because of the two-year time limit in Article 50, which the noble Lord has not addressed. That time limit is absolute. It will be triggered within the next few days and, sometime in 2019, it will reach its conclusion. It takes two to negotiate. Since the Prime Minister will be one of them—and the 27 and the institutions of the European Union will be the other—she has the ability to ensure that we leave without an agreement. That is the eventuality that is being dealt with in this amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord makes my point for me. If, after two years, we have no agreement, then we will have left the European Union. I need to conclude my remarks.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
This place is beginning to be like the House of Commons.
What is going on here is like Gulliver. These amendments are trying to tie down the Prime Minister—by her hair, her arms and her legs—in every conceivable way in order to prevent her from getting an agreement and us from leaving the European Union. The House should reject this amendment for what it is—which is an unelected Chamber trying to frustrate the will of the democratically elected Government and of the people, which has been expressed in a huge vote in a referendum.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, one of the main reasons why we are where we are now is that the Prime Minister and the Government wanted to go ahead and use the prerogative, and it is only because of the ruling in the Supreme Court that we are debating this here.
In this amendment, we are asking to have something put in statute to protect against uncertainty in the future. We have heard so far in the discussion that questioning why voters voted—remain or leave—would be an insult to them. However, this was not a general election. In a general election, you have the party’s manifesto—or an “Ed’s stone” and its commandments. If the people do not like the Government and say that they have not lived up to their manifesto, or have not delivered, in five years’ time they can throw them out. The difference here is that this decision is permanent. The last referendum was in 1975—over four decades ago. Then, there was a majority of 67%. A supermajority was achieved. The decision was decisive. There was certainty. This time, we were told that it was a binary decision—remain or leave—but the outcomes are anything but binary. One of the outcomes is a hard Brexit.
The main issue here is that people are allowed to change their minds. Whether it is the Prime Minister, her Ministers, Members of the other place or Members of this House who want to change their minds, it is their right to do so. In fact, Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, said that changing your mind was a sign of intelligence. As Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind”. As the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said, many facts and many outcomes of this negotiation are completely uncertain. The Dutch elections, the French elections and the German elections are coming up. The eurozone might collapse. Europe might even reform its immigration rules, which we would like. Therefore, it is only right that Parliament has a full say on the road ahead. This amendment would protect us from the potential outcomes.
I concluded my Second Reading speech by quoting Professor Deepak Malhotra of the Harvard Business School, a world expert in negotiation. He told me to make sure that I read a book called The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman about the beginning of the First World War. He said that reading that book was like watching a train crash in slow motion. That is what we are seeing right now with Brexit. I conclude that we need to support this amendment more than anything in order to protect the future.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
I wonder whether in 1975 the noble Lord knew about the Maastricht treaty?
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, in 1975 I was barely a teenager.
I conclude by saying that the main reason why we need to support this amendment is for the sake of future generations and to protect them. I am sure that noble Lords have received several tweets, emails and letters from individuals. Just this morning I received an email that said, “Please support parliamentary democracy and our young people’s future”. One of our doorkeepers reminded me of an ancient Gaelic saying: “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children”.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, seemed to suggest that we should support this amendment because Article 50 was not unilaterally irrevocable and that we would have to leave the EU. The argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, just now was that we should support the amendment because it is unilaterally irrevocable. Which is it?
Lord Bilimoria
Whether it is irrevocable has not been tested legally. The expert on this is the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who wrote Article 50 and who claims that it is revocable. However, this amendment would cover all potential outcomes, and that we should have.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly to Amendment 4, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. It is similar in intent to the amendment moved very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but it is shorter. I have sought merely to put in the Bill the remarks of Mr Jones and other Ministers: namely, that Parliament will have an absolute legal right, and that it will exercise its right before the European Parliament has exercised its. I say in parenthesis that we have to remember that whatever is agreed will go round every parliament, and indeed around some regional parliaments among the 27 nations, and it will go to the European Parliament, of course.
We have a system of parliamentary democracy in which I take enormous pride. I shall always be glad that I spent 40 years at the other end of the Corridor, not one of them in government but always trying to play a part in holding government to account. That is the supreme task of Parliament, in both this House and the other place. Of course, as I have repeatedly made plain in my interventions in the debates on this Bill and on many others, the ultimate power, authority and supremacy is with the other place. We neglect that fact—and it is a fact—at our peril. Nevertheless, we have not only a right but, I believe, a duty to ask the other place to reconsider if we think that it has not got it right. While I had no hesitation this morning in voting against the referendum amendment, I equally have no hesitation in speaking to this one, because all we are saying in this amendment and in the amendment moved so well by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and supported by my noble friend Lord Heseltine and others is that Parliament’s right and duty must be in the Bill.
It is not a question of the integrity of those who have made statements. Of course I accept that without question. But there is a difference between a statement expressing intent and a legal obligation. That is what we seek to insert in the Bill—a legal obligation that should be recognised. I very much hope that even at this late stage my noble friend the Minister will feel able at least to acknowledge that there is some validity in what we seek—and I very much hope that in the other place they will reconsider.
That would not delay the passage of the Bill by more than a day. We could get it through this House in all its remaining stages next week. It would in no sense alter the intent or purpose of the Bill, because it would give the Prime Minister what she has asked for. I sincerely hope that she will be in rude and vigorous health for many years to come and will still be in office long after the sad day when we have vacated the European Union. Nevertheless, we cannot guarantee that that will be the case, and one Prime Minister cannot necessarily bind her successor. Look at the changes that took place in June and July last year. How were the mighty fallen.
Unless my noble friend can give us the assurances that we seek, when we come to vote I urge your Lordships that we vote to put Parliament in its rightful place: the House of Commons first, but the House of Lords, this noble House, in its proper position, able to say, “Please reconsider”, and, “We genuinely do not think you’ve got this right”—
Lord Cormack
I am just about to finish.
The House of Lords should be able to say, “We do not think you’ve got this right”. Of course, if the other place takes a different line we recognise the limitations on our power. But let us send a message to the other place tonight.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I hope you will permit me to think aloud; these are not yet crystallised thoughts. I heard the exchanges between the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Hannay and Lord Forsyth, and I still want to work out some of the complications. For me, Amendment 3 provides for the intrusion of Parliament into the negotiation processes—which I do not think should happen—in such a way that it could prevent any deal ever being reached, because we would be involving ourselves in the processes.
There is a question that has not been fully answered. The amendment mentions the approval of Parliament three times. It says,
“without the approval of both Houses of Parliament”,
once, and:
“The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required”,
twice. The question that has to be answered is: what happens when this House does not agree with the other House? The amendment says that both must agree, but if we did not agree with the other place, that would give the unelected House almost a veto on the procedure for reaching an agreement with the EU, which in turn would thwart the decision made by the electorate in the 2016 referendum. So that question has to be answered.
I think that the commitment made by the Prime Minister in January 2017 as to the role of Parliament goes above and beyond what is in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I invite your Lordships to look at that Act, because I think she said more than it allows. I suggest that it is not in Parliament’s gift to make this a condition, as the European Union might well refuse to negotiate, or it might agree not to extend the negotiations. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said yesterday that,
“we should not commit to any process that would incentivise the EU to offer us a bad deal”,
and that any deal that could be rejected by MPs would,
“give strength to other parties in the negotiation. We believe it should be a simple bill in relation to triggering article 50 and nothing else.”
For me, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was trying to say the same thing, triggering Article 50 is an irreversible act. Two years after triggering Article 50 the UK will leave the EU. It will do so with or without a deal, but either way it will leave. Article 50, paragraph (3) makes it clear that the treaties will cease to apply two years after notification has been made. It is possible that the 27 EU members might unanimously agree to extend the negotiating period beyond the two years, but this cannot be taken for granted, nor should it be assumed that anything but a brief extension would be offered. This amendment shows no awareness as to the realities presented by the Article 50 timeframe. It may sound like rubbish, but an answer has to be given to the questions raised by paragraph (3). The amendment also overlooks the fact that the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill is about the triggering of Article 50 and the formal divorce settlement. Neither the Bill nor Article 50 is about negotiating a new agreement with the EU.
Faith seeking understanding: fides quaerens intellectum. Could somebody explain? If I cannot get a clear answer to the questions I have posed, I may find myself voting no. But if I am helped to understand then I may vote yes.
Lord Turner of Ecchinswell (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I arrived this morning for the debate on Amendment 1 not sure which way I would vote, but very clear that I was going to be a strong supporter of this amendment. Also like the noble Lord, I thought there was a link between the two. However, my resolution is somewhat different, in that I did not vote for this morning’s amendment but I still strongly support this one.
One of the difficulties with these debates as to how we should think about the finality of the vote on 23 June last year is that I find myself disagreeing with arguments on either side. On the side of those who, like me, voted remain, it is often suggested that there was something about the vote that was less legitimate than other votes—perhaps because 16 to 18 year-olds did not have the vote or because the leave side lied. But I do not consider those to be reasonable arguments. You may or may not be in favour of 16 to 18 year-olds having the vote, but in our present system voting starts at 18 and that does not change the legitimacy of a general election or referendum result. As for the argument that the leave side exaggerated or, perhaps with the NHS claim, lied, I think there were some exaggerations on the other side as well. In every general election that I can remember, there have been exaggerations on either side, some of which have verged on the mendacious. But they have not invalidated the result of the general election. Democracy is scrappy and imperfect but it is the best system we have. So I accept the result of what happened last year as no more and no less legitimate than any general election. However, that means that as well as being no less legitimate, it is also no more.
It is the case that, on the day after a general election —the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has said this already—Members of the opposition party, be they Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, devote themselves to arguing against what was just agreed by the majority of the population. They put down amendments in the Commons or the Lords, try to delay things in the Lords and work, day after day, to win the next general election. In some cases, they work very hard to bring it forward if they possibly can—there is a very fine play here in London now which records that happening in the Commons in the days of several people currently in this House.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
I wonder whether the noble Lord has picked up his notes for the wrong speech. He seems to be talking about a second referendum.
Lord Turner of Ecchinswell
I am going to come very shortly and briefly to why I think these arguments mean that we should have a parliamentary debate. I do not think it would be appropriate to commit now to a future referendum, because I do not think we can know now what the meaning of a no vote in a future referendum would be. Would it be a vote against a result that was too soft or too hard?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
I am sorry; I know that the noble Lord wanted to speak to Amendment 1 and perhaps it is a bit frustrating that he is actually now dealing with Amendment 3, but it is important that he addresses his remarks to Amendment 3, not to Amendment 1, which is a matter this House has already decided.
Lord Turner of Ecchinswell
The very argument as to why we should not commit to a future referendum, the uncertainty of the situation we will then face, is, however, the argument why it is appropriate for us to come back for a detailed debate in both Houses of Parliament at that time to deal with the uncertain circumstances that will then exist. Like others around this House I would in some ways prefer that this referendum more clearly identified the relative powers of the Commons and the Lords in that process. I would have preferred the earlier version of the amendment, which proposed that a legislative process should be brought forward at that time. The most important principle is that we should not treat 23 June as providing answers for ever or the answers to everything. It is therefore absolutely appropriate for us to assert that there should be a process of parliamentary sovereignty, where the details of what is proposed are brought back to both Houses of Parliament for detailed debate at that time.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend Lord Hailsham is a signatory to this amendment and it is right that the House hear from him. Perhaps we can then hear from the Labour Benches, and then from one of my noble friends on the Conservative Benches.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, those who have put their names to the proposed new clause are not seeking to stand in the way of the Bill. Our sole purpose is to ensure that the outcome—agreed terms or no agreed terms—is subject to the unfettered discretion of Parliament. It is, in our view, Parliament and not the Executive which should be the final arbiter of our country’s future. Ironically, in this sense we stand with the campaigners for Brexit who wanted Parliament to recover control over policy and legislation. Incidentally, too, we stand in that long tradition of parliamentarians who have stood for the primacy of Parliament against ministerial fiat. In the old days, that was a contest fought on the battlefields; happily, more recently it has been fought in public debate. Of course, most recently of all it was fought in the law courts. This is a conflict that never ceases. Let us not forget that, had it not been for the judiciary, we would not be debating this Bill—oh no. It was the Government’s intention to trigger Article 50 under prerogative powers; that is, under the residual powers of the Crown.
It is absolutely central that we should determine the proper interpretation to be given to the referendum of last June. I acknowledge at once—albeit I was a remainer—that the referendum was much more than merely the advisory expression of public opinion. However, I do deny that it gave authority to this Government to leave the European Union whatever the cost, whatever the terms and whatever the prejudice. That cannot be the case because when the public voted last June, they did not—could not—know the outcome. In any event, the Government’s commitment to subject the ultimate decision to a vote of Parliament undercuts that very proposition.
I believe that the proper interpretation of the referendum is this: it is an instruction to the Government to negotiate withdrawal on the best terms they can get. But that raises an absolutely fundamental question to which this proposed new clause is directed. When the negotiations have crystallised and there are agreed terms—or, perhaps, no agreed terms—who determines the way forward: is it the Executive or is it Parliament? That is the old question we have to resolve. In my view, any believer in a democratic state has to say that the authority lies with Parliament.
In very brief reference to a second referendum, it may be that Parliament, two years down the track, will decide that it is necessary. It may be justified in doing so; the circumstances may well change. Say, in two years’ time, there is a clear change in public sentiment. Say, too, that Parliament recognises that fact. Is Parliament not then under a duty to test public opinion? I quote the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who spoke earlier today. At Second Reading he said that only dictatorships,
“do not allow people to change their mind but in a democracy no decision is ever irreversible”.—[Official Report, 21/2/17; col. 243.]
I want to turn to the argument that has been advanced by my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford, who is indeed a very old friend of mine. I say at once that I acknowledge his experience and authority, which are recent. His view, which I am sure will be adopted by the Government, is that if you give Parliament the kinds of powers contemplated by the proposed new clause, you will undercut the negotiating position of the British Government. I do not agree with that view. I share the view expressed by the noble Lords, Lord O’Donnell and Lord Kerr, both citing their own very considerable experience, that the existence of the argument that Parliament will never wear this reinforces rather than undermines the position of the negotiators.
Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)
One of my noble friend’s most endearing characteristics is that he cannot walk past a wasps’ nest without wanting to poke it with a stick. He has just succeeded. There are two points that I would ask him to reflect on, which we have already touched on in this debate.
The first—which my noble friend and, I think, all noble Lords, with a few exceptions, would agree with—is that this is going to be an extremely complex negotiation. Anything that adds to that complexity is strongly to be avoided, in my opinion. I do not agree with those who say that this is going to be very simple and we can sort it all out in a matter of time. This is going to be complicated, so we should keep things as least complex as we can make them. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out this amendment, it added to my sense that complexity and uncertainty is contained in it.
Secondly, regarding the effect this might have on the negotiation, does my noble friend agree that the argument some people use—that having a Parliament or a board behind you in a negotiation enables you to have a stronger position—normally applies when the board or the Parliament is adopting a harder line than the person negotiating? I have to tell your Lordships that our friends in Europe do read our debates and our media. They are highly intelligent, sophisticated negotiators. They know where people sit. When my noble friend says that it would not weaken our position, can he not see that there are indeed instances where it would weaken our position because it would make Parliament a player in the negotiation and add complexity to what is already going to be very complex?
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, my noble friend has made a very serious point, which enables me to cut directly to the chase, to one of the points I was going to make. It is possible that my noble friend Lord Hill is right about this. There is sometimes a price to be paid for democracy. Indeed, that is the argument that underpins many of the assertions made by the Brexiteers. They argue that, yes, there may be a cost involved in withdrawal but it is more than compensated for by the recovery of democratic control. That argument also applies to the process of negotiation.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
In answer to that very question, I ask the noble Viscount to cast his mind back to 1991, when he and I were both in the other place. He was a member of the Government, as I recall. On that occasion the then Prime Minister, John Major, brought the Maastricht treaty to the House for its approval twice; first, in seeking a mandate for negotiation; and, secondly, afterwards in seeking the House’s approval for what had been negotiated. If that did not weaken his Government at the time, why should this weaken this one?
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said. Of course, it is also consistent with the principles that underpin Section 20 of the 2010 Act, because that requires all treaties to be ratified by Parliament.
If I might make a little progress, the Government have in the course of the Bill made a very large number of concessions. It would be churlish not to welcome that fact. Indeed, I rather hope for more. But I agree with the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is better by far that the assurances and concessions of Ministers be expressed in statutory language because, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has reminded the House, political circumstances may change. Ministers may move on; Governments may fall. Statutory language is always to be preferred to the comforting words of Ministers.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is the occasion for the Labour Benches. I remind the House that the Supreme Court gave us the benefit of its wisdom on constitutional matters in the case of Gina Miller, which we have heard about. In that case, the Supreme Court’s principal conclusion was that primary legislation is required to authorise the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. I make it clear that this Bill is a notification Bill; it is not an authorisation Bill. It does not authorise withdrawal from the European Union. What it does is to notify other European Union members that we are in a process of negotiation. The withdrawal must come back before this Parliament.
I also remind the House what the Supreme Court judges said. They said that the reason why this was a matter for Parliament—both the notification and, finally, withdrawal—was because any fundamental change to our laws that inevitably amends or abrogates our individual rights requires the approval of Parliament. That is one of the essential constitutional principles under which our system operates: that anything involving our rights—whether they are to trade with, to live in or to travel to the European Union—we have introduced into domestic law. Because that therefore involves the rights of citizens, Parliament is the place that has to make the decision and approve any changes to that law.
The concern that I raised in Committee late at night, when most people were no longer here, was that I had heard repeatedly from Ministers that if there was not a deal, or if Parliament decided that the deal was not good enough, we would walk away and that there was therefore authorisation from the people, having taken part in the referendum, to walk away. That flies in the face of what was said by the constitutional court of this country—the Supreme Court, which deals with constitutional issues—because walking away and embarking on an engagement in trade worldwide under the WTO rules also involves an amendment or abrogation of some of the rights that citizens in this country have. It has implications. That is why it is a constitutional matter and why this House has a particular role to play.
Lord Faulks (Con)
Perhaps I can remind the noble Baroness of the limits of what the Supreme Court decided. In paragraph 3, it said:
“It is also worth emphasising that this case has nothing to do with issues such as the wisdom of the decision to withdraw from the European Union, the terms of withdrawal, the timetable or arrangements for withdrawal, or the details of any future relationship with the European Union”.
There is a distinct limit to what it decided. Does the noble Baroness agree?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
In reaching that decision, the Supreme Court laid out the principle that the reason why it was engaging with the case at all was not because it had a view on Brexit but because of the constitutional principle. The principle is very straightforward. It is that when it comes to our rights, Parliament makes those decisions. That is why when the process comes to the end and there is a deal on the table it has to be voted upon by Parliament but, if there is no deal, that too becomes an issue. It is not good enough for Ministers of Government to say that we just walk away as though that has no consequences. Walking away also has consequences for the rights of citizens in this country. That is why it is a matter for Parliament. That is why this proposed new clause is so important.
Viscount Ridley
The noble Baroness said at the beginning of her remarks that this is a notification Bill, not an authorisation Bill. Will she therefore explain what an authorisation amendment is doing in a notification Bill?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
At the end of the process, there is going to be a need to come back before Parliament. That has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister and other Ministers and I understand that an undertaking has been given. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I believe that having it in statutory form is the best way for us to know exactly what is on offer, but I have heard repeatedly from Ministers that the option of walking away involves no need to come back before Parliament. I asked the question directly of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and I have heard it said by other Ministers in Select Committee. All I am saying to this House is that that is why this amendment is so important, even if no negotiation deal comes back before Parliament because no deal means WTO and WTO has implications for citizens of this country with regard to their rights.
Lord Finkelstein
Did the noble Baroness finish? I wanted to intervene on her.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
I think the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, wants to come in on the points that I was making. I had actually more or less completed my speech, but if he wants to raise an issue—
Lord Finkelstein
Was the court’s judgment not based on the idea that this was authorisation? The court would have not have ruled as it did if it had not assumed that this was not unilaterally revocable. Both sides in the court case, including the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that it is not unilaterally revocable, and the court ruled specifically because of that that authorisation is delivered by triggering Article 50. If it had not done so, it would not have ruled as it did; therefore, it is crucial to the understanding that this is authorisation.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
It is notification of withdrawal; it is not a withdrawal Bill.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, as I was saying, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham, whose father I greatly respected as a colleague of mine in government, has reminded us, the reason we are debating this proposed new clause today is that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who moved this amendment, convinced first the High Court and subsequently a majority of the Supreme Court that a Bill is needed and that the Government’s intention to rely on the prerogative will not do. His argument was clear, and I think it will be helpful if I remind the House of it by quoting his words before the High Court:
“my case is very simple. My case is that notification is the pulling of the trigger and once you have pulled the trigger, the consequence follows. The bullet hits the target. It hits the target on the date specified in Article 50(3). The triggering leads to the consequence, inevitably leads to the consequence, as a matter of law, that the treaties cease to apply”.
