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
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
Before I start, I remind the House that, as per today’s Order Paper, I plan to make a statement on the proposed merger of 21st Century Fox and Sky after business questions, so I will not answer any questions on the subject during oral questions this morning, but I will of course be happy to do so at the Dispatch Box later.
We have been engaging with representatives from across the creative industries to understand the potential impact and opportunities of the UK’s decision to leave the EU, including on funding. The Treasury has announced that it will guarantee funding for structural and investment fund projects between the time we leave the EU and 2020.
Nick Smith
Blaenau Gwent has been the filming location for everything from “Wrath of the Titans” and “Doctor Who” to “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. I am keen for the British film industry to thrive after Brexit, so will the Government negotiate for the UK to stay in Creative Europe, the vital film funding programme which our brilliant British Film Institute helps hold together?
Karen Bradley
I join the hon. Gentleman in praising Blaenau Gwent. I also praise not only all the parts of Wales that are used as filming locations for some fantastic films and television programmes, but the studios in Cardiff where many great programmes, including “Doctor Who”, are filmed. I am aware of the views about Creative Europe, and we are looking at all the European funds and making decisions about the appropriate response from the United Kingdom to those funds after we leave the European Union.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s recognition of the importance to the creative industries of their ability to license on an exclusively territorial basis. Will she ensure that that message gets across to the UK permanent representation in Brussels so that it argues that case as strongly as possible while we remain in the EU?
Karen Bradley
I can say categorically yes. My right hon. Friend’s point is one reason why people were concerned about our membership of the EU and one of the things that led to the vote on 23 June last year.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Leaving the EU could affect not only funding, but the growth of the creative industries, which contribute £87.1 billion a year—£160,000 a minute—to the UK’s economy. What safeguards is the Secretary of State putting in place to protect this currently thriving sector of UK plc?
I also want to take this opportunity to put on the record my enormous thanks to the Secretary of State and her team for bringing forward “ban the bots” legislation and taking on board all the recommendations of the Waterson report.
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Lady for that comment. The two of us first met to discuss the matter probably about three years ago when I was a Home Office Minister and had responsibility for it through the organised crime portfolio. She has campaigned long and hard to achieve this result. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) deserve great credit for the fact that we have reached this point.
The hon. Lady rightly says that the creative industries are a great British success story, which is one reason why they are mentioned explicitly in our industrial strategy Green Paper. It is worth saying that the creative industries are a success because they are truly global. The European Union is not the only market that they look at; they look across the whole world, and I want to ensure that they continue to be a success.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that there has been cross-fertilisation of creative and artistic talent among all the peoples of Europe for at least several millennia, and that there is no reason to suppose that that will stop once we leave the European Union?
Karen Bradley
I will take your hint about brevity, Mr Speaker, and say yes.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
All across Europe, our competitors in the creative industries are ready to pounce, believing that Brexit uncertainty is their opportunity. By refusing to guarantee the residency rights of EU nationals this week, does the Secretary of State realise that the Government have once again shown themselves to be a poor champion for those in this and so many other sectors in the UK?
Karen Bradley
We have had debates about EU nationals at length in this House and in the other place. We have been clear that we want early certainty not only for EU nationals here in the UK, but for UK nationals in Europe. It is incredibly important that we get that reciprocal arrangement as soon as possible so that we can give that certainty.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport recently visited Belfast, where we were able to visit the “Game of Thrones” set. We asked about the EU contribution to the Northern Ireland creative industries and, to my surprise, EU funding as such did not come up but access to a UK talent pool did. Does she therefore believe that Government investment should be focused on building that talent pool?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We need to make sure that we have the skills and talent here in the UK and that we attract the brightest and best from around the world. I look forward to visiting Northern Ireland. A few political issues are stopping me doing so at the moment, but as soon as they are resolved I will make that visit.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Rob Wilson)
The Government are assessing the impact of leaving the EU on the voluntary and community sector. We are in ongoing discussions about the challenges and opportunities that leaving the EU presents, and I encourage charities to raise specific concerns with relevant lead Departments. We will continue to work with the sector and with devolved Administrations, including the Welsh Assembly, as we plan our exit from the EU.
Susan Elan Jones
I thank the Minister for his response and I place on record that I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on charities and volunteering. He will be aware that this is a serious situation, with somewhere between £350 million and £450 million being seen as the Brexit shortfall, and that does not include match funding. Can we have some assurances that there will be a long-term strategy, and not just in terms of current funding?
Mr Wilson
I thank the hon. Lady for her work on the all-party group, which obviously has support both inside and outside this House and is of great benefit to the sector. On working with the sector on funding, leaving the EU means that we will want to make our own decisions on how we deliver the policy objectives previously targeted by EU funding. For projects signed after the 2016 autumn statement, funding will be honoured by the Treasury after we leave the EU if it provides strong value for money and is in line with domestic priorities.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
According to the Directory of Social Change, the money that charities get from the EU amounts to some 0.5% of the sector’s income. Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities afforded by the Government’s proposals to access dormant funds will go a long way towards covering any shortfall in funding from the EU, and might exceed it?
Mr Wilson
Indeed, I do. Last year, according to the Charity Commission, the sector received about £73 billion in income. The Government have a number of funding mechanisms that are aiding the sector now, and £5 billion of tax reliefs and other support is in place to make sure that the charity sector can go from strength to strength.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Mr Wilson
Charity legislation is devolved from the EU, so it is a UK responsibility, and within the UK responsibility for charity legislation is devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government are listening very closely to all parts of civil society across the UK, and we will be working closely with them to make sure that we have a long-term plan and a long-term strategy.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
The Brexit Secretary tells us that he has done no work to understand the implications for the country of a no-deal Brexit. What work has the Minister done to understand the implications of a no-deal Brexit for charities, not just in terms of funding but in terms of the sector’s extremely diverse workforce?
Mr Wilson
There is an enormous amount of ongoing work, and we recognise that civil society organisations have a wide range of important views on Brexit. We have chaired a number of roundtables with representatives from the sector, and we are working very closely with the sector. As I said in a previous answer, we have a long-term plan and strategy to make sure that the sector is supported.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
I can tell the House that independent figures show that superfast broadband is now available to 92.5% of UK premises; we are on track to meet our manifesto commitment of 95% by the end of the year.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. The superfast roll-out in Northamptonshire is ahead of schedule, but what reassurance can he give to my constituents in the most difficult-to-reach areas, particularly those who find themselves on county boundaries, that they will soon benefit from this roll-out, too?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend’s support for the Digital Economy Bill means that the universal service obligation to bring high-speed broadband to every premise in the UK is getting closer to reality. Not only that, but because of the take-up of superfast broadband, every person in Northamptonshire who takes it up also helps to get the roll-out to go further, because more money goes back into the system to provide more connection.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is shameful that seven out of the 10 UK communities with the slowest broadband download speeds are in Wales. Abererch in Dwyfor is bottom of that league, with a speed of 2.7 megabits per second. Llanymawddwy in Meirionnydd was promised broadband by this spring, but BT backed out last month. Will the Minister join me in asking when the Labour Welsh Government will speed up their act on broadband?
Matt Hancock
Of course the delivery of the broadband contract in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Government, but they have made some progress on this recently and we have been working together. The geography of Wales means that the roll-out there is harder, but that does not mean we should not get to everybody with high-speed broadband by the end of the decade. I hope that the hon. Lady’s support for the Digital Economy Bill will help to make that happen.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
In my village of Tholthorpe, 12 of 100 houses have not been enabled for superfast broadband, although the rest have. Openreach could solve this problem by the simple deployment of a wireless connection, but it refused to do so. The Minister met me to discuss this, so does he agree that contractors taking public money should use all means at their disposal to solve these problems?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that often, even though the Government may say they have met their targets and the broadband providers will say that they have got fantastic speeds, people in their house or in their business will experience speeds that are much, much slower and nowhere near what the Government are promising? I am not attacking the Government in saying this; I am simply trying to get reality into the equation, so that people in their homes and in their businesses can get proper superfast broadband.