In short, the very act of invoking Article 50 inexorably leads to Brexit two years later. This was the principal basis on which the courts decided that the Government were wrong to rely on the prerogative, yet the proposed new clause appears to say exactly the opposite. It says that there is no inevitability at all. Triggering Article 50 does not “inevitably”—in the own word of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—lead to Brexit, for the explicit purpose of the proposed new clause is to ensure that even when Article 50 has been invoked, if Parliament disapproves of the outcome of the negotiations it can stop Brexit happening. Indeed, as a number of speakers have pointed out, on the strict interpretation of the proposed new clause, your Lordships’ House alone can prevent Brexit since the approval of both Houses is required. I do not want to go down that avenue because I have not time.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as an exceedingly clever lawyer who deploys his cleverness with considerable charm. However, is it possible for even him to have his cake and eat it? Might this not be too clever by half? The real mischief—
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I should like to develop my argument. The real mischief in this proposed new clause lies in subsection (4). As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, effectively conceded, without subsection 4 there is a possible reconciliation with his original thesis, since without subsection (4), Parliament would be faced simply with the decision of whether to approve the agreement that the Government had putatively reached with the European Union. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and one or two others, have already pointed out, the Government have pledged to put this before Parliament when the time comes.
The Government might, for example, have agreed to pay the Barnier ransom demand which our own European Union Committee has recently confirmed that we are under no legal obligation to pay. In that case, Parliament might have found that unacceptable. However, if, for whatever reason, Parliament refused to approve the agreement that the Government had reached with the EU, that would not prevent Brexit. It would mean simply that we would leave the European Union without an agreement—and, as I explained at Second Reading, that is nothing to be scared of. Far from jumping off a non-existent cliff into the unknown, trading under WTO rules is the very satisfactory basis of most of the trade that we do throughout the world today. I give way.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful. Does the noble Lord accept that at this stage the key question before the House is: who is to be master? Is it Ministers or Parliament?
Lord Lawson of Blaby
If the noble Lord allows me to develop my argument he will see exactly what the problem with what he is saying is, because no agreement is by far the most likely outcome. As the Prime Minister made clear in her excellent Lancaster House speech and as the subsequent White Paper reiterated, no agreement would be better than a bad agreement. Sadly—and it is sad—a bad agreement is all that is likely to be on offer. However, the mischief of subsection (4) of this proposed new clause is that it would not merely give Parliament the power to reject a bad deal but enable it to prevent Brexit altogether by refusing to allow the UK to leave the European Union without an agreement. This not only is in diametric opposition to the Pannick thesis on which the Bill rests but, more importantly, would be an unconscionable rejection of the referendum result that would drive a far greater wedge between the political class and the British people than the dangerous gulf that already exists.
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend; no doubt she will have her opportunity in a moment. After more than four decades in which I sought to make the most modest of modest contributions to parliamentary effectiveness and reputation, I hope that my credentials as an advocate of parliamentary sovereignty will not be challenged. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Pannick not only for his kind words but also for his recasting of Amendment 3. I agree with him that, if this amendment were to be agreed, the means of approval would be in the hands of the Government. So I hope that he and noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat some of the issues that, in that case, the Government should have in mind.
So far, ministerial language has been in terms of “a vote” and “a Motion”. That rather suggests proceeding by resolution—and, if so, the concerns I expressed in Committee are unallayed. What happens if one House votes one way and the other House votes the other way? Does qualified approval, perhaps with a conditional rider, count as approval? Would it be acceptable in those circumstances to give this House an effective veto over the process?
If, on the other hand, primary legislation is contemplated, the issue of interpreting some sort of qualified approval, or the terms of approval, remains. Even in the unloved Fixed-term Parliaments Act, specific wording for a Motion of confidence or no confidence was inserted to avoid the possibility of recourse to the courts. In matters of the present gravity, recourse to the courts would be even more unwelcome. My father had a ghastly warning about the dangers of overspecification in legislation. He quoted what was alleged to have been a rule at Heidelberg University, which stated: “No one shall tie anything, whether a nightwatchman or not a nightwatchman, to anything, whether a lightning conductor or not a lightning conductor, at any time, whether or not during a thunderstorm”. I do not ask for that degree of specification—but, if primary legislation is contemplated, the terms of approval need to be considered very carefully indeed.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am genuinely torn on how to vote on this amendment and turn to my noble and very able friend the Minister to guide me in this respect. I listened very carefully to all the speakers this afternoon, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who I think comes at this with the same approach that I do. These amendments seem based to me on a very simple proposition, which is that rights given to British subjects by statute can be removed only by statute.
Of the two alternatives available, particularly in Amendment 3, which I am tempted and minded to support—a resolution to be passed by both Houses or a Bill to be passed by both Houses—the amendment neatly leaves it to the Government to determine the means to choose. I would like to know—and I seek guidance from the Minister and very powerful arguments against—why it would not be appropriate to include the amendment here on the face of the Bill. I say this because this is the last procedural stage before we embark on the substance. We are told that there will not be just the great repeal Bill but a number of substantive primary pieces of legislation as well as, no doubt, multiple pieces of secondary legislation to repeal some of the acquis that we might wish no longer to apply.
Why is it important to write it on the face of the Bill? It is for so many reasons: times change; politics change and personalities change. We are being asked to take an awful lot on trust here, both in terms of a commitment from the Government and in terms of a commitment given on the Floor of the House of Commons that Parliament and the Government would hope to follow through. Surely it is only right and proper that it should be put on the face of the Bill.
I remind the House that we spent about two hours and 30 minutes talking about the rights of EU nationals going forward. If the referendum had been held on the same terms as the European Parliament elections, all the EU nationals living here for the required length of time would have been able to vote. As I understand it from memory, an amendment passed in this House deprived those 1 million EU nationals living in this country of the right to vote. In fact, that 1 million number could have changed the outcome of the referendum overnight.
I refer to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in summing up on Second Reading. He expressed to the Government, in a helpful way, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller went further than just this Bill before us today, which embarks on the negotiation procedure. A majority of the House would not wish to stand in the way of the triggering of the process. By the same token, the noble and learned Lord went on to say, in respect to not writing into the face of the Bill—I do not want to press him too hard, but I think that the noble and learned Lord was saying the same—that,
“obtaining approval by resolution in Parliament is not the same thing as being given statutory authority”.
That is why he cautioned the Government against thinking that this Bill before the House today,
“on its own will give them all the authority they need, or that obtaining approval for an agreement by resolution is the same thing as being given statutory authority to conclude that agreement”.—[Official Report, 20/2/17; col. 23.]
I will refer also to an article written by five eminent QCs, including three knights, who gave their opinion on the matter and stated:
“Meaningful Parliamentary decision-making cannot be achieved by Parliament authorising exit from the European Union, two years in advance, on as yet unknown terms. Equally, it cannot be achieved by a single ‘take it or leave it’ vote at the end of the process”.
The article argues very straightforwardly:
“The constitutional requirements for a decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union include the enactment of primary legislation consenting to give legal effect to the terms of a withdrawal agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union”.
Therefore, rather than being a wrecking amendment, I see this amendment as being potentially helpful to the Government, responding to a situation that we found ourselves in, having now lost three to six months through a court case and then an appeal, by writing on to the face of the Bill that Parliament—these two Houses —will have the final say. It will be of the Government’s choosing what the mechanism will be—whether a resolution of both Houses or an Act of Parliament. Otherwise, there will be a complete lack of clarity over what remaining rights already extended to British subjects can continue to be relied on. I will go further and say that, when we come to the great repeal Bill, there will be a complete lack of clarity over the court on which we should rely to make sure that those outstanding rights can be enforced.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I think we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, then from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and then from my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I wish to say a few, brief words about sovereignty and the likely outcome if Parliament disapproves a deal at the end of the negotiations in two years’ time. The sad fact is that because of the construction of Article 50, we will not recover our parliamentary sovereignty in European matters until the whole process is over. If we contemplate what might happen in two years’ time, we see only too clearly that sovereignty lies with Europe. If this House or the other House were to reject the deal, we would end up as puppets in their hands. Can it honestly be imagined that if one or other House, whether through approval or an Act of Parliament, goes back to Europe in just under two years’ time and says, “We don’t like the deal”, the other 27 will say, “Oh dear. Here is a much better one”, or, “Let us, all 27, now agree to extend the negotiation time”? I do not think so.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, indicated that he did not trust the Prime Minister. I am sorry to say that I do not trust the other 27 members of the European Union to give us a good deal, or indeed to care very much about what happens to us or our nationals, because their only declared intent since last June has been: “You must be punished. The Union must survive, no matter what the cost. We will not accommodate you, we will not be kind to you”. There is no vision. There is no mission.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
Can the noble Baroness give us chapter and verse on who said that?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
Perhaps the noble Baroness would quote to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, exactly what President Hollande said: “There has to be a price. There has to be a threat. There has to be a cost”.
Baroness Deech
Thank you.
Much of our argument turns on whether Article 50 is revocable or not. The Supreme Court judgment in Miller did not go that far. The judgment was based on the fact that triggering Article 50 would be the no turning back moment at which the two years would start and inevitably run their course. Indeed, I know that there has been a legal opinion from three knights that Article 50 is revocable, but I know from my dealings with lawyers that you can find another three knights who will tell you something quite different. Although I have heard it said that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, drafted the article, so he knows what it is about, in our system, it is not the draftsman who in the end declares what the article means.
If parliamentary approval were needed at the end of the deal, what might it look like? Some parts of it might very well deal with European nationals. Only a few days ago, we were expressing our shock and dismay that the position of European nationals might not be taken care of. Would we be throwing them all into disarray in two years’ time if, among probably thousands of pages of deal, there was something about European nationals?
I am sorry to say that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has departed from his usual clarity in legal matters. He has tied himself and the House in knots. On the one hand, he says that we always defer in the end to the Commons. I wonder whether we will hear that this evening or next week if there is a head-on clash between our decision, if we approve the amendment, and what the House of Commons says. On the other hand, he has also said that approval is better than having an Act of Parliament: it leaves it open to the Prime Minister to decide what to do. But with an Act of Parliament expressing what is in the amendment, the Commons would prevail because of the Parliament Act. You cannot really have it both ways. The only other possible outcome at the end is no deal. The two-year shutter comes down and we are off the cliff—that is the general outcome. Others know just as well how difficult that would be.
Our lack of sovereignty means that if at the end of two years the rest of the European Union does not give us what we want and either House rejects that deal, the European Union will, for sure, not welcome us back with open arms, will not necessarily accept a revocation of Article 50 and not necessarily give us a better deal. That is the reality of the situation. We will have to take what comes our way in two years’ time.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I do not know what people will feel like in two years’ time. We know that the demographics will have changed and that young people will be coming on to the electoral register and, as we all know, young people have taken a very different view about our leaving the EU to that taken by older people who will no longer be able to vote.
I have two specific questions to ask the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said that the Supreme Court’s judgment was that Article 50 was irrevocable—a view just reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I thought that the Supreme Court judgment was rather more nuanced than that: that because the parties to the action were prepared to use that as the basis for forming their judgment, they had not tested the arguments on the irrevocability or otherwise of Article 50. So there was a clear statement that they had not tested that argument.
On Second Reading, I asked the noble Lord what the Government’s views were on that. In a very skilled response at the end of the debate, he said that it was the firm policy of the Government not to turn back having triggered Article 50. The noble Lord knows that that was not the question I asked. We are not asking about the firm policy. What we need to know is the Government’s legal view on the revocability or otherwise of Article 50. That is a crucial question because if the issue does come back to Parliament, we will be in a very different position if it is revocable. I ask the question, and hope that this time I might have the answer.
My second question is about the position whereby the Government have sought to bypass Parliament, as indeed they did, by saying that the prerogative powers were sufficient to trigger Article 50. It did indeed take private individuals, represented by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to go to court to prevent the Government going beyond their powers and bypassing this Parliament. The Government had assumed they had powers by using the prerogative, and the Supreme Court was able to disabuse them of that.
Lord Finkelstein
Does the noble Baroness accept that the reason the court made that judgment was that both parties had agreed that it was not unilaterally revocable? That is the reason why both parties had to agree, otherwise the court would have ruled differently. It ruled that this was a parliamentary decision of authorisation. That is the reason why it had to come back to Parliament. It would change the law.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
The point that the Supreme Court made was that it had not tested the point about revocability. I say to the noble Lord, who knows what the outcome would be if it were asked to do that? The political position now is that the Supreme Court has not made that judgment, and it took going to the court to get the views that we have.
When we get to the end of this whole discussion, I wonder what the Minister will be able to say about our ability to trust the views of Ministers. I am not saying that we do not believe that Ministers really want to come back to Parliament, but the only assurance we will have is putting it in the Bill. The Government do not have good form over this. They foolishly went on to the Supreme Court after the High Court had told them what the judgment should be. We need this in the Bill because the Government have form for bypassing Parliament, and we need to know that that will not happen again.
We need the best legal checks and balances we can get—not to stop Brexit but to make sure that we obtain the best this country can get from it. That is why we need to vote for this amendment today. It is also why, if the amendment is successful in this House, I hope it goes on to be successful in another place. Britain relies on parliamentary sovereignty and now is the moment for it to be fully asserted by this House—not in six months’ time, not in 18 months’ time, not at the end of the period of negotiation. We have to make sure legally that Britain’s best interests are protected and safeguarded. That is the job of this Parliament. It is our job here today and I urge this House to vote for the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I will first take up the point that the noble Baroness has just mentioned about the judgment of the Supreme Court. Naturally, I have studied it with a certain amount of care. Both sides, the Government and the applicant, agreed with the basis that they should treat the Article 50 notification as irrevocable. Lord Justice Reed pointed out clearly that that had not been the subject of a decision by the court but that, from the point of view of the judgment, it did not matter so long as it was possible that it was irrevocable. If that was the case, the danger to Acts of Parliament existed even if it turned out that it might be revocable. If it was possible that it was irrevocable, once it was triggered, these Acts of Parliament came into danger. It was as simple as that. I think we must assume—I am prepared to anyway—that the government lawyers took the view that Article 50 notification was irrevocable because they took the case on that basis. Of course, some doubt about that might have helped them if they thought there was a real argument that it was revocable—the bullet and all the rest of it that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talked about in the decision would maybe not have occurred. The Government’s lawyers definitely took the view that it was irrevocable.
The point tonight is different. The Prime Minister and the Minister in the Commons both gave an undertaking that a Motion would be put before both Houses of Parliament for approval of the final deal and for the way in which we might leave the European Union. They both gave that undertaking but they did not say that the Prime Minister would necessarily be bound by the decision of both Houses.
The difficulty in this amendment is that it formally requires the approval of both Houses. There is no question—it is as clear as can be. I do not claim to be a prophet, so exactly what will happen after two years I do not know, but I feel absolutely certain that the negotiations will be difficult and that it will be very difficult at this stage to tell what sort of outcome we may get. If we can get such an agreement in relation to economics as the Prime Minister indicated in her speech, that might be very good. On the other hand, some people who know more about it than I do think that may not be likely.
As I said, I do not know what will happen. The Prime Minister and the Minister have agreed that both Houses of Parliament should have a Motion put before them for approval, but neither said—I believe that may be why they phrased it as they did—that the approval of both Houses would be necessary.
I want to point out the danger of not getting this right. I see no reason why it should not be put right, if people agree that it is not quite right. The House of Commons should be the prime source of authority on this matter. Your Lordships will remember, if you read the newspapers—I am sure most of us do, although perhaps selectively—the suggestion that this was all a scheme for this House to try to defeat the Brexit vote. I do not want it to be said unnecessarily, in any circumstances, that we give colour to that, because I feel certain that nobody in this House wants to engineer a blockage of the Brexit vote as the Prime Minister goes ahead. I feel sure of that, and I think I am right. Somebody this morning mentioned the word “tribal”. I do not feel myself part of any particular tribe, but I want the matter to be right. If the amendment is sent back to the Commons, I would like it to be correct, so that nobody could suggest that we were trying to create a scheme that might block Brexit, because we refuse our approval and the House of Commons approves it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
As I understand the noble and learned Lord’s speech, he is saying that, provided the primacy of the House of Commons is made clear, he would support the amendment. Is that right?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I am saying that I think it would then simply incorporate the Prime Minister’s and the Minister’s undertaking.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Of course, the bit at the end is a separate matter, and on the whole I do not feel very inclined to get into it. There is the problem that, as was said, Brexit, once initiated, may go out of hand and terminate without any voluntary agreement on the part of the Prime Minister. The amendment does not really deal with that—but I do not see too much harm in the amendment. I cannot foresee exactly what will happen, but I sincerely hope that it is the first two parts of the amendment that will come into play in the end and there will be an agreement that can be put before the Houses of Parliament. Nobody knows—I cannot tell—and we can only hope. But it would be very desirable for any amendment of this kind, going from this House, to recognise the supremacy of the House of Commons.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think my noble friend will find that my noble and learned friend has sat down. There will be an opportunity for him to speak, but I indicated earlier that I thought we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, at this stage.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The first of my two quick points is to clarify the issue of irrevocability raised by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein—and I am glad that he did so. We discussed the issue extensively at Second Reading and he told his readers in the Times that we did not mention it at all, so I am glad that he is here this time. I also pay tribute to the skill of the Lord, Lord Pannick, both in court and in this House. When he won his case in the High Court—not the Supreme Court—the No. 10 spokesman was asked about revocability and said that,
“as a matter of firm policy, our notification to withdraw will not be withdrawn”.
After our extensive debate at Second Reading, the Minister was put on the spot by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, about whether it was revocable or not. The Minister is a very clever man and replied:
“As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn”.—[Official Report, 21/2/17; col. 320.]
That is very similar to what was said by the No. 10 spokesman, which is always wise in a Minister. Last Wednesday, in Committee, the same issue of revocability was raised. When the Minister replied to the debate on the amendment, he said that,
“as a matter of policy we will not withdraw our notice to leave”.—[Official Report, 1/3/17; col. 923.]
The wording was slightly wrong there, but I am sure they will forgive him.
Every time the Government say that,
“as a matter of policy”,
firm or infirm, they will not withdraw the notification which the Bill authorises, they implicitly confirm that, in law, they could withdraw it—and they could. If you want a definitive source, do not look at me, listen to the President of the European Council, who has said so on the record. If you want a definitive EU legal view, and this would be an EU legal question if it were ever tested, try the present head of the Council’s legal service or the one who advised me when I was writing the wretched thing. Just a point of clarification: it is revocable.
My second point relates to the discussion of subsection (4) of the new clause proposed in the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, detected deep evil in it. What is being said there is that it is for Parliament to decide whether no deal is better than a bad deal and to make a judgment on whether the deal is bad and that the chaos and disruption of leaving with no deal is preferable. I struggle to think of a deal which could be worse than no deal. Last week, the president of CBI said that the worst possible scenario was leaving with no deal. However, that is not the point: the point is about parliamentary sovereignty. The issue of whether no deal is worse than the deal which is available on the table on that day is for Parliament to decide. That is what subsection (4) of the amendment says, and I support it.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, quite rightly—and entertainingly as always—referred to the crucial element of parliamentary sovereignty. We have heard from top lawyers and diplomats and I only offer some thoughts as a run-of-the-mill parliamentarian. I could not possibly vote against parliamentary sovereignty. Voting against an amendment such as this would be like voting against motherhood and apple pie. It is something in which I passionately believe. It was one of the reasons why many people—and I was one of them—were concerned during the course of the European referendum because it seemed incontrovertible that the way in which the European Union had developed involved a steady erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. It would be quite difficult to disagree with this proposition.
When addressing this amendment, we have to decide what a decision by Parliament actually comprises. I am forced to read the amendment. Proposed subsection (1) refers to,
“without the approval of both Houses of Parliament”.
Subsection (3) requires:
“The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament”,
Subsection (4) refers to:
“The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament”.
With great respect to the weight of legal opinion being offered, to propose this amendment without being clear as to what is involved in the approval of both Houses of Parliament is to leave an ambiguity at its heart. It is hardly necessary to add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has already said.
I was concerned about this from the start. I raised it in Committee. There has been an attempt to move towards answering the question, “What happens if the Commons say ‘yes’ and the Lords say ‘no’?”. The solution is certainly not contained within these amendments.
I made an, admittedly inadequate, attempt with the Public Bill Office to see if there was any way in which I could put down an amendment which would satisfy, or at least address, this problem at the heart of the Bill. If the House will forgive me—as I will conclude shortly afterwards—I will read out the terms of the defunct amendment. It would have said:
“(5) If, under the provisions of subsections (1), (3) or (4), there is disagreement between the House of Commons and the House of Lords as to whether or not the agreement or decision should be approved, the view of the House of Commons prevails over the view of the House of Lords”.
That makes an attempt to explain precisely—or, I hope, resolve precisely—the ambiguity at the heart of the Bill.
Lord True
I was following the noble Lord’s argument, and I agree with it in terms of the imprecision and lack of clarity as to what happens if both Houses disagree. Does he agree that there is a further issue in relation to the different procedures of the two Houses? In the House of Commons, the Government control the agenda. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that what happens in this House will be up to the Government. But am I not right in saying that any noble Lord can put down an amendment at any time to disapprove a resolution and this House will vote on it? Surely there cannot be any circumstances in this House in which the Government control what might constitute approval or disapproval. Is this not a further difficulty with the amendment?
Lord Grocott
Yes. I can understand that point. I want to emphasise the central problem, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has identified. I ask the House—or, more specifically, the mover of the amendment—whether something like that, included at Third Reading, would solve the difficulty which I think even he would acknowledge was expressed in the various interventions that he dealt with.
There is one thing that I can influence to some degree—something which, if not within the control of this House, is within the control of my beloved Labour Party. For as long as I have been in it, it has been absolutely clear about the primacy of the elected House over the unelected House. I say this to my Front Bench and to my very good noble friend Lady Hayter, who will be winding up. Should we pass this amendment as written and, in two years’ time, find ourselves in a situation where there is a clash between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and if all the normal attempts at agreement and solutions to the differences had been tried, this party, at any rate, would assert clearly that, ultimately, the primacy of the House of Commons must prevail.
Lord Howard of Lympne
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I agree with much of what he said—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I apologise. A lot of noble Lords want to speak. I have tried to construct a speaking order. I suggest that my noble friend Lord Howard speaks at this stage. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also wants to speak. It might be sensible then—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, indeed. I will let my noble friend Lord Higgins speak next and include my noble friend Lady Altmann in the list to speak later.
Lord Howard of Lympne
I am grateful to my noble friend. I long ago came to the painful recognition that many Members of your Lordships’ House think that to serve in this place without having served down the Corridor in the other place is an absolutely enormous advantage. Therefore, it is with some temerity that I seek to draw on my 27 years’ experience in the other place—not as long as my noble friend Lord Heseltine—to make a preliminary observation. At the end of the negotiations, there will be either an agreement or a decision by the Government to leave the European Union without an agreement. Whichever of those scenarios comes about, the other place will have its say. Not only will it have its say, it will have its way. If the agreement that is reached by the Government is unacceptable to a majority of the Members of the House of Commons, they will vote accordingly. If the Government propose to leave the European Union on terms which are unacceptable to a majority of the Members of the House of Commons, they will vote accordingly. They do not need the authority of Mr David Jones to do that. They do not even need the authority of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to do that, and they certainly do not need this proposed new clause to do that. They do not need any authority to do that. They will have their say. They will have their way. For those of us who believe that parliamentary supremacy rests with the House of Commons, that is the ultimate safeguard.
I make a couple of observations about the proposed new clause. In the end, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, admitted—not quite explicitly but in effect—that, in its present form at any rate, it provides a veto for your Lordships’ House. He said that it was extremely unlikely that your Lordships would exercise that veto. In the end, he was obliged to accept a lifeline from my noble friend Lord Hailsham. However, as is so often the case when you examine a lifeline in detail, it proves not to be quite as effective as at first sight it appeared. The lifeline offered by my noble friend was that the Government might enshrine the Motions necessary by virtue of the proposed new clause in an Act of Parliament so that the Parliament Act could be activated. I ask your Lordships to consider that situation. The Government will have agreed the terms on which they are going to leave the European Union. The House of Commons will have approved those terms but this House will have rejected them and we will have to hang around for a year until the Parliament Act can be used to ensure that the House of Commons gets its way. That was suggested by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. Even my noble friend Lord Heseltine acknowledged the need for the minimum of delay. We all want the minimum of delay. The notion that the nation should stand around for a year waiting for the Parliament Act to be invoked for the House of Commons to get its way illustrates how unnecessary this amendment and proposed new clause are.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am sorry, but I did indicate that I was going to call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I am trying to compile a speakers list; I hope your Lordships will understand that that is a reasonable way of carrying on, as so many people have indicated to me that they wish to contribute to this debate.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howard, with whom I shared a platform during the referendum campaign—but on this matter I am afraid I have to disagree with him. I support Amendment 3. There is a lot of merit in Amendment 4, but it seems that the House is probably going to go for something written by lawyers, because apparently some of us still trust lawyers—which is sometimes a good move.
I shall be brief and to the point: I am taking a rather simplistic attitude to this whole debate. During the referendum we voted for taking back control. However, taking back control does not mean giving such a momentous decision for the future of the UK to a tiny cohort of politicians. As we have said, the Government and the Prime Minister committed themselves to a vote in both Houses. They must have thought that was an appropriate thing to do. Therefore I see no problem with a commitment from this House.
People change. Governments change. We cannot be sure that the same people will be in power when this finally happens, so it is important to get a commitment. Parliament has to have scrutiny, and a say in something so incredibly important—a deal that is being thrashed out between the UK and the EU that will affect our future for ever. I also think it is a mockery if the European Parliament gets a vote on this and we do not. That again is not taking back control.
One of the other commitments made during the referendum was the £350 million to the NHS. I look forward to seeing that as a line in the Budget tomorrow. Quite honestly, that was one of the things that I voted for when I voted leave.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I sought to intervene earlier far more aggressively than I would ever normally do, simply because I wished to pursue the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which was of considerable tactical importance in relation to this debate. There is widespread agreement that there should be parliamentary approval for the outcome of the negotiations. The Prime Minister herself has made it clear that she believes that should be so, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has sought to incorporate that undertaking in the Bill. Again, I believe that that is the right thing to do.
The problem, however, is in the drafting of the amendment. In opening the debate, the noble Lord said he realised there were problems because it seemed to give a veto to the House of Lords—that would not be acceptable. Also, he said that it failed to recognise the relationship between the two Houses, whereby, at the end of the day, the House of Commons must be supreme. He suggested that we should agree to the amendment before us and then the House of Commons would sort it out. I think there is a very simple problem with that: people are less likely to vote for his amendment on that basis than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, it may never get to the House of Commons and its Members will not be able to put the matter right.
As we now stand, we have a very difficult situation as to whether or not we should support the amendment. My inclination is still to do so, subject to what may be said subsequently, because it is important to have the undertaking in the Bill. However, we have to resolve the problem of ensuring that the House of Commons remains supreme. We cannot have a veto on what is being negotiated; it would be wholly inappropriate if the House of Commons took the opposite view.
One possible solution is to try to draft a manuscript amendment or to amend the Bill at some later stage in the proceedings. I fear that may be very difficult, although perhaps we might try. In any case, we should agree the amendment, but I understand that many people will feel it is defective in the respect I have mentioned. It would be very unfortunate if, as a result of these debates, we do not have anything to ensure that the undertaking given absolutely clearly by the Prime Minister is in the Bill and that there is no uncertainty about the situation in the future.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I preface my remarks by expressing my belief that speaking in favour of any amendment to the Bill does not amount to trying to frustrate the referendum result or to deny the will of the people. I respect the result, and we are trying to implement it as responsibly as we can in the interests of our great country.
The referendum was about taking back control and ensuring parliamentary sovereignty. That is vital to safeguard our democracy and protect our national interests. The people want to be able to trust our Parliament to look after their future. But in the context of the Bill, it seems to me that Parliament is in danger of abrogating its responsibility.
I have heard the arguments to suggest that parliamentary oversight somehow makes it inevitable that the EU will only offer us a bad deal. However, I respectfully disagree. Indeed, I believe that the likelihood is the other way round. If the negotiators and Ministers know that at the end of the day they will have to sell this deal to Parliament, I believe they will be properly incentivised to be more likely to achieve a deal that is acceptable.
As currently proposed, the Bill will effectively hand responsibility for our future to a group of negotiators and Ministers who apparently countenance with a measure of equanimity the idea that no deal is better than a bad deal. If we enter negotiations with a view that the EU will not give us a good deal and that we will just have to leave the single market, the customs union, Euratom and so many other fundamental parts of our current economic security, then we must surely ask ourselves whether those negotiators will be sufficiently incentivised to actually get a good deal for the country.
A no-deal scenario was never put to the British people. The White Paper and the referendum campaign have not considered the consequences either. Leaving the customs union, the single market and Euratom are recent decisions with significant implications for people’s jobs, for standards of living, for national security, for the nuclear industry, for Northern Ireland and so much else. Yet the risks have been skirted over, almost as if they do not really matter. They do matter. In normal negotiations, corporate negotiators would reserve the option of taking an offer back to their board; a lawyer would reserve the option of referring back to their client.
Viscount Ridley
Will my noble friend explain how what she is saying now squares with what she said at the start of her speech about not challenging the result of the referendum?
Baroness Altmann
I am not challenging the result of the referendum. We are here to debate and discuss how best to safeguard the interests of our country and to discuss what might happen at the end of the negotiation, in light of the referendum, to make sure that we have parliamentary sovereignty. That is what this debate and this amendment are about. Why would we deny Parliament, the heart of our democracy, the authority to approve or push for a better deal, rather than accepting no deal without a proper say? This parliamentary route, giving Parliament, not the Executive, a meaningful final vote is my preferred option, not a referendum. Such a safety net, written into statute, would seem to me to be the most responsible course to take as we negotiate our EU exit.
I believe it is my duty, given the very serious concerns that I have expressed, to ask the other place to reconsider the need for elected MPs to take responsibility for the future of their constituents. I believe that they must have the final say on the Bill and I want to ask them to think again.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
My Lords, I have listened to this debate with a question that was unanswered at the beginning and, to me, is still unanswered. It is this. Subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new clause read:
“The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to an agreement on the future relationship of the United Kingdom”,
and:
“The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave”.
Assume that the House of Commons and the House of Lords are in agreement. They say, “We do not approve of the terms of the agreement. We do not approve that the Prime Minister shall decide that we leave without an agreement”. My question is: what then? Is it implicit in this amendment that Parliament may then decide to withdraw the Article 50 notification?
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, whether Article 50 notification is revocable or irrevocable is a matter of policy or law. I believe that we could interrupt the process of leaving the EU only by another referendum. I think this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, touched upon. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, made the same point at the beginning of her speech. If in two years’ time Parliament were seen to be blocking the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union without another referendum, there would be a serious political situation in our country. While we have talked about conflicts between the Executive and Parliament and between the Executive and the two Houses, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that as it stands it should be the House of Commons that has the decisive vote. There is real potential for conflict here. We decided to have a referendum and its outcome can be reversed only with another referendum, which this morning we decided in a sense that we did not want—I admire the Liberal Democrats, who are consistent on this point and who I noticed have their amendment down for Third Reading. At the end of the day, in two years’ time we could be in a very serious, difficult and sensitive political situation. I am not sure the proposed new clause would help handle that.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, not for the first time I wholly agree with the analysis of my noble friend Lord Heseltine, with whom I think I entered the House of Commons on the same day over 50 years ago—I agree with his analysis but I am afraid I do not agree with his conclusion. The amendments have clearly been tabled with great sincerity and I appreciate all their aims and concerns. They are trying to impose statutory precision on a Bill that happens to be going through this House in order to make provision for a very uncertain future and for events that are completely unforeseeable. As my noble friend and others have said, we have absolutely no grasp of where the world or this issue will be in two years’ time.
Any commentary one looks at from the other side of the channel shows clear uncertainty as to who is taking the lead. There are daily quarrels between national capitals and Brussels, and there is infighting inside the European Commission—the Visegrad four are already talking about a different treaty. This very hour we have a blog saying that Spain and Poland want to join together on a completely different approach to the negotiations from that offered by the European Commission. What will happen is uncertain. The additional point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, with his usual eloquence, that under certain circumstances—although this is almost inconceivable except under a different Government on this side of the channel—the whole project could be aborted and withdrawn.
The truth, which my noble friend Lord Howard stated with great frankness and eloquence, is that in the Commons the parliamentary majority can do what it likes. I say “majority” and that is different from “Parliament”, which flows from legal lips as though it were an entity—of course, it is not. Parliament is actually the people controlling the majority; that is, the managers of the parties or coalitions that have a majority in the Commons. That is what comes out if you press the button marked “Parliament”.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, whose speech I greatly enjoyed, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that I am certainly more Burke than Brezhnev. But I am also a disciple of Karl Popper, who spent a lot of time warning us—as did Isaiah Berlin and others—about the dangers of making things too inevitable and the poverty of determinism. Telling the Commons what to do by statute law about a situation that may be completely different from anything we presently envisage seems a noble but really futile project. The Commons will decide by parliamentary majority. It has not always been able to do so and in past centuries there have, of course, been fights against the royal prerogative. But since Parliament has won that battle, as it did in our history, the parliamentary majority will decide—if its managers can control it, the Whips can keep it in place and it is big enough then it will be the will of Parliament.
The bundle containing the divorce papers and the mixture of new arrangements will be vastly complex and there will be all sorts of uncompleted aspects. That document will be the work of two years of Ministers slaving away, of vastly difficult negotiations and private deals ensuring mutual equivalence and mutually beneficial arrangements between sectors and industries—and heaven knows what else. If after all that there is a vote in Parliament and the Government lose because the majority moves against them and fails to give its approval, I do not see how there can be any doubt about what will happen. That is a declaration of no confidence. We have a five-year rule for Governments but that would not need to be changed if the no-confidence vote was in ringing terms, as it almost certainly would be. That would mean we would arrive at a general election. That seems so obvious and so certain that I cannot understand those who are talking mysteriously about a world beyond rejection. It is inconceivable that Ministers would be sent back to Brussels saying, “Our Parliament has looked at this and does not like it but we will carry on”—it would not be the same Ministers, it would not be the same Government and it would not be the same deal. It would be a completely different situation, regardless of what is written on any piece of paper and regardless of any statute, however beautifully it had been drafted by all the learned people sitting in this House and however firm it was. In reality, it would make no difference to what would actually happen.
I do not want to stray beyond the confines of Report but I realise that behind the longing to get this into statute—to pin it down on paper—is a real concern. It is the concern of those who fear that the deal, when it comes back, will not include membership of the single market and of the customs union. For them, that will brand it a bad deal and it will lead a lot of people in the Commons, but I suspect not the majority, to think about voting it down—they will not succeed but they will think about it. I say to my noble friends in this House and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that there is room for considerable doubt as to whether being in or out of the single market as it exists today is really the end of the world. In an ocean of digital change, in which there are vast new supply chains travelling in every direction, which are perforated with low tariffs, tariff wars, and special arrangements and regulations on every side, as well as a completely new pattern of trade, totally different in character from even 10 years ago, there is room for doubt as to whether being outside the single market is really a catastrophe. The chief economist of the Bank of England, Mr Haldane, actually said last week that it does not matter and that over the next three years it is of no material difference to the growth of the British economy whether it is in or out of the single market.
I put that in as an aside. I appreciate that it moves away from the amendment, but the amendment expresses a genuine fear about being excluded from the single market. All I say is that if you look at the facts and details of what is actually happening, you will see it is very different from what is being said by those who argue that leaving will be a disaster and that we are bound to pay a colossal price. They say that trade will effectively halve because goods will have to travel double the distance but these sort of generalities belong to the past century and to a world that no longer exists.
The whole idea of sending Ministers back to Brussels to get us back into the single market if the deal arranged takes us out is a fantasy; in reality no such situation could ever arise. It is worthy of an animated cartoon but highly disadvantageous. There is a new pattern emerging—a new world governed by the WTO—which many people feel has all sorts of advantages, which have not been discussed at all by this House.
For this House to tell the House of Commons what to do two years hence, in a completely different situation from anything we presently envisage, is to make fools of ourselves twice over. If that is what noble Lords opposite want, so be it, but it will have to be without me. My hope remains that we in this House can contribute not division but unity to a very difficult challenge and a major new situation emerging for this country in the near future. Perhaps we cannot deliver the unity in this amendment but we can at least agree on the facts. At present the full facts are not being presented to us.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that it is Report and we do not want Second Reading speeches. It is not appropriate for Members to give Second Reading speeches. I apologise to my noble friend.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, I am afraid there are still some more people who have indicated that they want to speak.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will make just a couple of simple points because I can see that the House is ready to hear from the Front Benches. I want to pick up on a phrase that my noble friend Lord Hailsham used, although I disagree with him and his amendment. He talked about there being a price to pay. What we have to reflect on as a House is that if we support these amendments, particularly an amendment which gives us power ultimately to overturn the referendum result, there is a price that comes with that, too. We have to decide what is most important to us. Do we want to influence the Prime Minister as she goes into these negotiations, or do we want to say now that we want the power to overturn the referendum result? As I said in Committee, I feel very strongly that among people in both Houses—and policymakers and leading businesspeople outside—there is a lot of expertise and experience that needs to be heard by the Prime Minister and the Government over the next two years and needs to be influential in the negotiation period. I worry that we will start to undermine the right for us to be heard in that way.
I will say one final thing. The noble Lord, Lord Turner, referred to some of us as tribal party politicians. Somebody else mentioned that this morning. We have to reflect very carefully on what has changed since the referendum and on how we are seen by the electorate. I do not think they see us in party terms in the same way they used to. There are two clear sets of politicians whom people consider and listen to: those they feel understand them, and those they feel are against them. I know that most of those who are participating in these debates and working very hard to get the best result for this Brexit deal are not against the people, but we need to understand that they think we are. We have to reflect on what it is we need to do differently. That is why I caution against supporting these amendments which give Parliament power—not just this House, not just the other House, but Parliament. I urge noble Lords to really reflect on that.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness agree with me that we should not ditch the principles of this House in order to please or pander to public opinion?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat. Then, unless anybody else wishes to speak, we will move on to the Front Benches to conclude this debate.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, I shall be brief. I concur with what my noble friend has just said. We forget the effect this is having on the ordinary people outside. They knew what they were voting about when they voted at the referendum. Both individuals and businesses were fed up with the way that restrictions were put on their lives and regulations imposed. We have to recognise that fact.
It was my privilege in the other place to be Chairman of Ways and Means. There were 500 amendments to the Maastricht Bill. Many more were chucked out. The ones that were not successful were thrown out because they were out of order. They were wrecking amendments. They were defective. I find it quite extraordinary that your Lordships’ House is spending several hours on what is basically a defective amendment. There are better ways. If the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not capable of tabling an amendment that is in order, so be it, but he is a highly creative lawyer and there are other lawyers on the Liberal Benches who perhaps can produce an amendment that is not defective, in which case this House should rightly debate it. But as it stands, this amendment is defective in all four elements. Noble Lords should bear in mind that it is not wise for our House to vote on amendments which have huge implications and are defective. It would be much more sensible to take it back and maybe on another occasion find some means to move forward.
Ultimately, I trust our Prime Minister. I trust the right honourable David Davis to negotiate well. I trust them to do their very best for the ordinary people who have voted for it all. Frankly, what we are doing this afternoon—if we are doing anything—is undermining the public’s confidence in this House. Confidence is a very delicate flower and it affects not just us here or the public; it affects all the nation, all the businesses, all commerce, and we should not be undermining that confidence. I will certainly not be voting for the amendment.