Matt Hancock
Working with the hon. Gentleman on this subject has been unusually enjoyable, because he is not making party political points on this one; he has been working hard for his constituents and we have been engaged in serious correspondence. The truth is that we use independent figures on the roll-out, but a lot of people do not take up the broadband that is available to them.
Mr Speaker
We are immensely grateful to the Minister. I would call the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on this question if he were standing, but if he does not stand, I will not do so.
Mr Speaker
I am glad to say that he is standing, so I call Mr David Rutley.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Matt Hancock
Yes, I can. In the Budget we announced that we are going to have a full-fibre business voucher. This means that businesses will be able to access a voucher to help provide a full-fibre connection, giving gigabit speeds. The first wave of projects will be towards the end of this year or the start of next year, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on implementing that deal.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Does the Minister think that this super-duper broadband, which is relatively new to me, will be able to expose, even more so, the Tory election fraud covering 20 seats? What a wonderful idea!
Matt Hancock
I thought that even the hon. Gentleman was going to join in this non-partisan celebration of connectivity, but unfortunately he could not resist.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Data from the House of Commons Library show that the rural Higham and Pendleside ward in my constituency suffers some of the worst levels of broadband, with a quarter of residents experiencing absolutely pathetic download speeds. Will my right hon. Friend get his Department to sit down with Superfast Lancashire and Openreach to find a way forward for that ward?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we are making some progress in Lancashire, but there is much more to do. I hope that my hon. Friend’s support for the Digital Economy Bill and the universal service obligation will help to make sure that we can connect everybody in Lancashire with a decent speed over the next couple of years.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
We are firmly committed to improving diversity and social mobility in broadcasting, as we are in all other areas of the creative industries. Next week, we will host the first ever formal diversity forum at the Abbey Road Studios, bringing together people from music, film, theatre, broadcasting and sport to build a country that works for everyone.
Kate Green
Will the Minister update the House on the discussions he is having and the progress that is being made on securing minimum levels of access—subtitling, signing and audio description—in on-demand services?
Matt Hancock
We have made some progress with on-demand services, and the broadcasters do a very good job of making sure that subtitling is available. Technology has obviously changed the way people consume video, and a lot more of it is on-demand, so we are going to introduce rules to ensure that on-demand gets the same sort of subtitling.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
In October last year, the BBC “Look North” reporter Danny Carpenter was suspended for making vile comments about the Government, relating them to a Nazi regime. I have written several letters to the BBC to find out how its investigations are coming along, but it has not given me an answer. Does the Minister agree that although we agree with diversity of opinion and views in broadcasting, the BBC should take action regarding Mr Carpenter to prevent the recurrence of such ridiculous bias?
Matt Hancock
We rightly do not have direct Government regulation of the BBC regarding such matters, and I think that is appropriate. Nevertheless, through the new charter we are introducing Ofcom as the regulator. That will be the case once the Digital Economy Bill becomes law, after which it will be for Ofcom to regulate the BBC, and the BBC’s board will ultimately be responsible for making sure it gets these judgments right.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
In a previous DCMS questions, the Minister of State told the House that he had chosen four white males for the Channel 4 board and rejected a well-qualified BAME woman because he rejected tokenism. However, this week the Secretary of State failed to appoint a BBC governor to represent Wales because she could not get her way and appoint a women who was not assessed as the best candidate. Is not the only diversity here that between the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, who thinks he should be the Secretary of State?
Matt Hancock
No. On the Welsh appointment to Wales, it is a great pity that although the Welsh Government had a representative on the panel who signed off the appointability of the candidate, the Welsh Minister then decided not to appoint. Given that the Welsh Government agreed that the candidate in question was appointable, it would be far better for the appointment to be made.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues about the UK’s creative industries, and I am pleased that the creative industries are at the heart of the Government’s work on building our industrial strategy. The Green Paper includes an early sector review of the creative industries, which will be led by Sir Peter Bazalgette. It is critical that our world-leading creative industries have access to the skills they need, and that is one of the three themes of Sir Peter’s review.