Lord Tugendhat
My Lords, as the House knows, I speak as one who very much regrets the result of the referendum but who now feels that we must put it behind us and work to create the best possible relationship we can with the European Union. I feel that this amendment muddies the waters. I remind the House of the words of that very wise woman, George Eliot, who said:
“Among all forms of mistake, prophecy is the most gratuitous”.
The amendment goes down the road of prophecy. We can have no idea how the negotiations are going to unfold. Personally, I feel more optimistic about them than some people but we can have no idea how they are going to unfold or what the parliamentary situation or the situation in the European Union or anything else will be in two years’ time.
We can be certain of only one thing, and that was the point made by my noble friend Lord Howard. Generally speaking, my noble friend and I disagree on matters relating to Europe but he is quite right that the Government will stand or fall by the way in which they conduct these negotiations. Whether or not there is a deal, the House of Commons will pass judgment on the Government’s performance. It will either support the Government or reject them but either way, its will will prevail. That is a very simple matter. The amendment would put in place a complicated structure which would make it very much more difficult for the House of Commons to assert its authority. I quite understand that the purpose of the amendment is to enhance the authority of Parliament but its effect would be to diminish the capacity of the House of Commons to hold the Government to account. For that reason, I hope very much that the House will reject it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I made it clear, and the House has certainly made it clear, that is it time for the Front-Bench speakers.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, we have gone via all kinds of highways, by-ways, Aunt Sallies and red herrings—mixing my metaphors, no doubt—but the central issue of this amendment is, in the words of my noble friend Lord Lester: who is the master, Ministers or Parliament? The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, insisted that this was about taking back control for Parliament. It should not be the taking back of control for the Executive: Parliament should be in charge and in the driving seat.
The various criticisms of the amendment seem to me to be more properly directed at the Prime Minister’s assurance in the White Paper because—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, originally used this phrase—it gives the Prime Minister what she asked for. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, said that it adds to the complexity and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said that it made it more complicated and muddied the waters. Well then, why did the Prime Minister pledge approval by both Houses of Parliament? As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, this would put an assurance—an undertaking given by the Prime Minister—into a statutory obligation, and it is wise and sensible so to do.
There is no basis whatever for the assertion, made variously by the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Forsyth, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that it would give this House a veto. Given that the Prime Minister offered to give approval by both Houses of Parliament, presumably she knows how that would work and has shared it with the Government. It is for the Government to deal with that process, which could, as other noble Lords have mentioned, be avoided if there was primary legislation because then the rules would be clear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, counselled against an amendment that gives Parliament power, which I found a strange piece of advice. Surely Parliament has the right to such a power as we possess under the constitution, but it seems that it is not normal to have parliamentary power in the kind of parallel universe that Brexit has created. The amendment does not weaken the Government’s bargaining position. The statement, “I’ve got to get it past my legislators”, is perfectly good enough for a US president or EU negotiators. It should be more than good enough for the British Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill, said that our EU partners read our debates. Yes, they may well do, and they will in this case, but they know that we in this Parliament want really substantial content in a future relationship. We might even stiffen the Government’s backbone in the negotiations. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, that far from being in conflict, getting the best deal and parliamentary sovereignty go hand in hand.
Finally, Brexiteers seem to claim that this is a wicked plot by remainers but, in fact, some of them seem to find Parliament an inconvenient obstacle to their dream of crashing out of the EU altogether. They want the Government to be able to action no deal; they do not want Parliament to be able to say, “Hang on—is that actually a good idea?”. That is why this amendment is extremely valid.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this afternoon we have heard a really compelling case for quite a simple demand: the right of Parliament, rather than government, to authorise the arrangements whereby the Article 50 negotiations conclude. Indeed, probably no additional words are needed to strengthen the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, or many of the others who have spoken. I will not mention them all but the House will forgive me if I mention my noble friends Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Symons and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady McIntosh and Lady Ludford. What do they have in common? So I must also mention the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, although sadly she was not able to support the case.
Essentially, Amendment 3 is about implementing the Supreme Court’s view that withdrawal would require parliamentary authorisation. The argument is straightforward. As the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said, it would secure in law the Government’s commitment that Parliament is the ultimate decider. Very shortly, maybe even next week, the Prime Minister will trigger Article 50 of the treaty. But neither that treaty nor any UK law states how the arrangements made by our Government should be made into law. What is written in the treaty—in EU law, in other words—is that the final agreement will go to the Council and to the European Parliament, so it is mandatory for that Parliament to give its consent but there is no similar requirement for this Parliament to give its consent.
The Prime Minister has said that she will allow a vote in both Houses and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, quoted Mr Jones saying that that was the intent. That, to me, is not a very firm commitment, no matter how sincerely it was given. Indeed, when the Minister said in Committee that the Government’s oral,
“commitment mirrors the powers of the European Parliament”,—[Official Report, 1/3/17; col. 923.]
he was not exactly right because its power is written in law. All we are asking is for an equal legislative requirement for the exit deal to come to this Parliament. It is basically about the Crown’s prerogative against Parliament’s.
I turn to the West Lothian question—no, not that but the Grocott question. We will have to call it the Grocott question as he no longer has a constituency. This was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. It is true that whether we look at the undertaking given by the Prime Minister or at this amendment, there would be a problem if the House of Commons were to vote one way and your Lordships’ House another. I hope that will not be the case for lots of reasons. Particularly, I hope that by then not just the country but Parliament will have come together, and that we are of one view. But I make it clear from these Benches that if that were to be the outcome, we are absolutely clear that ultimately the will of the Commons must prevail.
Furthermore, if that is the only argument given against this amendment, there are two ways of answering it. One is that we do a bit of hurried work this evening to table an amendment and, if the Government were willing to accept it, that might be the easiest way. Keeping all my friends here late into the night, however, may not be the best way of achieving that end. We would not want to risk voting down the idea of Commons supremacy just because, very sensibly, everyone was back in their beds. The real issue is to get this principle into the Bill and down the road into the Commons. On behalf of the Opposition, I say that if that is the only point of dispute between us, given that we want the supremacy to be down there rather than here, we will happily work with the Government on the form of words to make that absolutely crystal clear.
Lord Dykes (CB)
Bearing in mind the emphasis the noble Baroness has quite rightly put on the two Houses coming together, would it really be intrinsically so nerve racking, fearful and awesome for the Commons, for once, to accept a Lords amendment such as this?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The Commons should certainly accept this amendment, albeit I am happy with the tweak to make certain the supremacy of the Commons. The most important thing is to get this amendment in the Bill so that we are absolutely clear about that.
It is so simple. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations with the EU 27, it is with Parliament, not simply with the Government, that authority lies, deal or no deal. I am afraid I did not follow the Minister’s response on this last week in Committee, questioning what would happen if the EU terminates the talks and refuses to extend the negotiations. He asked: what then? It is pretty simple: the Government come back to Parliament.
Stranger still than that is the briefing coming out of No. 10, with advisers arguing that giving legislators the power to veto the final Brexit deal and send the Premier back to the negotiating table would undermine her and limit the possibility of a good deal and, indeed, might even push the EU into giving a bad Brexit deal, incentivising it, it seems,
“in the hope it stops us leaving”.
That was what Downing Street apparently told the Financial Times, and I always believe the Financial Times.
I again remind the House that it was Mrs May who said that the deal would be put to a vote in both Houses, so all this is real nonsense. The only issue is whether it is an undertaking or in the Bill. All we are doing in this amendment is putting her pledge, which I am sure was absolutely sincerely given—I do not question that—in the Bill. It is hardly starting a revolution. It is certainly not upending the referendum, and any such arguments are in bad faith because we are trying to put the Prime Minister’s undertaking in the Bill. We do not want the Government’s hand to be forced by the courts. We want the vote to be clearly in the Bill, ideally with the Government’s blessing, without even the need for us to divide. They need to provide certainty at this stage so that we are not back having this debate in 18 months’ time. The amendment is about authorising Parliament. It is to put wheels on the outcome of the referendum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, this debate has shown this House at its very best, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Forty-four, I think, hours of debate on these 137 words show how sprightly your Lordships are.
Before I discuss the amendments, I shall briefly set out three core principles governing our approach to this country’s withdrawal from the European Union. First, the Government are determined to honour and deliver on the result of the referendum: the United Kingdom is going to leave the European Union. Secondly, everything we do will be determined by our national interest, and we shall do nothing to undermine it. Thirdly, parliamentary sovereignty is key. Parliament will have a role in scrutinising the Government throughout the negotiations and in making decisions, a point to which I will return.
Given this, I turn now to the rationale and motives behind the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Cormack, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. One basic intent is that the Government should be legally bound to deliver on their commitment to give Parliament a vote on the agreement. That government commitment is crystal clear, and I shall repeat it: the commitment is to bring forward a Motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.
The need for my noble friend Lord Cormack’s amendment, and the first three proposed new subsections of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, really comes down to a judgment about whether Ministers and the Government can be trusted and to considering the consequences if the Government were not to deliver on this commitment. All I can say is that of course we will honour our promise and Parliament will hold the Government to account for doing so. Let me go further and echo a point very well made by my noble friend Lord Howard: at any point throughout this process, Parliament will be able to express its view. Given this, the other place was happy with this state of affairs. It considered and rejected similar amendments.
Furthermore, Parliament will not be providing scrutiny in the dark. After all, this Government have committed to keeping the UK Parliament at least as well informed as the European Parliament as negotiations progress. The Government will continue to be accountable to Parliament via regular Statements—which I so enjoy—debates and Select Committee appearances. Crucially, Parliament’s role will not just be one of scrutiny. It will make decisions and shape the legislation required to give effect to our withdrawal from the European Union: the great repeal Bill to repeal the ECA and the legislation that will be required for significant policy changes, such as on immigration and customs. With the greatest of respect to my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, any amendment that attempts to transcribe the Government’s commitment into legislation is unnecessary. More than being unnecessary, an amendment that sought to put this commitment in the Bill could have unintended consequences and create, as has been said, a lucrative field day for lawyers. I do not want to single out any particular lawyer, but I have one in mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, put it so well in Committee,
“regulating parliamentary proceedings by statute ... generally ends in some sort of tears”.—[Official Report, 1/3/17; col. 920.]
Other noble Lords have asked whether someone might argue that we need an Act of Parliament to authorise our exit from the European Union and whether the Bill is sufficient for our withdrawal. The requirements of the Miller judgment are entirely fulfilled by the Bill. The Supreme Court ruled that because withdrawal from the EU involves removing a source of domestic law in the UK, and because of the far-reaching effects of the European Communities Act, the authority of primary legislation is needed before the Government can decide to give notice under Article 50. The Supreme Court did not rule that anything further is required to satisfy our constitutional requirements.
Let me now turn to subsection (4) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 3, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I have to say there is something about Labour and Clause 4, but we will put that to one side. The motive behind this subsection was summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in Committee and he repeated it today. He said:
“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”.—[Official Report, 1/3/17; col. 907-8.]
As he said, proposed new subsection (4) goes beyond what the Government have committed to in the other place and there are several problems with it. The first concerns the Government’s role as negotiator and one of my first principles, which is protecting our national interest. When considering this amendment, we must ask ourselves whether it will strengthen or weaken the Government’s hand at the negotiating table. Remember the wise words of this House’s Select Committee:
“The Government will conduct the negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom, and, like any negotiator, it will need room to manoeuvre if it is to secure a good outcome”.
Let us not forget the Motion passed by the other place that nothing should be done to undermine the negotiating position of the Government. This proposed new subsection in this amendment would do just that—
Lord Bridges of Headley
Let me continue please. Denying the Prime Minister the ability to walk away from the negotiating table, as proposed new subsection (4) would do, would only incentivise the European Union to offer us a bad deal. The European Union is bound to see that there are a number of people in Parliament who think that any deal is better than no deal. We heard some noble Lords argue just now that to go to WTO terms would be bad for Britain. Therefore, this amendment simply makes the negotiations much harder from day one for the Prime Minister, since it increases the incentive for the European Union to offer nothing but a bad deal.
Some have argued that the proposed clause would strengthen the Government’s hand. They say that this is like a CEO saying, “My board will not agree to that deal”. However, this analogy is not correct in this case. Most boards would say, “We want to do a deal, but not at any price”. In this case, a number of parliamentarians are saying, “Any deal is better than no deal”. This approach would therefore weaken the Government’s position.
However, that is not the only problem with this amendment. The amendment is clear—
Lord Bridges of Headley
Forgive me. The amendment is clear on one thing, and one thing only: namely, that if Parliament agrees with the Prime Minister that no deal is better than the terms on offer, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a deal. However, it is unclear—totally unclear—what happens if the House says no to walking away. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth asked, what path must the Prime Minister then take? Is she to accept the terms on offer? Is she being told to secure a better deal—and, if so, what would happen if that cannot be achieved before the end of the two-year period? Alternatively, in the silence of the amendment on this matter, is she to find a means to remain a member of the European Union?
We do not know the answer to any of these questions. My noble friend Lord Forsyth was entirely right to highlight this omission. The Government cannot possibly accept an amendment that is so unclear on an issue of this importance: what the Prime Minister is to do if Parliament votes against leaving with no agreement.
With regard to that risk, let us remember the first principle that I stated: the Government are intent on delivering on the result of the referendum as a matter of firm policy. I almost turn to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to repeat the words after me. As a matter of firm policy, a notification under Article 50 will not be revoked. Therefore, for the Government, any question of whether notification under Article 50 is legally reversible is irrelevant. The parliamentary vote that we have promised will be very meaningful: we will leave with a deal or we will leave without a deal. That is the choice on offer. However, the choice offered by this amendment by proposed subsection (4), is unclear.
I will end by repeating the first line of the White Paper:
“We do not approach these negotiations expecting failure, but anticipating success”.
Our clear intent, as I said, is to negotiate a new partnership with the European Union that will enable us and Europe to continue to trade freely together and to co-operate and collaborate where it is in our interests. Parliament will decide on whether to accept or reject the agreement. The purpose of this simple Bill is to deliver on the result of the referendum and to leave the EU. These amendments are unnecessary. They are damaging to our national interest, they would create uncertainty and they may be used by some to block the wish of the British people to leave the European Union. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this very full debate. I am particularly grateful to the Minister. The whole House recognises the skill, expertise and indeed patience with which he has piloted this Bill through the House. He will need all those qualities over the next two years. I am sure that the whole House wishes him the best of luck.
The essence of this amendment is clear. It has been clear from the start. It simply seeks to ensure that Parliament, not Ministers, has control over the terms of our withdrawal at the end of the negotiating process. I find it disappointing that those who most loudly asserted the importance of the sovereignty of Parliament during the referendum campaign are now so alarmed by the prospect of the sovereignty of Parliament at the end of the process.
Lord Pannick
No, we have had a full debate. The Minister says that an undertaking has been given on proposed subsections (1) to (3) and therefore that this amendment is not needed. On a matter of this importance, an undertaking is no substitute for a commitment in legislation. On proposed subsection (4), it surely must be for Parliament, not Ministers, to decide whether we leave on no terms or on the terms that have been offered.
The Minister repeated that the approval of both Houses of Parliament will be needed and in no part of the argument advanced by the Minister in his winding-up speech did he express any concern about the primacy of the House of Commons not being recognised by this amendment. If the Government do believe that that is a problem—and if we pass this amendment—the Government will be perfectly able to put a revised amendment before the other place next week.
Your Lordships have heard the arguments. It is now time to test the opinion of the House.
“Maintenance of citizenship rights set out in the Belfast Agreement
Before a notification can be given under section 1(1), the Prime Minister must give an undertaking to negotiate under the process set out in Article 50 to support the right of Northern Irish people to claim Irish citizenship, as set out in the Belfast Agreement.”
Lord Hain
My Lords, Amendment 5 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who was my predecessor as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I reassure your Lordships that this is more of a probing amendment, and I certainly do not intend to even consider dividing on it. That should be a relief.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement of 1998, endorsed by a referendum in Northern Ireland, included the rights of people who were born in Northern Ireland to choose to be Irish or British, or to choose to be both. Some choose to exercise, exclusively, one of them. Indeed, a British citizen whose parents were born in Ireland could—as many have done since the referendum—apply for an Irish passport without giving up their British citizenship, because British citizens are also allowed to hold dual citizenship. This means that you do not have to renounce your British citizenship if you apply for an Irish passport.
However, for those who choose to be both British and Irish or just Irish, will they also be citizens of the European Union as they are now? I presume that they would: the Minister will, I hope, confirm that Irish citizenship automatically confers EU citizenship rights, so that right to be a citizen of the European Union would remain. Can we assume that the EU would not object to EU citizen status for Irish citizens, not only those living in the Republic, but also those living in Northern Ireland, in what will be, after Brexit, part of a non-member state, the United Kingdom? Will those born in Northern Ireland claiming Irish citizenship remain EU citizens, albeit living outside the EU?
Can we assume that the position would be analogous to someone being able to apply for dual French and British citizenship—for example, if they were British, but had French parents? As long as France remained in the European Union, the French citizenship would confer the right to EU citizenship by extension; in the case of Northern Ireland, however, it will apply to a whole society—Northern Ireland’s—and not just individuals claiming European citizenship through relatives. Can the Minister give a guarantee that this right is maintained for people from Northern Ireland? After all, a common EU identity has helped both nationalists and unionists to focus on what they have in common rather than what has, for centuries, divided them. Irish citizenship may of course also be available for those with grandparents who were born on the island of Ireland, which includes Northern Ireland.
I note the report of the House of Lords European Union Committee, which stated on page 32:
“We also considered the impact of Brexit on the current reciprocal rights for UK and Irish citizens to live and work in each other’s countries. Such rights are underpinned in domestic law by the treatment of Irish nationals as non-foreigners under the Ireland Act 1949, and the acknowledgement of their special status in subsequent legislation including the Immigration Act 1971, as well as by the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 ... In addition, under the terms of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the people of Northern Ireland have the right to identify as British, Irish or both, and to claim citizenship accordingly. Those who claim Irish citizenship would, by extension, be able to claim EU citizenship”.
Last week, I raised the thorny issue of the border in the context of Brexit. Nationalist and above all republican buy-in to the peace process has been cemented by an open border, as it normalises relations between both parts of the island. For them, it is iconic; and for unionists, either doing business or going about their daily lives, it is also extremely valuable. Similarly, the right to be Irish has been for nationalists and republicans a key part of the Northern Ireland peace process. Furthermore, do the Government agree that it is vital to retain and guarantee that right, not just for those who currently enjoy it but for future generations? Categorical reassurances on all of these are especially important after, first, a collapse of the power-sharing Executive into an election, and then a seismic result in which for the first time since 1922, unionists do not have a majority in the local legislature. Is there hope that two charismatic new women leaders, Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill and Alliance’s Naomi Long, can broker common ground with the DUP’s leader Arlene Foster to rescue devolved government?
Meanwhile, the issue of how to deal with Northern Ireland’s troubled and tangled past remains toxic. Long-retired British soldiers are being prosecuted, provoking outrage among both their families and unionists who perceive it as an unjustified focus on the state’s role in the conflict. “What about prosecutions of former IRA assassins?”, is their question? Both magnanimity and mutual respect is needed, otherwise Northern Ireland will get completely bogged down in its gruesome past, instead of properly supporting victims and building a new future.
To conclude, I ask that the Minister gives a proper and full explanation and guarantee about the entitlement to Irish and therefore European citizenship of people from Northern Ireland. The EU has in the past been very supportive in recognising Northern Ireland’s unique status, and it will almost certainly have to be supportive in the future.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow my noble colleague and fellow former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Lord Hain, in support of the amendment. I merely point out that I am the third former Secretary of State from these Benches to have supported the sentiments of the amendment, as my noble friend Lord Murphy also spoke on the matter last week.
I do not intend to address the amendment in such detail as my noble Friend Lord Hain; I will confine my remarks to a focus on three or four strategic issues of vital importance. We have spent a great deal of time thinking and worrying—correctly—about the implications of Brexit for Scotland and, in my view, not nearly enough time thinking about the implications not only for Northern Ireland but for the whole of Ireland and a relationship which we have built over the past 20 years, in contrast to centuries prior to that of animosity and antagonism.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for tabling this amendment although I think that things may not be quite as difficult as he imagines. For many of us—I declare an interest here—our right to Irish citizenship is not contingent on the Belfast agreement. It goes back much further to the establishment of the common travel area. In order to set my own mind at rest, I checked with the Irish embassy after the Brexit vote to make sure of my own status. I was born in County Antrim during the war years and the answer was, “You are a citizen. You have birthright”. That did not continue indefinitely but many of us in the north have citizenship by virtue of being born, I think, when there was still a territorial claim to the entire island. I see the noble Lord, Lord Empey, nodding. That is very important to us. The numbers we are talking about are rather different from the suggestion that this is a Belfast agreement creation.