Joan Ryan
I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware, but there is an acute skills shortage in the creative industries. The simplest way to change that is through apprenticeships. However, there are insufficient training establishments and not enough support for relevant small and medium-sized enterprises compared with, say, construction or engineering, and there is absolutely no history of training apprenticeships in the industry. Is the Secretary of State aware of those problems? What is she doing about them?
Karen Bradley
I am very aware of those problems. Structural issues with the creative industries have prevented apprenticeships from being included in the past. As part of the work of the Creative Industries Council, we have a specific workstream on skills, and I am in discussions with the Department for Education about how we get those apprenticeship opportunities.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Rob Wilson)
I have been reforming the charities sector and widening its strength and depth as part of a long-term plan. There are a number of sources of finance. Most recently, the Dormant Assets Commission has reported that there might be up to £2 billion of additional dormant assets, which could be transformational for the sector.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. In Suffolk, the Community First Endowment Match Challenge was extremely successful in leveraging local donations for grassroots causes, with private giving matched to almost three times the initial donation. Will the Minister meet me and the Suffolk Community Foundation to discuss how such an endowment challenge might be reintroduced?
Mr Wilson
I am very pleased to hear about the Suffolk foundation’s success. The Community First Endowment Match Challenge raised a permanent endowment of £130 million, which has provided £5.8 million in grants to local groups up to the end of 2015. It will continue to support local community groups and projects across England in the future. There are no plans to expand this programme in the current Parliament, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further and, in due course, to see whether we can consider how dormant assets are spent.
Mr Speaker
I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald. Not here. Oh dear, where is the feller?
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
We seem to have moved on very quickly, Mr Speaker.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the arts are accessible to everyone, regardless of their background, and not just to the privileged few. That is why the Government’s culture White Paper, which was published a year ago this month, sets out a range of commitments to increase access and participation, including a new cultural citizens programme for young people.
Justin Madders
Will the Secretary of State read the report on access to the professions by the all-party group on social mobility, which I chair? During our evidence sessions, we heard a great deal about how many young people are completely denied access to the arts and media because they are not prepared, or cannot afford, to take a series of unpaid work placements. That is really limiting access, so will the Secretary of State seriously consider the report’s recommendation of banning unpaid internships lasting more than one month?
Karen Bradley
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the all-party group; I will look carefully at the points that he has made. This Government have done much to change the culture of unpaid internships. I for one have never taken on an unpaid intern; I have always made sure that there is fair recompense for people who make a valuable contribution to my office.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Royal Opera House regularly screens performances right around the country—I am particularly familiar with the ballet—which means that anyone can see them locally, without having to come to London.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The screening of the Royal Opera House’s productions across the country has widened access. I feel very strongly that we should have fantastic regional arts. Last Friday, I saw some fantastic arts in Hull, the city of culture. That amazing work was about ensuring that the arts were getting to everybody.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State look at some of the work that we did when I chaired the Education Committee on young people’s access to the arts, including access to museums? What we found was that if a child from a more deprived background did not go on a school visit, they did not go at all, whereas middle-class children went with their parents. It is vital that we encourage schools to take kids to the arts and to museums.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This Government made a manifesto commitment to keep free access to museums to ensure that access is available to young people, whatever their background.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
Local authorities should recognise the huge benefits that investing in arts and culture can bring. Many already do, and are building successful partnerships to deliver arts and culture, and to develop new models of working together.