However, the underlying problems are every bit as severe as noble Lords have suggested. There are three. One is obviously the movement of people. I know that many in the Conservative Party think that ID cards are a no-no, but many noble Lords carry mobile phones which constantly give away far more about their identity. We should grow up and realise that in the present age identity and identification is absolutely routine. We need to get it right and enable people to travel. However, the issue is not only to identify the persons who have, under whatever dispensation we reach, no right to cross into the UK. I am afraid that this duty to identify ourselves would fall on all of us—probably when we do crucial things, such as register with a GP’s surgery, start a company or buy a property, and not merely when we travel. That topic really needs to be explored in full.
The second topic, which I believe is the most awkward, is the question of tariffs. Of course it depends on the negotiation that we have been talking about at some length today—what sort of issue that has to be, and how much of it can be electronic—but make no mistake: the economies are interwoven, and it cannot be thought that we will have a long queue at 260 border crossings across 300 miles. That is not a solution.
Thirdly, and I think this is a neglected but important topic, we may expect in the event of a negotiation that the agricultural support systems north and south of the Irish border will diverge. That creates new incentives to do something that has long been done—about which amusing stories can be told, because it is not only oil tankers that were put into fields but, of course, beasts. It is extraordinarily important that we address issues of biosecurity very early on in the negotiations. The economies of both the Republic and the north are highly integrated in some respects, particularly dairy, and it is very important that those supply lines can be maintained without any risk to biosecurity. Of course, it is not just the looming possibility of foot and mouth but also other horrible diseases that animals get, such as swine flu and Asian flu. You name it, it is possible. I hope that we can address that one soon.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, it is an opportunity, because of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to once again concentrate our minds on an aspect of our long debates on the EU and Brexit, and to realise the significance of a cameo within the bigger cameo. It is a question not just of addressing the issue of the United Kingdom and the EU; within the United Kingdom is a border that will become the frontier between the United Kingdom and the EU.
The border, which is a part of folklore as well as part of the political story of Ireland, is much more important, as I said at Second Reading, than a line on a map. It represents something in people’s minds, aspirations and memories of the past. I believe that the value of what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has said to us this evening is this: the border represents perhaps the most important facet for the people of Northern Ireland that is represented by Brexit. Northern Ireland will be affected by Brexit more than any other part of the United Kingdom simply because of geography. However, more than geography, it will be affected by cultural and economic changes and, of course, the security question.
It is important to emphasise what lies behind the words of the amendment; I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, will not press it to a Division. It is a reminder that this part of the United Kingdom will be the first to feel the effect of Brexit. The second part will be the ongoing consequences. As the noble Baroness has reminded us, there is the tariff question, the economy and the proverbial oil tankers, and horses and cows in the field.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
The whole House always listens to the noble and right reverend Lord with the greatest respect on these matters. I have known him for about 20 years and have spoken to him on the subject over that time and feel the same degree of respect. I wonder whether he would like to tell the House—I do not know what answer he will give—whether he feels that one possible solution to the difficult, dire problems he has just outlined might be to allow for the negotiation of a special status for Northern Ireland which might leave it, at least in some respects, within the European Union.
Lord Eames
My Lords, I feel that the question that the noble Lord has raised takes us far beyond the points I was trying to put over because we must not tie the hands of the team that is going to speak for us all in the negotiations. I say to the noble Lord, please keep an open mind on the possibilities, but it is not for us to concern ourselves with.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, it is a real delight to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. When he was Archbishop of Armagh he invited me endless times to visit Northern Ireland, even during the terrible Troubles. As a result we ended up spending a lot of holidays in that particular part of Ireland. It is a very beautiful, wonderful place. The noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Reid, spoke with insight. I would like to follow in their footsteps on this wonderful probing amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, says he is not going to put to a vote.
I want to say three things. First, this amendment, as I understand it, touches on sensitivities that Brexit risks putting Northern Ireland’s peace process in jeopardy by not taking account of the fact that under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement citizens in Northern Ireland have a right to Irish citizenship and therefore EU citizenship. This makes Northern Ireland unique post Brexit as the only jurisdiction outside the EU where every person living there is legally entitled to be a citizen of the European Union, simply by applying for an Irish passport. While these considerations are high on the agenda in Dublin and Belfast, they are not receiving, as I understand it, the attention they deserve in London, Brussels or other EU capitals. The amendment seeks to reverse that situation, hence its probing nature.
Secondly, this issue and other matters relating to the impact of Brexit on UK-Irish relations were explored in a report published in December 2016 by the House of Lords European Union Committee. The committee concluded that the unique nature of UK-Irish relations needs a unique solution. It recommended that the best way to achieve this would be for the EU institutions and member states to invite the UK and Irish Governments to negotiate a draft bilateral agreement, involving and incorporating the views and interests of the Northern Ireland Executive, while keeping the EU itself fully informed. Such an agreement would then need to be agreed by the EU partners as a strand of the withdrawal agreement. I will be interested to know what the Minister will say about that.
Thirdly, this amendment does not go as far as the committee suggested but it holds that the right of the people of Northern Ireland to Irish and therefore EU citizenship should be upheld in any agreement negotiated following the triggering of Article 50. To me, that is important. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, reminded us of the importance of the border. There is no wall there but it is a border. It seems to me that the rights of those people need to be upheld otherwise we are going to put in jeopardy this wonderful decision under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that citizens in Northern Ireland have a right to Irish citizenship and therefore EU citizenship.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the wonderful, heartfelt speech from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. I think I speak for many in this Chamber by saying that his speaking with such emotion makes us realise how important this issue is. The right of Northern Irish people to claim Irish citizenship is, as other noble Lords have said, set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the Irish constitution and, as has also been said, the common travel agreement. It should be stressed that this right will remain and will not be changed by Brexit. It would be wrong to suggest otherwise.
However, there remain many unanswered questions and it will be useful, in debating this probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to push the Government for clarification on several issues. As has been said, Northern Ireland is unique in the United Kingdom in that citizens can choose to have Irish citizenship, British citizenship or both. Since the Maastricht treaty, citizens in both Ireland and the United Kingdom have also been entitled to European citizenship. However, following Brexit, in Northern Ireland there will be a situation in which, unlike in the rest of the UK, people will be able to remain EU citizens by virtue of their Irish citizenship. Will the Minister say how he believes UK citizens also being able to maintain EU citizenship will work in practice?
Last week, your Lordships’ House voted overwhelmingly to maintain EU citizens’ rights in the United Kingdom. If this is overturned by the House of Commons next week, can the Minister clarify whether he believes this will have any impact on the Northern Irish people who have opted to have Irish citizenship? If there is no change to the current situation, does the Minister believe that this would entail special status within the European Union? Finally, can the Minister confirm that resolving these issues will be a top priority for the Government, and does he agree that any continuing uncertainty or lack of clarity about future citizenship rights for Northern Irish people is clearly unacceptable?
Viscount Slim (CB)
My Lords, how pleasant to have a meaningful and good, short debate. I so agree with what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, was kind enough to mention the bad feelings caused by the hounding and prosecuting of British soldiers over matters of Sinn Fein and Ireland. I remind noble Lords that our Armed Forces are full of good Ulstermen and good Irishmen, and they need looking after and defending. The false prosecuting of British soldiers and airmen and the constabulary in Northern Ireland should not be allowed. The Minister may not recall that previous Governments have given dispensation to IRA/Sinn Fein murderers of British troops and the constabulary. This false prosecution and hounding of the Armed Forces has to stop. It is a law thing, and maybe the Minister has some views on it. I raise it because the noble Lord was kind enough to bring up the question of a British soldier being prosecuted.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I put it on record that my noble friend Lord Hain, who is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, my noble friend Lord Murphy and I tried, unsuccessfully, to draw a line against all prosecutions before 1998. We did it in retrospect in 2002, 2005, 2006 and so on. We could not get common agreement among parties in Northern Ireland—or, indeed, in the British Parliament—so to do. We said at the time that we would regret that decision as the years went on and prosecutions were pursued against the British Armed Forces, the RUC and, indeed, people from the loyalist and republican communities. I put it on record that the three of us all made an attempt to solve this problem, but we could not get consensus in the British Parliament or among the parties in Northern Ireland.
Viscount Slim
I am fully aware of that and of what other noble Lords, Ministers and Secretaries of State have done, and I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I believe that citizenship is not threatened by the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Indeed, I am absolutely certain that people of whatever outlook can be confident that the undertakings given to them will be honoured. I refer to the Good Friday agreement, where in the section under constitutional issues, paragraph vi of Article 1 refers to recognising,
“the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland”.
We can link that to the matter that I brought to your Lordships’ attention in the debate last week. We go back to our friends in the Supreme Court, who said that the Supreme Court has now unanimously endorsed the Belfast ruling without caveat, which was to say that the rights of people in Northern Ireland were not affected by Brexit—but the Attorney-General John Larkin decided to put the case to the Supreme Court for clarity, and it is a good thing he did. That included the three judges who were dissenting from the final judgment in Miller. Furthermore, because there will now be a UK Parliament vote on Article 50, the court added that nothing about Northern Ireland’s removal from Europe breaches any law, treaty or part of the constitution.
Therefore, I contend, though not being a lawyer, that the position of citizenship is secure. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, clearly indicated, that goes back way before the Belfast agreement ever existed. In fact, the Irish constitution, before it was amended in 1998, made it absolutely clear that any person born on the physical ground of the island of Ireland was an Irish citizen, which has pertained ever since. It was reinforced in the Belfast agreement, but it says that it shall,
“not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland”.
In other words, people argue that leaving the European Union changes the status in some way, but the Supreme Court says that no injury is done to any treaty, law or the constitution.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for raising one of the issues that has troubled me most about leaving the European Union. It is not just about citizenship, from my perspective. So many companies across Ireland are deeply concerned about the possibility of leaving the EU with no deal, falling back on WTO rules, and the effect on the economy of the north and the rest of Ireland. In the context of us having responsibility for the whole of the United Kingdom, I urge the Minister to reassure us that it is possible to leave the customs union and still provide significant comfort to corporations and others engaged in economic activity in Northern Ireland.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Murphy of Torfaen for tabling the amendment, which gives us a chance further to emphasise the importance we place on the issue it deals with. It has been for the most part an extremely positive debate. Contributions from my noble friends Lord Murphy of Torfaen, Lord Reid of Cardowan and Lord Hain, as former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, have weighed heavily on the discussion, as well as the contributions of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who brought a commendable spirit of tolerance into what can be on occasions a tight subject.
It has been almost 20 years since the people of Northern Ireland turned out to vote for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. Last week, Northern Irish voters turned out in the highest numbers since 1998 to vote for representation and progress in the devolved Assembly. The negotiations in the coming days and weeks are vital to the future of Northern Ireland to ensure that victims are supported and communities are able to move forward. There is so much at stake here.
The UK and Irish Governments are co-guarantors of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and must live up to this responsibility. This is vital, not only to immediate negotiations on devolution but, focusing on the amendment, to long-term Brexit negotiations. On the issue of British-Irish relations and the role of the European Union, it is worth noting that the Prime Minister and Taoiseach are meeting to discuss Northern Ireland while they are together at the EU Council summit in Brussels this week. That can only be a positive development.
There is a body of opinion that, when he decided to call the European Union referendum, the former Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, had not given proper thought to the implications for Northern Ireland if UK voters opted to leave. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have worked so keenly during the passage of the Bill to focus the Government’s mind on these key issues, particularly my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who has brought considerable expertise to these discussions. The Good Friday agreement has been the cornerstone of two decades of progress in Northern Ireland. This House has asked for an absolute guarantee from the Government that the provisions of the agreement will remain in place and be respected in both letter and spirit. These questions were also raised last week when other matters were discussed. We had no hesitation in fully accepting the Minister’s assurances when he responded to the debate. He went a long way toward guaranteeing the House’s acceptance that those assurances would hold. I have every confidence that he will again give assurances on the responsibilities of the UK Government that will satisfy most genuine, open-minded people.
The passport arrangements recognise,
“the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both”.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I have not heard any great objection to this. As he said, how can anyone object to someone else’s identity? Surely we accept that. We know that the Government accept this situation and it should not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland. We in this House have a shared duty to guarantee the future of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and the rights of Northern Irish citizens. As noble Lords on all sides have said, we must respect the will of the people and, in doing so, we must continue to respect, protect and uphold the result of the referendum which took place in May 1998.
I thank noble Lords for a very positive discussion and restate my belief that the Minister will repeat his assurances of last week, which greatly reassured the whole House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this amendment, relating to the right of the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves as British or Irish or both, under the Belfast agreement. It is always a pleasure to follow two former Secretaries of State who have so much experience of this issue. I also mention the eloquent contributions from, among others, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to the current political context. The whole House is very conscious of the political situation in Northern Ireland and the need to provide support to the parties there. The recent Assembly election produced a high turnout, and my right honourable friend the Northern Ireland Secretary said in a statement on Saturday:
“This election has demonstrated the clear desire by the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland for inclusive, devolved Government … Everyone now has a shared responsibility to engage intensively in the short period of time that is available to us, to ensure that a strong and stable administration is established”.
I make it absolutely clear that the Government take that responsibility very seriously and are totally committed to the resumption of strong and stable devolved government, which is so much in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. We all want to see the forward momentum of the peace process maintained.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, seeks an undertaking to support the right of the people of Northern Ireland to claim Irish citizenship, as set out in the Belfast agreement. The Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement is absolutely rock-solid, including to the principles that recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they so choose, and their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made clear, this birthright predates the Belfast agreement. The United Kingdom’s departure from the EU will not change this commitment. However, the question of who can or cannot claim Irish nationality and citizenship is not something that would be dealt with through the Article 50 process.
Citizenship and nationality are matters of exclusive member state competence. The right to Irish nationality and citizenship is therefore a matter for Ireland, in line with its own commitments under the Belfast agreement. The Taoiseach has repeatedly made clear that the Irish Government remain committed to this agreement. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, EU citizenship is enjoyed by the citizens of all EU members. Therefore, any Northern Ireland resident who takes Irish citizenship will have EU citizenship. This is a matter of EU law, so no guarantees are required from the UK. It does not require special status. There are, after all, 3 million EU citizens currently in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, raised the issue of the border. The Government are committed to a frictionless border. How that is achieved is a matter for negotiation.
In conclusion, although the Government agree with the core sentiment behind this amendment—namely, unwavering support for the Belfast agreement—there is no need for its inclusion in the Bill in order to achieve the effect the noble Lords are seeking. Therefore, I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment, as he indicated he would not.
Lord Hain
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and will respond briefly to him in a moment. However, the happy consensus which we have enjoyed this evening will be destroyed over the weekend when Wales play Ireland—at least in the case of my noble friend Lord Murphy and me.
My noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames spoke, as always, with moving eloquence. I am grateful for his generosity to me and to my noble friends Lord Reid and Lord Murphy. He said, very aptly, that Northern Ireland was affected by Brexit more than any other part of the UK. Scotland may be making the most noise but he is right that Northern Ireland, potentially, will be more seriously affected.
The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, referred to my mention of soldiers being prosecuted. To ensure that he understands my point of view, which is shared by my noble friends Lord Reid and Lord Murphy, we did indeed try to draw a line under the past. I introduced the Northern Ireland Offences Bill, which fell because its principle was that it applied to everybody. You had to treat people equally, whether they were a British soldier or a former paramilitary: that principle is vital. I can well understand why the families of soldiers who are now in their 70s and are being prosecuted for offences that they are said to have committed have a grievance that this may be one-sided.
You have to do these things even-handedly—and I return to what my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames said. I do not wish to detain the House because it is not strictly appropriate to this amendment, but it is part of the context. You have to deal with this whole question in an entirely different way from pursuing continuous prosecutions going back 30, 40 and more years. Forensic evidence in those cases is either non-existent or, if there is forensic and other evidence, it is often more easily captured under former serving soldiers, where records were kept, than it is under former paramilitaries. So long as the parties turn their backs on an even-handed approach and so long as government is unable to pursue that matter, we will continue to have these grievances and they will multiply.
My noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames was the co-author, with Denis Bradley, of a very authoritative and excellent report on the past. There was one particular recommendation on compensation which perhaps was not ideal and attracted a lot of controversy. However, the rest of the report showed how it was possible to address this issue. The people of Northern Ireland and their politicians should return to it.
Lord Empey
I am obliged to the noble Lord. Would he not confirm that, even going back to 1998, one of the principal objectors to drawing a line or trying to treat everybody equally was the Army? It did not wish to be treated in the same way as terrorists who were being prosecuted. It wrote to the Government at the time, objecting strongly to being treated in the same way as ex-paramilitary prisoners. I understand that the security forces still object to that. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. I hope that the noble Lord is at least aware of it.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
What the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said was true—but, at a certain point, the chiefs of staff actually changed their mind. They could see the difficulties of paramilitaries having been released and the precise difficulties that have been pointed out tonight of British Army soldiers being prosecuted. While I was Secretary of State, they agreed that, if any member of the Armed Forces wished, in the event of such legislation being passed, to have recourse to and defence through immunity, they would not object. So, historically, although they had taken one view, they were prepared to countenance that on behalf of the Armed Forces.
Unfortunately, the parties in Northern Ireland would not permit an agreement at any given time—and nor, indeed, to be fair, would the British Parliament. We said consistently, “You will regret this because it will be a running sore for decades”. While we accept that there is a contradiction between justice for the families of those injured or killed in the past—which I understand perfectly—and peace and security for the future, the overwhelming case was to assure peace and security for all families in future by drawing a line at 1998. This has been the position of the British Armed Forces since 2003, as I understand it.
Lord Hain
I am grateful to my noble friend. I will not prolong this discussion too much except to say that, following the impasse that the Minister, the Secretary of State and their colleagues are grappling with, we hope that negotiations will bear fruit. It may well be that the British Government have to give something on this. I would just mention in passing that there is, for example, a demand from the WAVE trauma group to have a pension for innocent victims—not perpetrators of atrocities. I presume this could come only from the Government. I will briefly give way.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. Thanks to the initiative of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, we are talking about a desperately important matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, there are still some serious reservations about granting amnesty to British forces. I share some of those sensitivities. Without getting into this complicated ground, is it not the case that the prosecuting authorities always have the option to decide whether or not to prosecute not just on the grounds of whether there is a chance of a conviction but also on the grounds of national interest? Is it not to be hoped that the prosecutor in Northern Ireland will take advantage of the opportunity for a judgment with the greatest degree of sensitivity?
Lord Hain
We are opening up a whole new debate. I am not sure I fully agree with my noble friend. I will end by saying that I welcome the fact that the Minister said that the commitment to the option of Irish citizenship is rock solid, as is the commitment of the Government to the Good Friday Belfast agreement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Shale Gas
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Truscott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the economic and environmental benefits of shale gas development in the United Kingdom.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, in opening this debate, I declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Shale Gas Regulation and Planning and as a former UK Energy Minister.
This is a controversial subject and, no doubt, your Lordships have heard and will hear many different views. Hydraulic fracturing—fracking—is a technological reality and cannot be uninvented. It is also clear that the Government, and Parliament as a whole, are determined to develop shale gas in the UK. The question is whether this development has been thoroughly thought through in all its ramifications, as we inexorably move towards exploration and production.
Andrea Leadsom, the Minister of State for Energy at the time, said in May 2016 that shale gas could,
“provide jobs for our people and tax revenues for our society”,
and
“help the UK to decarbonise while we move away from coal to lower-carbon energy sources”.
It could secure energy and bring economic growth and job creation.
The suggestion has been that shale gas development could create between 60,000 and 70,000 jobs, stimulate billions of pounds of investment in the UK, provide energy security and help secure “a bridge to a greener future”. On the face of it, these arguments seem compelling, except that none of them is quite as straightforward as it initially sounds.
Let me start with energy security. The assumption is that we lack it. A House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report into shale specifically referred to the reliance on Russia, Europe’s biggest gas supplier. The only problem here is that the UK imports virtually no gas from Russia and is unlikely to import significant amounts in the future.