Paul Blomfield
The Government really ought to recognise the importance of investing in local authorities to deliver these services but, given the crisis in their funding, philanthropic giving is playing an increasingly important role. The Minister will be aware, I think, of the success of “Going Public”, which is a Museums Sheffield initiative on private giving. Will he agree to meet me and Museums Sheffield to discuss what more can be done on that front?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I would be delighted to, not least because the best local authorities are increasing their investment in arts and culture, as they see its value in strengthening the sense of place and ensuring that arts are available to all. There is no excuse for not doing so.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
An innovative new organisation called Arts Taunton has just been established in my constituency to infiltrate art and culture into every aspect of our lives, including the new garden town. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this sector should have an equal weighting with other sectors and, indeed, that it can not only raise spirits, but benefit the economy?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is exactly right. I commend initiatives such as Arts Taunton for embedding arts, culture and creativity in all aspects of life. It is incredibly important that people of all ages have the opportunity to participate and are encouraged to do so.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I am aware of concerns relating to youth football contracts in Scotland and have followed up the matter with the English football authorities in the light of this question. In relation to youth football in Scotland, I understand that the Scottish Government are discussing these matters with a range of stakeholders, including the football authorities, clubs, the Professional Footballers Association Scotland, and the Children’s Commissioner for Scotland.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for that answer. I presume that she is aware that the Realgrassroots campaign group has highlighted that some football clubs pay as little as £1 a week for youth football players who do 30 hours’ work. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has named and shamed those clubs, but will the Minister confirm what she will do to end this exploitation?
Tracey Crouch
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a devolved issue, but I understand that the Scottish Government have emphasised strongly to the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League that concerns must be taken seriously. We obviously take the duty of care to youngsters incredibly seriously and continue to look at this.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
We are on track, as we mentioned, to deliver 95% access to superfast broadband for UK homes and businesses. By 2020, we will introduce a universal service obligation to bring high-speed broadband to all parts of our country, including the most far-flung.
Mr Carmichael
Far-flung places such as London, if you start your journey in Orkney, Mr Speaker.
Faroese Telecom has a bold and exciting proposal to improve connectivity in Scotland’s islands communities, but it is in fact thwarted at every turn by Ofcom regulation. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a delegation from the islands and Faroese Telecom to discuss how we could use Ofcom as an enabler rather than an obstructer?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I would be delighted to. I am more familiar than I would ever have expected to be with Faroese Telecom’s policy because of how it has managed to roll out connectivity to the whole of those islands, and we should see whether we can do that for some of the islands in Scotland. Of course, the roll-out of superfast broadband in Scotland is done through the Scottish Government. They have been much, much slower than almost every other part of the UK—much slower than the Labour Welsh Government—but I am sure that, together, we can ensure that we bring the country together by delivering good connectivity.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
In due course.
Graham Jones
Brevity.
The question about privatisation is this: ITV’s profits are 26% of turnover, and Channel 4 has a £1 billion turnover. Are the Government seriously considering privatising Channel 4 and taking a quarter of its income for programming away?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman knows that in a fast-changing and challenging broadcasting environment, the Government want to ensure that Channel 4 has a strong and secure future, and that it can provide for audiences and support creative industries around the UK. I am looking at a broad range of options and, as I have said, I will report in due course.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
The Government announced a review of gaming machines and social responsibility measures, which will cover fixed odds betting terminals, on 24 October, and we expect to publish our findings in the spring.
Patricia Gibson
Will the Minister reassure the House that firm action will be taken against fixed odds betting terminals—the so-called crack cocaine of gambling? In my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran and the neighbouring one, there are 135 of these machines, on which a vulnerable player can lose £100 in a mere 20 seconds. Will the Government protect the vulnerable by capping the machines’ maximum gambling stake at £2?
Tracey Crouch
This is all part of the review. The hon. Lady does not have long to wait to find out what we will recommend in that review.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
Since we last had oral questions to my Department, it has launched the Government’s digital strategy, which will ensure that we have the infrastructure, regulation and skills that we need to build a world-leading digital economy that works for everyone. The Dormant Assets Commission identified a potential £2 billion in such assets, which could open up new streams of funding for good causes, and we are considering the best way to proceed on that. I visited South Korea for the third Korea-UK Creative Industries Forum, launched the UK-Korea year of culture, and signed a joint statement on co-operating on the content industry. Finally, I am sure that at least most Members will join me in wishing the England team well this weekend in their attempt to break New Zealand’s record for the most consecutive wins in top-level rugby.
Natalie McGarry
To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, the Secretary of State will be well aware that the maximum stake on fixed odds betting terminals is £100, which is 50 times the permitted cap on other high-street fruit machines. That particularly affects areas of severe deprivation, as there is great proliferation of these machines on high streets in such areas right across the UK. Does the Secretary of State recognise that that is an anomaly in gambling regulation and that far tougher regulation is required?
Karen Bradley
As the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), just said, we will make an announcement on this in the spring.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I am sure that we all share my hon. Friend’s excitement at the women’s cricket world cup returning to England this summer. We are not alone in looking forward to the tournament; I understand that a record number of tickets have been sold for the final at Lord’s, which is great news. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the first games of the tournament will coincide with Women’s Sport Week, which will provide further opportunities to celebrate women’s sport and encourage participation.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) is permanently excited, not only about matters of sport, but about all matters under the sun, as far as I can tell.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State feel bound by the 2015 Conservative party manifesto?
Mr Watson
Ah, very good. That is interesting, because that manifesto promised to lift the number of women on sports’ governing bodies to 25% by 2017, but it is 2017 already, and we have not achieved that. Did the Secretary of State think that nobody would notice, or, like the Chancellor on national insurance, did she not bother to read the manifesto?
Karen Bradley
We will be at 30% in 2017, which exceeds the manifesto commitment, because of the Government’s work on reforming sports governance, and our work with governing bodies to make sure that we have the right diversity and representation on those bodies.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Suicide is the leading cause of death of young people and the biggest killer of men under 50. The Secretary of State will know that there are clear links between certain types of media reporting and an increase in suicide rates. Will she join me in commending the work done by Samaritans through its media guidelines, and its tireless work to reduce suicide rates? Will she meet me to discuss the findings in the Health Committee’s report on preventing suicide, which is out today, given the role of the media, social media and the internet, and to discuss what we can do to reduce rates?
Karen Bradley
I commend my hon. Friend for her work on the Health Committee and look forward to reading the report. She is right that the media have an incredibly important role in helping to prevent suicides, not to cause them. I will, of course, sit down with her to discuss the matter.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
Absolutely. Local newspapers are incredibly important. As constituency MPs we all engage with them, as well as with the national media. I will be happy to meet the NUJ and take part in the week, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Ely cathedral has benefited from funding for essential building work from the first world war centenary cathedral repairs fund. The cathedral makes a significant and real contribution to community life. What future long-term funding is there for cathedrals?
Tracey Crouch
I was delighted recently to announce additional funding for many cathedrals around the country, including Ely. Cathedrals play an important part in our appreciation of heritage in the United Kingdom, so we continue to support the Heritage Lottery Fund to ensure that it continues to invest in cathedrals and other buildings of great importance.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
Matt Hancock
The prominence of PSBs is important. We are ensuring that S4C gets the funding that it needs—more than £6 million last year and more than £6 million next year. We have repeatedly made it clear that we strongly support S4C, which was a great Tory invention.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
In a woeful performance before the Home Affairs Committee earlier this week, managers from Google, Twitter and Facebook admitted that they do virtually nothing proactively to reduce hate speech, extremism or child abuse from being hosted on their sites. Is it not time that we proactively pursued a policy similar to German proposals that would see social media companies penalised with large fines if they failed to take down such sites within 24 hours, or to prevent them in the first place?
Tracey Crouch
I saw my hon. Friend’s comments about this in the newspapers this morning, and I reassure him that the Government are determined to do everything that we can to stamp out hate crime, which has absolutely no place in society. We have some of the strongest legislation on hate crime, and we expect social media companies to respond quickly to incidents of abusive behaviour on their networks. However, there is much more that we can do. We have just announced work on an internet safety strategy, which I will take forward with other colleagues, that is aimed at making Britain the safest country in the world for children and young people online.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
This is an important point. The Digital Economy Bill brings forward age verification processes so that all pornography cannot be accessed by those under the age of 18. ISPs will be required to block sites that do not put such age verification in place—that is incredibly important. The Bill is in the Lords at the moment but it will come back to this House shortly.
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
I add my excitement to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), because the women’s cricket world cup will actually launch in Derby. I recently discovered my inner warrior when playing rugby with England Rugby and my local Derby team—in fact, I made my first tackle—so will the Secretary of State tell me what we are doing to encourage more women to play sports?