In a Written Answer to me last September, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, responded:
“There are no pipelines that allow Russian gas to flow from Norway (our biggest source of imports) or via shipped Liquefied Natural Gas (which comes mainly from Qatar). Some gas of Russian origin may enter via pipelines from Belgium and the Netherlands. However, Belgium has reported virtually no Russian gas imports over the past three years. The Netherlands does report some Russian imports, but we estimate Russian gas via this route would account for less than 1% of the UK’s gas imports and, therefore, much less than 1% of our total gas supply”.
In fact, the UK has now started receiving direct imports of US LNG so, unless we regard Norway and the US as unreliable partners, the energy security argument does not stack up. Of course, it is always better economically to have our own gas than to import it. There may be some environmental benefits if the amount of carbon produced is less, but that is by no means currently certain.
The billions of pounds of investment and thousands of jobs are presently speculative. Hopes of commercial-scale shale in Poland have faded and many of the majors have already pulled out. The number of licences have been halved. Those leaving include Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Talisman and Marathon. Put simply, UK shale may or may not be commercially viable. No one will know until large-scale exploration establishes the level of exploitable reserves. This is, of course, a matter for the companies involved, but the experience in Poland shows that you should not count your chickens or your prospective tax-take.
As for the thousands of jobs, these may or may not just replace those already lost in the North Sea, partly as a result of the hydrocarbon glut and price collapse caused by the US shale revolution in the first place. Oil and Gas UK estimates that 120,000 jobs have been lost in the wider British economy due to the North Sea oil and gas downturn, with a barrel of crude falling from about $115 to around $50 since 2014, with a close correlation with gas prices. The US has also experienced the boom and ghost town experience, where some shale operators which initially did well went bust in the downturn, impacting local economies.
Significant UK shale production and downward pressure on prices could further undermine North Sea operators and squeeze margins in what is already one of the most expensive places in the world to exploit oil and gas. So what about a “bridge to a greener future” and the effect on the environment? Well, this is one of the most contentious issues of all. No doubt the Minister will repeat that the UK’s regulations are some of the strongest in the world and that we have 50 years of successful and safe onshore and offshore oil and gas extraction. Shale gas developments will be very closely monitored, shallow drilling will be banned and seismic movements monitored. That is all true, no doubt, but as Piper Alpha, Deepwater Horizon and the Exxon Valdez disasters showed, accidents do happen. No hydrocarbon explorer or producer can 100% guarantee the integrity of its wells, even if they are much deeper than aquifers. Water contamination is possible and earthquakes are inevitable. We have had several hundred already in the UK as a result of mining operations, quite apart from the notorious Cuadrilla quakes outside Blackpool. The US has had thousands of earthquakes, now indisputably linked to fracking. I am still unsure how the UK will avoid the same fate as the US. Perhaps the Minister will use this opportunity to explain that.
By the very nature of fracking and unconventional gas, where production falls off after 18 months, the UK will need to develop thousands, not hundreds, of shale gas wells. This has caused problems in the wide open spaces of the US. How will it work in this densely populated island of ours? What about the truck movements? In the US, the environmental picture has not been great. In 2014, Oklahoma experienced 585 earthquakes with a magnitude of three and over. According to the US Geological Survey, these were caused by the disposal of wastewater reinjected into the wells by the shale operators. A study by the University of Alberta, co-authored by the Geological Survey of Canada, confirmed a definitive link between fracking and almost every large earthquake recorded in Alberta and British Columbia since 1985.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection reported that 234 private drinking water wells in Pennsylvania have been contaminated by drilling and fracking operations in the last seven years. Meanwhile, a US Environmental Protection Agency scientist identified groundwater pollution in Pavillion, Wyoming, as a result of fracking. A separate report in April 2016 concluded that there were,
“dangerous levels of chemicals in the underground water supply used by the 230 residents of Pavillion ... Levels of benzine, a flammable liquid used in fuel, were 50 times above the allowable limit, while chemicals were dumped in unlined pits and cement barriers to protect groundwater were inadequate”.
Last week, the leadership of the Pawnee Nation, a Native American tribe, filed a lawsuit against multiple Oklahoma oil companies, claiming that their operations caused a 5.8 magnitude earthquake.
Furthermore, there is serious concern about the amounts of methane released during fracking. Recent attempts in the US under President Obama to limit methane emissions look likely to be overturned by President Trump. Of course, the industry will tell us that it will all be different in the UK. It cannot happen here, the US is different and the regulations will be tighter. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment further on that. However, some states and regions think differently. Maryland in the US has put a moratorium on fracking, as have Scotland, Northern Ireland and France. Fracking was banned in New York in December 2014. What do they know that we do not, or do Her Majesty Government have a monopoly of wisdom on the subject? The UK’s Labour Party also supports banning fracking, with shadow energy Minister Barry Gardiner stating:
“The real reason to ban fracking is that it locks us into an energy infrastructure that is based on fossil fuels long after our country needs to have moved to clean energy”.
We will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels in the foreseeable future, at least up to 2040 or 2050. Her Majesty’s Government are committed to reducing our carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. Professor Kevin Anderson, former director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has said:
“From a climate-change perspective this stuff simply has to stay in the ground”.
The Environmental Audit Committee reported in 2015:
“Ultimately, fracking cannot be compatible with our long-term commitments to cut climate changing emissions unless full-scale carbon capture and storage technology is rolled out rapidly, which currently looks unlikely”.
The Committee on Climate Change also thought that the implications for UK shale gas exploitation for greenhouse emissions,
“are subject to considerable uncertainty”,
and are not compatible with UK carbon budgets unless strict measures are taken.
Finally, a recent survey showed that only 19% of people back shale exploration in the UK despite the various inducements offered to local communities. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in the other place last November that the Prime Minister has been very clear:
“Local people must come first”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/16; col. 727.]
Will the Minister therefore pledge that local communities will in future decide local planning issues?
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, on obtaining this debate and on his introduction to it. However, I shall come to some very different conclusions from those that he reached.
I chaired the Economic Affairs Select Committee, which reported on this subject in May 2014. According to our own press department’s survey, that committee’s report obtained one of the widest levels of attention of any Select Committee report produced at that time. That was partly, of course, because of the concerns of environmental groups but it went much wider than that.
Given the wide-ranging background and knowledge of the members of the Select Committee—on the environment, climate change, economic issues; we had all these things—I had thought that it would be very difficult to reach agreement. In fact, we had a unanimous report, having heard from a very wide range of expert witnesses. Therefore, my main conclusion remains, as was the conclusion in the report, that the benefits far outweigh the risks, and the risks can be controlled. My main concern is that it is still far from certain that the benefits will be realised and achieved.
What have been the developments since our report was published? First, the Government have made some beneficial changes to legislation. Senior Ministers, past and present, have confirmed that in principle they are strongly in favour of shale gas exploration and production as a major contributor to our energy mix, employment, import savings and other benefits.
Secondly, it is widely recognised that our regulatory and other environmental requirements are fit for purpose. Thirdly, the Government have made some helpful changes to planning and tax legislation and offered community benefits to those affected. All this is very commendable but progress is just too slow, there is no clear drive and few results have been obtained so far. The history to date is of limited progress and no real awareness among the wider public of the benefits of shale gas as compared with the media attention given to protesting local and environmental groups. Since 2004, government and Parliament have striven to meet all the environmental, planning and other concerns, as have the industry and regulators, and compensatory benefits have been given to local communities. All that is now in place. Yet still no exploration drills have been drilled since 2011, so we still do not know the full potential or can fully cover all the risks. So shale gas drilling is still at a pre-exploratory stage, no commercial operations have been authorised and a lengthy application process must be completed before drilling can take place.
Meanwhile, the world is passing us by. Only this week we learned that shale output from the Permian Basin in Texas is expanding faster than the world thought possible. The founder of Pioneer Natural Resources there said:
“People just don’t seem to realise how big the Permian is. It will eventually pass the Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia, and that is the biggest in the world”.
He also says:
“We have had such efficiency gains that break-even cost in the Permian are close to $25. It took us 40 days to drill a well in 2014. We’re already down to 20 days”.
Meanwhile, we in the UK have not even started. The US will get all the benefits, unless we get a move on.
The companies involved in the UK are running out of money quite quickly. The economic valuation is less favourable because the gas price has fallen considerably. The US is finding much more shale gas than originally anticipated and companies there are reducing costs dramatically. There could be a wave of imports in the next few years, making it less favourable for companies to develop here, at a cost to the balance of payments, to employment possibilities and to security of supply. I have not dealt with the wider security aspects, but they are there too.
The Government are committed to shale gas development in the UK. In our report we called for a Cabinet committee to be set up to get the right mix of incentives, to remove or substantially reduce obstacles, and to give a strong steer to all the departments, local authorities and others to make real progress. It has not yet happened. The benefits are likely to far outstrip the costs and the risks, and the latter can be controlled. Yet the benefits are still far from certain to be realised. In my view, swift progress to shale gas production needs greater public and political recognition and support—and we need to get on with it.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I think that I would have congratulated my noble friend Lord Truscott on introducing this debate if I had not had to listen to the way he introduced it, which was another example of all the scare stories that we have heard about fracking in the past. I am disappointed to hear them reiterated, because they have all been roundly disproved. The earthquake stories have been recycled again, but even if there was a slight worry about earthquakes, if monitoring of fracking in this country should show anything like 0.5 on the Richter scale I do not think that the earth would be moving, even for my noble friend. We have the toughest fracking safety regulations anywhere in the world.
I do not understand the idea that, apparently, anybody else can do fracking—it does not matter where else it is done—but it cannot be done here. We do not care if it is done in Qatar, or what the conditions are. We do not care about the fact that if it is liquefied and then de-liquefied that in itself causes emissions. Apparently that is okay with my noble friend.
The plain fact of the matter is that gas will continue to be used in this country, for 20, 30 and even more years. It is the largest source of electricity, accounting for around 45% of electricity generation, which has allowed the share of coal-fired generation to fall to record lows. Gas-fired power stations can run continuously or as flexible back-up for intermittent wind and solar energy.
I shall partly repeat what the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, said, because it was nice to hear a voice telling us about the real benefits that we can expect from fracking, assuming that we actually get round to doing it. At the moment we are significantly dependent on imports, not only of liquid natural gas but also of pipe gas. Whether or not we worry about energy security, surely we should be worried about price volatility, because we do not control the import prices. That exposes the UK to international currency fluctuations, with imported LNG, for example, priced in dollars.
This also harms the UK’s balance of trade, which apparently does not really matter to my noble friend. In 2015 the UK spent over £14 billion on net primary fuel and energy imports—crude oil, oil products, natural gas, coal and electricity. It is estimated that by 2030 imports of gas alone could cost the UK economy £10 billion a year. We could be producing that ourselves.
Among the benefits would be energy security and employment. What do we know about shale gas? We know that potentially there are billions if not trillions of cubic feet of gas here. We do not know for sure, but even taking the most conservative estimates—taking only 10%, say—that would give years and years of gas supplies. Employment does not seem to matter any longer either, but there are potential skilled jobs there. We have set up training colleges to train people, but apparently that does not matter either.
I listened carefully to my noble friend’s arguments, but I direct him to the report by the American Environmental Protection Agency, which looked at 38,000 wells. I did not notice it issuing an instruction that fracking had to stop immediately. If it were such a serious environmental danger, listening to my noble friend one would think that the whole of the US water supply was poisoned. That is just not the case.
The UK has the industry experience to make a success of shale gas production. More than 2,000 wells have been drilled onshore, with around 200 having been hydraulically fractured at lower volumes to enhance recovery. The Wytch Farm oilfield is located in an area of outstanding natural beauty on a world heritage coastline whose property prices are among the highest in the country and it produced 100,000 barrels of oil a day at peak production, yet I never noticed the whole of Dorset being contaminated as a result. Today the industry has 230 operating oil and gas wells onshore on 120 sites, producing about 8 million barrels of oil equivalent per year.
We have very large potential shale gas resources and what we are doing about them beggars belief—including, unfortunately, the decision taken by my own party to endorse a ban on fracking—when we could be using them to reduce the cost of fuel. If we cared about fuel poverty, I would have thought that that would be uppermost in our minds.
Unfortunately, in the green movement there are many scare stories. My noble friend talked about leaving it to local people to decide. I would be happy if it really were local people who decided, but we know that, as soon as there is any local activity in relation to fracking, the usual opponents flood the area, spreading scare stories about earthquakes and poisonous substances. The fact that 99.5% of the substances consists of sand and water did not stop Friends of the Earth claiming that the silicon used caused cancer. On that basis, I presume that none of our children will be playing on beaches any longer, because to my knowledge—although I do not claim to be an expert chemist—that is what sand consists of. These are irresponsible scare stories. Why people persist in spreading them is beyond me.
I do not want to exaggerate the impact of shale gas but, according to the British Geological Survey, in the Bowland shale there are something like 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. If only 10% of that could be extracted, it would be equivalent to 40 to 50 years of UK gas consumption. Surely that is worth doing. I cannot understand the opposition. If we were in the situation where there were not sufficient safety regulations, I would be the first to endorse the concern, but that is not the case. This Government have ensured the tightest set of safety regulations. My view is that there are real economic and energy security benefits, as well as employment benefits, to this country if only we could get on with the production of shale gas.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, who speaks a great deal of common sense on these issues. I declare my interests in energy as listed in the register—they are mainly in coal, which is threatened by shale gas, and so I should be against it but I am not.
I first visited a shale gas well in Pennsylvania in 2011 while writing a report for a think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, founded by my noble friend Lord Lawson. At that time, most energy analysts were still arguing that shale gas was a flash in the pan. I concluded that that was almost certainly wrong and that we were witnessing an energy revolution of huge significance. And so it proved. America went from importing to exporting gas. The shale boom pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the American economy through domestic production and lower prices. The environmental problems were minimal. President Obama’s Energy Secretary confirmed this in 2015, when he said:
“I still have not seen any evidence of fracking per se contaminating groundwater”.
Over the past decade, America has cut its carbon dioxide emissions faster than any country, thanks almost entirely to the shale gas revolution. It did so while simultaneously bringing heavy industry back onshore, whereas we have driven it away. Saudi Arabia tried to kill the shale drilling business in 2014 by flooding the market and cutting prices. It failed—the technology keeps improving and, as my noble friend Lord MacGregor said, the break-even price gets lower and lower.
Last November, I was on a shale-oil site in Colorado watching the new quiet-fracking fleet do its work: an operation that takes about the same length of time as building a wind turbine and is as limited in area, but produces hundreds of times more energy and is about 2% as prominent in height in the landscape when it is finished.
In 2011, I wrote that,
“shale gas faces a formidable host of enemies in the coal, nuclear, renewable and environmental industries—all keen, it seems, to strangle it at birth, especially in Europe”.
I was right about that too. What was the reaction of the environmental movement to this gift from the gods? To oppose it with all its might, even at the cost of telling the truth. This year, Friends of the Earth was forced by the Advertising Standards Authority to withdraw several misleading claims it had made about shale gas. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, it even resorted to arguing that sand is carcinogenic. It did not quite have the brass neck to complain about dihydrogen monoxide, which is injected in large quantities into shale gas wells—for those whose chemistry is rusty, that is H2O, or water.
Who is behind this anti-shale propaganda? Let us look at who stands to suffer from a successful shale revolution here. First, the subsidy-drunk renewable energy industry, still trying to justify things like burning American forests for electricity. The former DECC chief scientist, the late Professor David MacKay, found that in particular circumstances, using wood pellets to generate electricity could have a carbon footprint almost twice that of coal and four times that of gas, and yet we subsidise foreign wood pellets and stand in the way of shale gas.
The second group with an interest in undermining British shale gas, apparently, is a foreign power. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former NATO Secretary-General, has accused Moscow of campaigning to undermine shale gas. Here is a quote from National Review magazine in 2015:
“Russia has ramped up covert payments to environmental groups in the West. By supporting well-intentioned environmentalists with hard cash (often without their knowledge), Russian intelligence gains Western mouthpieces to petition Western audiences in its favor.”
Sure enough, the Kremlin’s mouthpiece, RT, Russia Today, has been broadcasting anti-UK shale propaganda on its “Keiser Report”, including the line that,
“frackers are the moral equivalent of paedophiles”.
The US Director of National Intelligence said very recently:
“RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability”.
This is what we are up against. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, knows Russia well. Given what I have said, can he shed any light on which anti-fracking protesters in this country are funded directly or indirectly by Russian interests?
We will be burning gas for decades to come under any policy. Even the national grid’s extreme “gone green” scenario for future energy policy sees us burning almost as much gas in 2035 as we burn today. But more than that, we have a huge chemical industry in this country, employing hundreds of thousands of people directly and indirectly. It needs methane and ethane, derived from natural gas wells, as feedstock. That industry will disappear rapidly if we do not exploit domestic shale. It has repeatedly warned us of this. As the GMB union puts it, if exploratory drilling reveals a plentiful supply of UK shale gas reserves,
“is it not a moral duty for Britain to take responsibility for providing for our own gas needs from those supplies rather than importing gas from elsewhere”?
Beneath Lancashire and Yorkshire, in the Bowland shale, lies one of the richest shale gas resources ever discovered. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, just 10% of it would be enough to provide 50 years of British needs. We know how to get it out, using sand and water to make millimetre-wide cracks a mile and a half down, with minimal environmental risks. The tiny group of middle-class southerners who go north to protest about this stuff are not representative of public opinion. Let us not us give in to the 21st-century Luddites, commercial interests or foreign crony-capitalists who do not have our interests at heart.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this important debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. Shale gas and its extraction by the process of hydraulic fracturing, known as “fracking”, remains a controversial subject. In discussing the environmental benefits of shale gas, it is also important to address potential environmental risks from a science and engineering standpoint. These risks have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott.
I speak from my experience as chairman of the committee that produced in 2012 the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report, Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: A Review of Hydraulic Fracturing. That independent review was requested by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, at that time Sir John Beddington. It arose from experiences of seismicity in the Blackpool area in 2011 shortly after the fracking of an exploratory shale gas well at the Preese Hall site. Our remit was to review the available scientific and engineering evidence associated with fracking, identify the major risks and consider whether these could be managed effectively in the UK. We were asked to address two major questions. One, what are the environmental risks, particularly in relation to possible groundwater contamination? Two, what are the risks of earthquakes? In our review we consulted with and received evidence from around 70 experts and organisations, including environmental organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF.
Our report concluded the following. First, the fracking process itself is unlikely to contaminate groundwater. To reach overlying freshwater aquifers, the fractures in the shale would have to propagate upwards towards the surface for many hundreds of metres to reach them. The risk of this happening is very low, provided that fracking takes place at great depths—it is typically undertaken at depths of several kilometres. It is important not to conflate the fracking process with shale gas well operations. Groundwater contamination is much less likely to be due to the fracking process than to faulty well construction. The only realistic way that any contamination of groundwater may occur is if operations are poorly regulated and faulty wells are constructed as a result. Ensuring well integrity must remain the highest priority to prevent contamination. If wells are properly constructed, sealed and managed, the risk of contamination is very low. Our report therefore concluded that shale gas extraction can be undertaken safely in the UK, provided that operational best practices are implemented and enforced through robust regulation.
Secondly, our report concluded that earth tremors resulting from fracking are minimal, smaller than those caused by coal mining. In this context, “earth tremor” is a much more appropriate term than “earthquake”. The effects felt from earth tremors caused by fracking would be no worse than those from a passing heavy lorry. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to earthquakes in Oklahoma. More significant earthquakes have been reported in the USA, all arising from reinjection of waste water into disposal wells, not from fracking itself.
We recommended various regulatory safeguards to manage these risks. Vital to effective management of the risks is comprehensive and rigorous monitoring. In particular, methane and other contaminants in groundwater should be closely monitored, as well as potential leakages of methane and other gases into the atmosphere. Similar conclusions on the importance of rigorous monitoring were reached by Public Health England in its 2014 report and in other recent reports by science and engineering academies within Europe and elsewhere, including the Australian and Canadian academies. Our Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering review made 10 major recommendations, all of which the Government accepted. The Task Force on Shale Gas, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, reached similar conclusions and made similar recommendations in its final report, published in 2015.