Karen Bradley
I know from personal experience that Derby has fantastic sporting opportunities for everyone. It is incredibly important that more women play sport and feel that they can take part. The “This Girl Can” campaign, for which I am sure my hon. Friend has seen the television advertisements, is part of that, as is the fantastic women’s cricket world cup. I know that one of the matches is in Derby, but I have to confess that I am going to the one in Leicester.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), I met Realgrassroots, which explained that it had been campaigning against the exploitation of young footballers since 2010 and that the Scottish Parliament is investigating the issue. Will the sports Minister meet me to discuss it further, and commit to ensuring that football clubs abide by basic employment legislation, the enforcement of which is reserved?
Tracey Crouch
I am always delighted to meet honourable colleagues, and I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman, too.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, including with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, on various issues of importance to the Government. The Government will publish the great repeal Bill in due course, and the content of the Bill will determine the process to take it forward.
Marion Fellows
Last month, the Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed that a legislative consent motion would be required from the Scottish Parliament for the great repeal Bill, but in his answer just now the Attorney General stopped well short of that. If the UK Government’s position is the same as the Secretary of State for Scotland’s, will a legislative consent motion be required?
The Attorney General
The hon. Lady tempts me to explore what will be in the great repeal Bill. I am not going to do that, but she knows, and I am sure her colleagues know, that if the Bill affects the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Government, there will need to be a legislative consent motion.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern that people might be slightly misled by our referring to the proposed Bill as the great repeal Bill? Although it will repeal the European Communities Act 1972, it is actually the great continuity Bill, because its other purpose is to transfer the body of EU law into UK law.
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. He is right to say that this Bill will repeal the 1972 Act, and that is a significant step in this country’s history, but it will also, as he says, make sure that we do not have huge amounts of disruptive change for business, industry and individuals, and we will try to make sure that there is as much continuity on the day after departure as there was on the day before departure, where that is feasible.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does the Attorney General envisage that there will be consent motions under EVEL provisions in respect of any of the potential clauses in the great repeal Bill?
The Attorney General
Again, we shall have to wait and see the content of the Bill, but it is unlikely—given what is likely to be in the Bill, and given the purpose of the Bill—that we will be looking at very many areas, if any at all, that do not affect the entire United Kingdom.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Can the Attorney General clarify whether any of the devolved Administrations effectively have a legal veto over our decision to leave the European Union?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the Bill will not be called the great repeal Bill?
The Attorney General
I suspect that we will find a rather more technical title for the Bill when it comes forward.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
I must admit to being confused by the Attorney General’s answers. Clearly, the great repeal Bill, as indicated by the Supreme Court, will affect devolved competences. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said an LCM is required. Why are the Government hesitant? Can the Attorney General not be clear? Will an LCM be required for the great repeal Bill, because it affects devolved competences?
The Attorney General
The Supreme Court was not deciding on this Bill; it was deciding on a Bill that the Government have now passed, and which I hope will receive Royal Assent very shortly. However, in relation to the contents of this Bill, whatever it ends up being called, the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient and wait until we see it. As I set out to his colleagues, there is a clear set of expectations as to when LCMs will be required, and the Government will honour those expectations.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The Crown Prosecution Service anticipated increases in complex cases such as fraud ahead of the last spending review, and there was indeed a 14% increase in fraud and forgery cases last year, but, importantly, the conviction rate stayed stable at 86%.
Diana Johnson
With a third of the workforce cut since 2010—400 prosecutors and 1,000 administrators and caseworkers—does the Solicitor General really consider that the CPS is able to deal with these complex fraud and economic cases, and will not any further cuts leave it in a really bad state to prosecute?