We should nevertheless be careful to distinguish between exploratory activities and full-scale production. Shale gas extraction in the UK is presently at a very small scale, involving only exploratory drilling. There is greater uncertainty about the scale of production activities should a future shale gas industry develop nationwide. We will need to pay attention to the way in which risks scale up. Regulatory capacity will need to be increased. Efficient co-ordination of the numerous government bodies with regulatory responsibilities for shale gas extraction must be maintained.
Our report covered environmental and health and safety risks, but climate risks were not addressed in detail. Fugitive methane emissions during shale gas extraction operations must also be closely monitored and minimised. Green completion technologies, designed to capture any methane and other gases emitted from flowback water, have been made mandatory in the USA by the Environmental Protection Agency since 2015. This may not be applicable to our current small-scale exploratory activities, but such technologies will certainly be needed for any future production activities in the UK.
The potential economic and environmental benefits of shale gas development in the UK can only be properly evaluated by undertaking exploratory drilling and fracking. The type and composition of gas extracted and the proved reserves will vary depending on the detailed geology, so each site has to be investigated on a case-by-case basis. “Proved reserves” means the volume that is economically recoverable. It is this that will really determine the potential economic benefits, which will only become clear when appropriate exploratory drilling has been completed. That is why it is so important for exploratory drilling to proceed without delay.
Scare stories, myths and mistruths about fracking abound: flames coming from water taps and damaging earthquakes, to name two. Effective public engagement is essential to dispel such myths and mistruths, thereby enabling shale gas extraction to gain wider acceptability. We should recall that the UK has been employing fracking and directional drilling for non-shale resources for many years. Fracking itself is not new to the UK but it is being newly applied to shale gas. The quantities of water needed are greater but otherwise the process is very similar. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, over the last 30 years more than 2,000 onshore wells have been drilled in the UK, around 200 of which have been fracked to enhance the recovery of oil or gas. In our Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering review we were not aware of groundwater contamination issues with any of those wells.
In summary, moratoria on shale gas extraction get us nowhere. The constructive way forward is to proceed cautiously with well-controlled exploratory drilling, with a strong regulatory framework, robust environmental risk assessments and rigorous monitoring regimes. As the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, put it, we need to get on with it. Only this will provide the evidence needed to properly assess the economic and environmental benefits of shale gas development in the UK.
Lord Vinson (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he say clearly that his society would strongly recommend the development of shale gas because of the huge economic benefits it could bring to this country, subject only to satisfactory safeguards in its production?
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for securing this debate. I am not sure that he expected the consensus around the House when he put it down. UK energy policy should provide secure, affordable and climate-friendly energy with an emphasis on homegrown energy, primary fuels and innovation for the future. UK Onshore Oil and Gas is a representative body for the industry and has suggested that, to achieve the aims of secure, affordable and climate-friendly energy, the UK will need a balance of: natural gas, to provide heat, electricity and essential chemical feedstocks and to improve air quality; renewables and nuclear to generate electricity; and oil to power transportation and to provide essential chemical feedstocks. So gas is a vital source of energy for the UK and we have so much of it in our own country.
The IoD says that shale gas could cut our gas imports by half. The National Grid believes that British shale gas could heat every home in the UK, and shale gas, as we have heard, could create 60,000 jobs. How ironic that in September 2016 the first shipment of shale gas arrived in the United Kingdom from the US, at Grangemouth refinery in Scotland. How ridiculous that shale gas produced in the US arrives in Scotland when the Scottish Parliament has banned fracking. As Francis Egan of Cuadrilla so rightly said at the time:
“They are taking ethane, turning it into a liquid, transporting it across the sea in a container, turning it back into a gas and then pumping it into Grangemouth. Just beneath Grangemouth are deposits of shale gas the Scottish Government is saying you can’t touch”.
Today in the United States around 50% of oil production and two-thirds of gas production is from so-called non-conventional wells. Well over 300,000 such wells have been drilled. The fact that the oil and gas industry pumps chemicals into the ground in this process causes opposition from environmental groups. However, despite Hollywood dramatizing the dangers, there is no significant evidence of any environmental damage from fracking. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that it has been suggested that test fracking in the north of England caused a minor earthquake, but I understand that the magnitude of the so-called tremor was no more likely to cause damage to property than the vibrations of a heavy truck passing a building. In reality, the opposition to fracking in the UK has more to do with the perceived blight on the surface environment and the volume of heavy industrial traffic than with the theoretical poisoning of aquifers, which some say is impossible as shale operations take place at a much deeper level than the water table which is cased from the well bore, as was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Mair. We have sensible regulations in this country which will help us to maintain the environment while being able to produce the gas that we need.
In the energy industry, three key issues are often cited: energy security now that our traditional fossil fuels are running out, the long-term affordability and financial security of energy, and climate change, environmental concerns and decarbonisation targets. Our North Sea oil and gas reserves are running low. Production, as we know, has fallen two-thirds in the last 15 years. But gas represents 35% of fuel consumption in the UK and we currently import more than half our gas from Norway, the rest of Europe—and, maybe, Russia—and Qatar. By 2035 we may well have to import 90% of our gas. From a security point of view that is alarming.
The British Geological Survey estimates that there is 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in the north of England. Even recovering just one-10th of those reserves will be enough to supply us for at least 40 years as we currently use just under 3 trillion cubic feet per annum. If it is accepted that we need gas and that it is more secure, better for domestic employment and for the development of a manufacturing industry—which is part of our industrial strategy—and that it would produce a potential bonanza in tax receipts, then the clear answer is to exploit these shale beds. Let us not turn our backs on a lower-carbon energy source, on maintaining our own energy security, and on growing a manufacturing industry with jobs and careers for a whole new generation. As the North Sea reserves run out let us be positive and create a shale revolution.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in 2014 and 2015 I chaired the Task Force on Shale Gas; we concluded our work at the end of 2015. I should also mention that I was chairman of the Environment Agency until September 2014.
The task force looked very carefully at the economic and environmental implications of the development of a shale gas industry in the UK, and five especially important points arose from its work. First, we will need gas as part of our energy mix in this country for several decades to come. Yes, of course we must develop renewables and yes, we must build a new generation of nuclear power stations—though not necessarily on the model that the Government appear determined to take forward. But these cannot be deployed in a hurry. They will take time and we will need gas as an interim fuel to take us towards a lower-carbon future. Let us also not forget that this is not just about electricity generation: 80% of our households depend on gas for cooking and heating. That is not going to change overnight.
Secondly, gas is better than coal. The industrial emissions and greenhouse gas effects of burning it are something like half of those of burning unabated coal. In this country we are rightly running down our coal-burning capacity to generate electricity at the moment—and I trust that this will be one of the developments that does not fall foul of Brexit. Gas has to be part of the solution—along, I add, with carbon capture and storage, which will become increasingly important, especially for gas. I am dismayed at the Government’s decision to abandon the fund that had been specifically earmarked for the development of large-scale pilot projects of CCS. It was very short-sighted of them to do so and it denies us both an early environmental benefit and a first-mover economic advantage with carbon capture.
Thirdly, local environmental protection at a shale gas site is imperative. There are four things that are crucial for this. Rigorous regulation, monitoring and inspection are largely in place at the moment—but the noble Lord, Lord Mair, is absolutely right to point to the issue of ensuring that necessary resources are available if a shale gas industry develops at scale. There should be local community participation in this monitoring and inspecting process, as that will ultimately be the way to secure their agreement and acceptance. As the noble Lord said, the absolute integrity of wells, independently overseen, is crucial—it was failures of well integrity that caused problems in the early buccaneering days in the United States, which are long since over. Mandatory green completion to ensure that all gases, especially methane, are captured when they rise to the surface must be put in place. With these clear conditions in place, shale gas extraction can be done safely. Regulatory corners, however, cannot and must not be cut in the process.
Fourthly, it makes economic and environmental sense to produce gas domestically rather than ship it half way across the world. Taking gas out of the ground in Qatar, liquefying it, shipping it to the UK, de-liquefying it and then delivering it to power stations and households has a far higher carbon and climate change footprint than sourcing it here in the UK. The climate change impact of not having a domestic gas resource will be worse than that of having one.
Fifthly, the development of a shale gas industry in the UK, however, must not be allowed to have a chilling effect on the development of renewables and our preparation for a low-carbon future. Shale gas can and should be only an interim energy response. It is not a long-term answer. To ensure this, I propose that all government revenues coming specifically from a developed shale gas industry should be earmarked for investment in research and development and innovation in renewables, carbon capture and storage, and low-carbon energy generation, storage and distribution. In that way we will have an energy policy fit for the longer-term future.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for giving us the chance to debate this important matter. I will focus on one small aspect of the shale gas revolution; that is, the proposal to create a shale wealth fund. I had a very modest role in its creation and I would like my noble friend to update us on progress as far as this is concerned. Progress has been disappointingly slow, like so many aspects of the shale gas revolution, but it is important because its successful creation would be a useful way of bringing uncommitted public opinion on side to support the wider development of shale gas. It would be an example of effective public engagement, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Mair.
The reasons for my interest in this are as follows. I see our natural energy resources coming from two main blocks—infinite and finite. Infinite, obviously, is the energy that flows from the sun, the wind, the waves, the flow of the rivers and so on. The finite resources are coal, referred to by my noble friend Lord Ridley, which for a time made this country the workshop of the world, and in 1970 of course we received the gift from nature of North Sea oil. It was assumed that the oil would have run out by now, and at some point it will run out. We have been able to extract more than we thought we would because of technology, but it will eventually run out.
Successive Governments and the country as a whole have benefited from the oil. Estimates of the revenue flows are around £400 billion. But every penny of that revenue has been spent—every penny. The debate on whether it has been spent well or foolishly would occupy your Lordships’ House for many a long day—but that is not a point for this evening. However, spent it has been. Across the North Sea, Norway took a different approach. After a strenuous debate, it decided that it would be worth while creating a sovereign wealth fund. Norway has a much smaller population and commensurately much more gas, so I am not pushing the metrics too far, but in 25 short years Norway has created a sovereign wealth fund which last June was valued at $850 billion—about £680 billion. As I say, in this country we took a different approach and made a different decision and every penny that we receive now and in the future will be spent until the oil finally runs out.
Now we have another potential gift from nature, with natural gas extracted by this fracking process. I believe that we should be doing something to follow the Norwegian example, avoid the mistakes we have made in the past and put aside some portion of this for the future. I accept that one problem at this stage is that we do not know what funds will flow—or whether, indeed, any funds will flow—from shale gas. Equally, I am sure that if we fail to establish some structure before the funds start to flow, the chances of our doing so afterwards are vanishingly small.
As a result of this, in November 2014 I tabled amendments in Committee on the Infrastructure Bill suggesting that it would be advantageous to follow this approach. I expected that my amendments would be roundly rejected and I was not disappointed; they were. But a couple of days later I had a call from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s office to say that he actually thought it was quite a good idea and that if I chose to retable my amendments on Report he would be prepared to give a commitment to undertake some form of shale wealth fund. As your Lordships may imagine, I did not need to be asked twice to do that, so I retabled them and on 10 November 2014 the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, speaking for the Treasury, said that,
“we commit to the principle. The Chancellor will demonstrate his commitment to bring forward a proposal in the next Parliament in his Autumn Statement”.—[Official Report, 10/11/14; col. 102.]
I am glad to say that the Chancellor did fulfil that commitment.
I should have known that pride cometh before a fall because, since October 2015, progress has been—well, “glacial” is probably the right word, bearing in mind what we are discussing this evening. A consultation document was published in August of last year and any strategic vision had been carefully excised. Now one reads that the fund is to have a maximum life of 25 years and a maximum size of £1 billion—this is hardly a sovereign wealth fund, Norway-style. Indeed, as I pointed out in my response to the consultation, the emphasis on local distribution of any money received leads one to fear that it is no more than a bribe to draw the sting of local opposition to fracking.
My reactions are that this proposal should not be limited to a 25-year life; that some proportion of the fund should be invested on an endowment basis—that is, disbursement should be limited to a level at which you preserve the capital for future generations; and that the fund should not be used exclusively to benefit what might be quite small communities which happen to be sitting on top of a gas access point. By my calculations, with a suitable split between immediate spending and endowment, by the end of the 25 years the fund would—assuming that you had reached the £1 billion figure—be distributing £8 million a year to local and regional projects, and would have an endowment fund valued at £600 million capable of throwing off about £20 million per annum, inflation-proofed in perpetuity. This would be an extremely modest project by comparison with Norway’s but it might provide a working example for a more visionary follow-on.
Sadly, vision still seems to be in short supply, and since that consultation closed at the end of October there has been silence. In reply to a Parliamentary Question that I put down in February, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said:
“A government response to the consultation will be published shortly”.
This sounds to me as if the long grass is beckoning.
In summary, I feel that the dead hand of Her Majesty’s Treasury, with its dislike of anything financial outside its control and terror of anything approaching hypothecation—although this is a very unusual form of hypothecation—is gradually squeezing the life out of this idea. Perhaps when he comes to wind up, my noble friend the Minister could confirm or deny my worst fears.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I find myself in opposition to the vast majority of your Lordships who have spoken. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, on securing this debate, which I regard as very important. I do not agree, or believe, that fracking will deliver energy security in the long term. I do not believe that fracking is sustainable or will help us meet our legally binding targets. I believe that it will introduce a new form of greenhouse gas. It is not sensible or logical, when we have just signed up to the Paris agreement on climate change, to encourage forward a source of energy that emits greenhouse gases.
There is a litany of reasons why fracking is a bad idea. I can see that the Government look across the sea—the Atlantic—with green eyes. Could shale gas do for the UK what it has done for the US? Many noble Lords believe that it could, but I do not—so no would be my answer. We have different geology and geography. To some degree, the Government are keen because private money will come in and produce the gas. As many of your Lordships have said, this gas will be an interim supply of energy—a bridging loan to the future. It will get the Government out of a hole that exposes a lack of a planned energy policy, and take us from where we are now to a sustainable future. We have had no sight of the emissions reduction plan and no word on government plans to decarbonise heating. As for the experts, I am not sure that this Government believe in experts.
I hear what your Lordships have said about the scare stories but I believe some of the doctors and health charities that have raised concerns about water contamination and threats to health. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mair, was very impressive and substantial but Scotland and Wales have banned it. I do not think that they banned it for no reason. Moreover, this is not America. In America, landowners’ rights mean that they get the profits from selling their land for fracking. We do not have wide-open unpopulated areas and the ravages caused by fracking, with literally thousands of wells, will lay the land to waste—and this is inhabited land, not like in America.
Viscount Ridley
Is the noble Baroness aware that the current revolution in shale gas started in the suburbs of Fort Worth, which is an inhabited city, and has reached its apogee in some very heavily populated areas of Pennsylvania?
Baroness Featherstone
As my noble friend Lord Stoneham reminds me, their environmental standards are somewhat lower than ours. I am not saying that everywhere in America is unpopulated, but it is a very different territory from most of the United Kingdom.
There will be people—such as people in Ryedale, for example—who object strongly to what is projected for their local environment. They will use the planning process to object in the way that they are entitled to do. Promises were made that national areas of exceptional beauty would be protected and that local people would hold sway, but that has gone and the promises have been broken.
Putting all that to one side, the most damaging effect of developing the shale industry is one that to an extent was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Smith. It will set back our ability to reach our legally binding targets by 40 years and undermine the development to scale of renewable heat technology. Renewable heat is vital. Industry will develop the technologies we need for renewable heat if we have the right policy framework and incentives. There would have to be incentives that carry a cast-iron guarantee from the Government that they will not be taken away in a precipitate manner, as happened with the Government undermining investor confidence by the precipitate removal of agreed subsidies on wind and solar. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, raised the breaking of the manifesto pledge on carbon capture and storage.
The Government’s reputation will no longer be adequate to reassure investors; they will need an agreement that is literally written in blood. Additionally, as several noble Lords have said, all we have in the UK so far is licences for exploratory drilling. We are years if not decades away from producing shale gas at any scale, if it happens at all. The Environmental Audit Committee concluded that shale will not contribute to replacing coal because, by the time it comes on stream, coal will no longer be used. I do not believe that fracking is the answer. I do not put my trust in this Government. Everything we have seen since the end of the coalition—when the Liberal Democrats held sway in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which is also no longer—is pretty indicative of the importance that the Conservative Government attach to climate change. Everything indicates that this Government do not favour a green approach, green understanding or the imperative, for both the planet and the economy, of taking our future energy supply seriously and not introducing something that is a stop-gap and not sustainable. If we had a Government who encouraged cutting-edge technology—renewables, energy efficiency, home energy improvements—
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I hesitate to interrupt the noble Baroness, but twice she has referred to fracking being not sustainable. Can she therefore explain why she is in favour of gas being imported for at least the next 30, 40 or 50 years? That is the bit in her argument that I do not understand. I could dispute many things that she says on the environmental impact, for which she has produced no evidence whatever to back it up, but why is she in favour of us importing gas for the next 30 or 40 years rather than using our natural resources?
Baroness Featherstone
Other resources are coming on stream, such as green gas, hydrogen and so on. I object to creating a whole new industry, which will be a stop-gap, rather than encouraging our homegrown industries to develop the new technologies that we need to produce renewable heat. I do not see developing the shale industry as the answer to our question. I am not that keen on importing gas, but for the time being, that would be my preference rather than starting a whole new industry with the destruction it brings in its wake.
There is a list of what the Government should be doing in terms of regulation, intervention, sequestration and demand reduction—and then we would actually get somewhere. There seems to be a general prayer that somehow shale will save us. My faith in that not happening is based on the fact that the companies that are taking up the exploratory drilling licences are not huge companies but middle-sized companies, and because of the difference in geology and geography, they will find that it is not profitable. That is the main reason why I am hoping that shale will go away with its drills between its legs.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for initiating this debate on fracking. It concerns the important question of the nature of the UK’s future energy mix and whether fracking has an acceptable role to play. The continuing debate and your Lordships’ contributions tonight are serious matters. I commiserate with the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, should he consider that being positioned between stages of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill does not do justice to the importance of this subject, but tonight’s debate has been excellent. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed at this important juncture in our deliberations on the UK’s future role in Europe. I am disappointed that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, has been noticeably absent tonight, but I am pleased to see his conversion to a more critical stance in his contribution to the Journal of Energy Security, in which he calls for a change of direction in fracking policy and says that the view coming from Ministers is much too optimistic. I agree, despite some of the contributions tonight.
Labour recognises the dominance of gas in the UK’s energy supply and the concerns for the nation’s security of supply while the UK transforms into a low-carbon economy. While the Government are coming forward with every assistance to further the role of fracking as a game-changer, we have some critical questions from a different, more realistic perspective. Is it likely to be the game-changer? Is it safe, and are there special places like national parks that need special protection? Is it wanted and recognised as really needed? Is it really a low-carbon bridge to a sustainable future?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for her recognition tonight that maybe this debate does not reflect widely held, less assertive views. The debate has recognised some issues between the competing views on this question. It has been mostly positive towards fracking and, as the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, has said, has largely regretted that progress, even towards the exploratory drilling stage, has been slow, suggesting that speed is certainly to be welcomed. However, Labour has always been sceptical about fracking’s supposed benefits. The geology and geography of the UK are different from those of the United States. Theoretical reserves are not the same as recoverable reserves. At present the evidence points to the likelihood of rather disappointingly low recovery rates of shale gas from wells, with rapid depletion and the need to establish large numbers of wells and pads in concentrated areas of the country that are not largely unpopulated, all to extract even a modest amount of gas for the UK’s energy system. Shale gas is unlikely to be able to replace the returns from conventional natural gas as they diminish. The exploratory evidence has yet to be produced to support the estimates from the British Geological Survey.
Labour has never believed that the returns on fracking are likely to be so compelling as to allow the overriding of legitimate concerns about the process on safety, environmental and community grounds. This debate has underlined that fracking should only proceed on the basis of clear and rigorous environmental safeguards. Furthermore, there should be an outright ban on fracking in and under areas of environmental sensitivity such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and water protection zones. These areas need better protection even than the added requirement that fracking be limited to depths below 1,200 metres.
The Government’s environmental conditions do not measure up to Labour’s standards, achieved during the passage of the Infrastructure Act, which were subsequently reduced by the coalition Government in 2015. Environmental tests should include an understanding of the number of well-heads being set up and the cumulative effects to which the numbers might give rise, over and above those of fracking taking place at all.
I certainly enjoyed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Mair, who gave us the perspective of his society’s 2012 report. He emphasised the importance of the integrity of regulatory enforcement. However, having a world-class regulatory regime is not enough. Regulatory bodies need to engage with local communities that are concerned about the potential impact in their area, as they have heard has happened elsewhere. Their legitimate concerns should not be overridden. Local communities need to be convinced that community benefits and the sharing of future revenues are not to be interpreted as a way to buy off objections for particular ulterior motives.
The position now is that most of the conditions that Labour laid down, and particularly those concerning the cumulative impact of multiple fracking pads on an area, have either been disregarded or weakened to such an extent that they no longer constitute credible environmental safeguards. The development of fracking exploration and production cannot be endorsed under these circumstances. It is not safe or reasonable to proceed without these key safeguards. Labour is now calling for the introduction of a moratorium on fracking in the UK until such time as we can be sure that full environmental safeguards can be observed.
Finally, there are concerns that shale gas is also a fossil fuel and that fracking is incompatible with our climate targets. The chief scientist at the then Department of Energy and Climate Change, Professor David MacKay, and Dr Timothy Stone concluded in a report that shale gas production would give rise to greenhouse gas emissions. They argued, however, that with the “right safeguards”, these would be “relatively small”—“comparable” to liquefied natural gas and well below the emissions of coal.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, gave a thorough assessment of the relativities of the various fuel sources in the UK, but this interpretation is not supported by the Committee on Climate Change, the independent statutory body set up to provide advice and analysis to government and to report to Parliament. It concluded that the implications of shale gas for greenhouse gas emissions are indeed uncertain. By the time any shale gas exploitation would have developed on a significant scale, the UK carbon budget would have reached more advanced and critical levels. Shale gas is only likely to become permissible once tests relating to emissions, gas consumption and carbon reductions elsewhere in the economy have been satisfied. The UK should not be developing shale gas any further at this time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for tabling the debate this evening. It has been a really well-informed debate, even if the noble Lord did not necessarily receive the support he was hoping for. It was so well informed that I find that everything that I was going to say in my speech has already been said by noble Lords, so I will just run through the main issues that have been raised.
First, I do not think I agreed with a single thing that the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, said in his speech, with one exception, when he said that Poland was an example of where fracking has not worked—the shale was too tight and the gas would not flow—and that therefore you should not count your chickens. Of course he is right about that: we should not count our chickens about the prospects for shale gas, because we have not done the exploration work to know whether or not we can count the chickens. Until we do the work, we are never going to know what we have, so I could agree with him in that respect.
My noble friend Lord MacGregor, who chaired the Select Committee looking at fracking, said that the committee was unanimous that the benefits of fracking exceeded the risk, and his criticism of the Government was not that progress was too fast but that it was too slow. He drew attention to the fact that in the US, the cost of production now has come down, from probably over $50 per barrel of oil equivalent when they started, to $25. It is now taking 20 days to drill a well. The success in the US has been phenomenal, which is something to be celebrated—it has been transformational. It has transformed the American economy and geopolitics. It has of course been hugely resented by many producers in the Middle East and in Russia, as my noble friend Lord Ridley pointed out, because the price has come down. Economies such as the Russian one have suffered hugely as a result.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the fact that we have some of the toughest safety regulations in the world—probably the toughest. He referred to the fact that we have 50 years of experience in onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration and to the irresponsible scare stories, which are not just limited to us in the UK but are also there in the US. Much of the US production would have come more quickly without those scare stories. It is worth pointing out that in 2000, there were 26,000 fracked wells in the US, accounting for 7% of US total natural gas production. By 2015, the number of wells had grown to 300,000, equating to 67% of total natural gas output in the US. It shows what can be done. What they have done in the US is an extraordinary achievement.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, also mentioned the huge economic benefits to employment and wealth that have been created by fracking gas. It is not just the direct employment consequences—it is the impact on the economy as a whole. My noble friend Lord Ridley—in a point picked up later on by the noble Lord, Lord Mair—said that there was no evidence of any groundwater contamination in the US, and that it had cut greenhouse gases. He went on to say that fracked gas and the LNG that comes from it are vital feedstocks for the chemical industry. This point was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Polak. It is an absurd situation where we are now bringing LNG from the US into Grangemouth to be used as a feedstock there, or, indeed, piped over to Teesside to be used as a feedstock in Teesside. Not only is the carbon footprint much larger, but, of course, it is much less economic for the chemical industry in this country. There is a risk, of course, that the USA now, instead of shipping LNG, will convert that gas in the US into other products, therefore undercutting our chemical industry in the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, referred to the work done by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy, which sounded pretty conclusive. They found that fracking was unlikely to contaminate groundwater, and that the earth tremors were minimal, so long as there was proper regulation and monitoring and the well operations were properly managed. He said that scare stories and mistruths abound, and he is absolutely right in that regard. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, not only chaired the task force on shale gas but was, at the same time, chairman of the Environment Agency. Again, his conclusion was a very clear one—that, on balance, shale gas was a good thing for the UK.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about the shale wealth fund, he was slightly putting the cart before the horse when he referred to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund being £850 billion. We have not yet got any gas out of the ground over here. It would be a lovely problem to have. As he knows, the Government are consulting about forming a sovereign wealth fund equivalent, which would be funded by 10% of tax revenues; that is still being consulted upon.
Of course, I do not want to minimise the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. There are, of course, environmental issues. It would be foolish to pretend that they should not be taken into consideration. However, gas is the cleanest fossil fuel when combusted, producing half the carbon emissions of coal and it is expected to have a carbon footprint comparable to that of LNG. Shale gas could, therefore, act as an effective lower carbon bridge technology while we develop renewables, improve energy efficiency and move towards a lower carbon economy.
The Infrastructure Act 2015 inserted safeguards for licensing onshore hydraulic fracturing into the Petroleum Act 1998. These include the assessment of environmental impacts, groundwater monitoring and community benefits, and the guarantee that the associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within “protected groundwater source areas” and “other protected areas”.
We have banned fracking within 1,200 metres of the surface, in national parks, the Broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty, World Heritage Sites, and areas that are most vulnerable to groundwater pollution. We are confident that these measures will protect our most valuable areas for the future.
In conclusion, the potential benefits of fracking in the UK are enormous. We have seen how transformational they have been in the US. If we have the right regulatory system around it, and take the right measures of protection for our environment, then this is something that this Government are wholly in favour of.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 7th 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 108-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 67KB) - (3 Mar 2017)
21:25 - Division on Lord Newby's amendment - Ayes: 95 / Noes: 340 - Lord Newby's amendment disagreed.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I have it in my command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Motion
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, sometimes statistics say more than words. Here is a simple fact. We have spent 44 or so hours debating a Bill that started off as 137 words. That works out at about 20 minutes per word, but that amount of time and scrutiny is hardly surprising, given the importance of the issues that swirl around those words. In the debate, we have seen the very best of what this House is here to do. As I said at Second Reading a fortnight ago—although I have to say that it feels a lot longer than that—scrutinising legislation is not an unpatriotic act. Whatever our differences, we all share a basic wish: to see our country prosper in future. Everything that has been said has been motivated by that basic wish.
I am sure that the House will be grateful that I shall not name everyone who has spoken, as that in itself might take some time, but I thank each and every one of your Lordships who has spoken, even where we have disagreed, and I apologise if I deprived anyone of the chance to speak, although I have a sneaking suspicion that we will meet again very soon, and on numerous occasions after that. For we are, as I have said before, just approaching base camp in terms of the parliamentary process of our withdrawal from the European Union. So while I thank my excellent Bill team and my noble friends Lady Goldie and Lord Dunlop, and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, for all their help in getting me this far, I add only: please keep going.
I am of course obliged to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Ludford, for their diligence in sitting on the Front Bench through the long hours of these debates. I must admit that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, somewhat set back my efforts to build a national consensus on our withdrawal from the EU when she mentioned my youngest daughter in her Second Reading speech, but failed to mention my twins. As you can imagine, this caused some consternation at the Bridges breakfast table the next morning. My twins expressed loud demands for a meaningful mention. They wanted reciprocity now, not at some unknown point in future. They were not prepared to take it or leave it: Bridges means Bridges, I was told. I am very grateful that she has since addressed this imbalance.
The Bill simply seeks to honour the commitment that the Government gave to respect the outcome of the referendum held on 23 June last year. During the course of our debates on this issue, a number of noble Lords have questioned the formulation of the Bill or sought to expand it beyond its straightforward aim. While I have disagreed with them on a number of occasions, the one point on which I thought we had all agreed was that we must respect the outcome of the referendum and that neither the Labour Party nor the Liberal Democrats would block the Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is indeed a very honourable man, so I look forward with great interest to hearing why he has tabled the amendment to the Motion, which appears to contradict everything he has said, and why his party will now block the UK’s exit from the European Union. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Newby
Leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to allow the bill to pass, because the bill does not provide a mechanism for the people of the United Kingdom to have a vote, prior to the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, on the terms of the new relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.”
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all who have spoken in debates on this Bill to date. It has been a great privilege to take part in such debates, which have been conducted with grace, erudition and great passion in equal measure.
The Companion enjoins those who move amendments at this stage to speak briefly to them, so I shall be brief. Amendments to the Motion that the Bill do now pass are rare, and on these Benches we have not initiated such an amendment in recent times. We do so only because of the importance of the issue before us and the strength of our opposition to the way in which the Government have approached this Bill and the Brexit process.
We on these Benches have argued, as we did in the Commons, that while it is perfectly proper for the Government to be triggering the Article 50 negotiations, they should do so only if the process to be followed throughout respects the principles of both parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. In reality, the Government have shown disdain for both. Parliament must clearly play a full part in the entire process, but we also believe it is essential that the people take the final decision, for reasons which we fully debated in recent days.
The Government’s view is that they not only oppose giving the people the final say, but oppose in principle any amendments to the Bill. The noble Lord’s enthusiasm for scrutiny is rather tempered by the idea that such scrutiny might actually lead to amendment. Why is this the case? It is not in reality that it is somehow inappropriate, far less improper, to amend this Bill; it is simply that it is inconvenient for the Government. Their whole attitude is one of lofty disdain for Parliament and the people alike.
In moving this amendment, and voting on it, I do so in the certain knowledge that this Bill will now pass this evening back to the Commons. We on these Benches could not allow this to happen without registering our opposition to the brutal Brexit that the Government are now pursuing, whether in making the country poorer by leaving the single market, or by using more than 3 million EU nationals living in the UK as bargaining chips. These decisions will exacerbate our long-term economic problems—fiscal imbalances, balance of payments deficits and low productivity, as well as our reputation as a welcoming and tolerant country.
However, the Government now seem set on this course towards this brutal Brexit. This is a deliberate distortion of the mandate they received from the British people, and we on these Benches cannot in all conscience support it. At this historic moment, we wish to record again our opposition to the damaging course on which the Government are set, and our opposition to the Government’s refusal to allow the British people, who will feel the consequences of Brexit for generations to come, the right to decide their own future. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill is a direct result of two things: the outcome of the referendum and the decision of the Supreme Court. In all of this, countless behind-the-scenes hands have been at work. Wherever we stood as we voted on 23 June, all of us know that the tasks since then has been unprecedented. Civil servants have had to devise new structures and work teams to prepare Parliament for this. This is just our first Bill; others will come our way.
So it is appropriate to take a moment, as the Minister did, to acknowledge the work that has been done and to thank all those who have contributed, within the Department for Exiting the EU and within your Lordships’ House. As an Opposition we have been well supported by Dan Stevens, Ben Coffman, Ian Parker and their colleagues—and, while I recognise that the work on the Bill is not yet done, if I thank them now it might give them the energy for all the work yet to be done.
Thanks are also due to the Minister, for whom we have considerable sympathy. I apologise to his family. We have probably taken up far too much of his time and we would be very happy for him to spend more time with them in the months to come. We also thank the Minister’s colleagues and the noble Lord the Chief Whip for their help in dealing with the mechanics of the timetabling of the Bill. I concur with the Minister’s comments and thank all noble Lords who have spoken.
The debates we have had at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report have been a great credit to your Lordships’ House, both in the range of expertise we have been able to show and the quality of debate. I also thank my colleagues, my noble friend Lord Lennie and especially my noble friend Lady Hayter. She has worked tirelessly on this Bill and I have to say that she is lot more even-tempered than perhaps I am. It is a pleasure to work for her and I look forward to seeing her continued work on this Bill. She recalled how she was volunteered to wind up at Second Reading. She will be volunteered again in the future. I give sincere thanks to those noble Lords and all my colleagues on different sides of the arguments. I think we have conducted ourselves with great integrity and strong belief.
That is why I am rather puzzled in many ways by the comments today from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. As somebody who, alongside many of my colleagues, campaigned extraordinarily hard to remain in the EU, I regret the decision that has been taken. I think it has to be not just the 52% who are represented but the 48% as well. It has to be recognised by all in your Lordships’ House that we have a duty to perhaps try to heal and unite where there has been division—and the Government must recognise that they have to act in the interests of the whole country.
During this debate we have voted on two extraordinarily important amendments. The first, on EEA and EU nationals in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, aims to remove some of the uncertainty regarding their position. That was one very serious amendment. The second one was debated tonight on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty. In that case there was a majority of 98.
Both amendments fulfil the criteria of the role of your Lordships’ House in asking the other place, the House of Commons, to reconsider. The quality and content of those debates provide considerable material for MPs to do so. We passed those amendments not as some kind of vanity exercise or just to make a point—we are not a debating society where we have our debates and then afterwards shrug off home or off to the pub because we have made our point and have no thought about what happens next.
What happens in this House is really important. We passed those amendments for a very serious reason, as part of our constitutional responsibilities. I want to hear the House of Commons debate those issues. I want elected MPs to reconsider, and I hope that they will accept our amendments and the principles behind them. I would be very happy to see the Government, who have offered co-operation and help on this one, bring forward similar amendments to give effect to them. These amendments matter. That is why I find the Liberal Democrat Motion tonight absolutely incredible.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, stood in your Lordships’ House today and told us that he accepted the result of the referendum and the vote in the other place—but he failed to convince this House that a second referendum was the right course of action at this time. On the basis of that, as outlined in his Motion—not about anything else, not about all the issues he talked about surrounding a hard Brexit but on the one issue of that vote—Liberal Democrats are now prepared to vote against this whole Bill to stop Members of Parliament considering our amendments. I find that irresponsible.
It may be that he feels okay, as he said, about making a point about Brexit as a whole because they are not going to win the vote. But responsibility is not just about winning—it is about taking responsibility for our actions. As I heard him tonight, he failed to convince me that he is serious about these amendments that we have voted on.
If the Motion from the Liberal Democrats were passed tonight, it would stop the other place considering the amendments on EEA and EU nationals and on parliamentary sovereignty. Your Lordships’ House was never told when voting on these amendments that at the final hurdle the Liberal Democrats would say that they would not support the very amendments that they have asked your Lordships’ House to vote for. I am very much committed to those two amendments, and the Motion shows a lack of commitment to these two amendments and issues which have been voted on in this House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I can hear some chuntering from the Liberal Democrats. I am not taking heckling—stand up and intervene if you want to, but do not heckle. If we really care about these amendments, we want them to go to the other place and we want the other place to debate them. So how can we possibly ask MPs to vote for these amendments if this House is not prepared to pass the amendments and let the Bill pass and go to the other place?
We believe in the amendments that we supported. We respect the decisions taken by this House, and we respect and thank our colleagues from all parties who supported them. I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships’ House to reject this Motion.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I very much support what my noble friend has just said about the value of the amendments that this House has carried, but does not she agree that her plea to the Members opposite to heal and unite rings pretty false when they are pursuing the hardest of hard Brexits? Does not she also agree that, whereas in June it would have been reasonable to hope that you might have had a national consensus around a soft Brexit, this Government have done nothing of that kind? The policy of the Lancaster House speech is la-la land as far as the possibility of a reasonable negotiation in the national interest. These things are very important, and I hope that the Opposition will continue to fight with vigour this hardest of hard Brexits.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I do not think that I have ever been accused of not having vigour. Yes, I agree with my noble friend that the response from the party opposite—not from all noble Lords, I have to say, but from those who particularly want to pursue a hard Brexit—is disappointing. However, not for one moment will I or my colleagues on this side of the House give up trying to get the best deal that we possibly can for the people of this country. Yes, I am very disappointed that before we had even finished voting some Ministers rushed out to tell the cameras, “We’re going to hold back—we’re not going to support this”. We need a responsible, grown-up response—a mature response—and just saying that we are going head-on for a hard Brexit does not do it. But there is a role for this House; when we pass amendments, we do not just put them in the bag and give up—we send them to the other end. I have no hesitation in saying that we should reject this Motion because our responsibility, as my noble friend agrees, is to ensure that the work that we have put into the amendments, the debates that we have had on them and the issues we have raised on them are considered by the other place.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, to echo the noble Baroness’s remarks, I very much hope that as a House and as a nation we can put the divisions of the referendum behind us, accept the result and turn our minds to how we can together overcome the challenges that we face as a nation. As I said at Second Reading, I voted remain, so I certainly do not dismiss concerns lightly or complacently. However, I genuinely believe that this House must respect the will of the British people and deliver on their wish to leave the European Union.
With that in mind, I am more than a little disappointed by the approach of the Liberal Democrats. It is one thing to vote for an amendment to this Bill, quite another to try and block it entirely. What of the majority of MPs who voted to give the country a referendum? What of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union? What of the majority of MPs who voted to pass this Bill without amendment? I find it pretty strange that a party that has “Democrat” in its name votes against delivering the will of the people. However the Liberal Democrats dress this amendment up, it would stop the Bill from passing, which means we cannot start the process of negotiating. I find the logic very difficult to grasp. The noble Lord seems to be saying, “Because we are not going to have a second referendum, we should not respect the views which the people expressed in the first”.
The noble Lord made commitments to this House and the nation on 20 February. He said that:
“No significant body of opinion in this House is seeking to prevent the passage of the Bill, but there is a world of difference between blocking the Bill and seeking to amend it”.—[Official Report, 20/2/17; col. 20.]
He went on to say that no one is suggesting they want to stop the Bill, and that they are not saying they want to block the Bill. Furthermore, just this morning, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said on the BBC:
“But, in the end, the majority of people voted to leave the European Union. It would be quite wrong for the Lords, the Commons or the courts to try and frustrate the will of the people. I am against that”.
I therefore find this baffling. I could go on and recite all the steps that Parliament and the Government will take to ensure that Parliament does not merely scrutinise the process of our leaving the European Union but takes major decisions. I have done so several times, but to do so misses a much bigger point on this amendment.
There are two very simple issues here. First is the integrity of a party whose Leader in this House says it will not block this Bill, then tries to do so. Second is the belief in democracy which the party claims to champion. If the noble Lord presses the amendment it will, sadly, show that the Liberal Democrats are willing to do anything to give the kiss of life to their political fortunes. I very much hope that this is not the case and that the Bill will go to the other place without further delay.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the idea that by speaking and voting, as we will now do, we will block this Bill is, of course, fantasy. It has been abundantly clear that the Opposition in your Lordships’ House will vote for the Bill, as will the Government. I simply repeat—
Lord Grocott (Lab)
It cannot possibly be honourable for the noble Lord to say that he is going to vote against the implementation of—to kill—the Bill, which has been overwhelmingly passed by the Commons and which is, of course, the result of a referendum, in the full, secure knowledge that the Bill will in fact pass. If he is voting on his amendment I hope he can assure the House that it is with the full intention of trying to kill the Bill. Anything else could be interpreted only as complete cynicism.
Lord Newby
Like everybody else, I have got to live with my conscience on this Bill, and I am going to sleep easy tonight. I repeat what I said earlier. We are voting now to record our opposition to the damaging course on which the Government are set and their refusal to allow the British people—
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise to the noble Lord. He is again coming back to the point that the reason he is voting for his amendment tonight is because of his fears of a hard Brexit, which are shared with many across the House. However, that is not what the amendment says. It says that they want the Bill to not pass because they did not get their way on a second referendum vote.
Lord Newby
My Lords, unfortunately, the noble Baroness did not allow me to finish my sentence. Our opposition is to the Government’s refusal to allow the British people, who will feel the consequences—ie, costs—of Brexit for generations to come, the right to decide their own future. I wish to test the opinion of the House.