The Solicitor General
I assure the hon. Lady that the allocation of resources for the prosecution of fraud has increased within the CPS. There are now over 200 specialist fraud prosecutors, not just here in London but across the country in important regional centres, and that number is set to increase to 250 in the months ahead, so the CPS is really placing an important priority on this.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Does the Solicitor General agree that the work of the Crown Prosecution Service in this area is very much complemented in cases of really serious economic fraud by the work of the Serious Fraud Office, which has been transformed under the leadership of David Green, resulting in the recovery of over £500 million of ill-gotten gains? Does he agree that the model of the Serious Fraud Office does this country great credit and will be of increasing value to us in future?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Justice Committee. He is right to highlight the recent successes of the SFO in collecting millions of pounds for the taxpayer as a result of deferred prosecution agreements. I think the Roskill model, which brings together investigators and prosecutors in one unit, works very well.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Picking up on the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, does not the existence of the Serious Fraud Office reduce pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service in terms of prosecuting big-ticket economic crime? Will the Solicitor General therefore guarantee that the Serious Fraud Office will continue to exist as it is and will not be merged with the Crown Prosecution Service or the National Crime Agency?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are at all times under a duty to review the mechanism by which we tackle economic crime, because it is a question not just of criminality but of national security. The Government are therefore right to examine the situation. As I said, I think the Roskill model works extremely well.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I did not detect a guarantee in that answer. A month ago, the Solicitor General praised the work of the director of the Serious Fraud Office and how he had enhanced the role of the Serious Fraud Office in our national life. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has fine persuasive skills, so if he will not give a guarantee, will he at least undertake to go to see the Prime Minister to speak about the advantages of the Serious Fraud Office and having investigatory and prosecuting services under one roof?
The Solicitor General
I am happy to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that I have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues about all these issues. I praise David Green for the work he has done in leading the SFO. I will continue to make the case for the Roskill model.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I suspect that those who have the necessary financial expertise to investigate, uncover, prosecute and prove complex financial fraud will probably get paid a lot more in the private sector working for business or the City. What can the Solicitor General do to ensure that the right people with the right skills are retained by the CPS and the SFO?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend knows that the SFO operates a model of funding that means it can be quite flexible as regards particular investigations. The important point is that we get the right people with the right specific expertise in particular types of serious fraud. Flexibility is the most important principle.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Everybody knows that there is a lot of hot money in the London high-end residential market, especially coming from Russia, and there are extensive reporting regulations on financial advisers and agents, so why have there been so few prosecutions for money laundering in this area?
The Solicitor General
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about this. He will be glad to know that the provisions in the Criminal Finances Bill, which I hope will become law very soon, will enhance the powers of prosecutors and investigators in going after ill-gotten gains with new measures such as unexplained wealth orders, which will help us to deal with the perpetrators of this type of fraud.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
The Prime Minister has recently restated her personal, and the Government’s collective, commitment to tackling domestic violence and abuse. My colleagues in Cabinet and I will work together to take that forward. That work will include considering how we can support the CPS in bringing prosecutions against perpetrators of domestic violence.
Paul Blomfield
Ashiana, which is a great Sheffield charity working on domestic violence in the black, Asian, minority ethnic and refugee communities, has raised its concerns with me over the appallingly low prosecution rates for female genital mutilation and honour-based violence. The Attorney General will know that there have been no successful prosecutions for FGM. I am sure he shares my concern about that, but what is he going to do about it?
The Attorney General
I do share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about that. He may be aware that there are often considerable evidential difficulties in proving these offences in court, but that does not mean that we should not bring appropriate cases before criminal courts and seek to gain convictions. The Crown Prosecution Service will continue to do that. In relation to domestic violence more broadly, he may know that the volume and conviction rate of prosecutions are rising, on the basis of the last year for which we have figures compared with the year before, but he is right to point out specific areas where we need to do better.
Mike Kane
Survivors of domestic abuse in my constituency in the excellent Safe Spots group tell me that right out of the gate, they cannot access the criminal justice system because they have to pay a discretionary fee to their doctor for a note to access legal aid, which can cost up to £175. Will the Attorney General consider talking to his Department of Health colleagues about whether we can scrap this fee for those people?
The Attorney General
I will certainly explore the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. I think he is indicating that there are a number of different things that we need to do to support those who are victims of domestic violence. This is not solely a criminal justice issue, but if people are to access the criminal justice system, we need to do as much as we can to make the process as easy it possibly can be for them. If victims of domestic violence are unwilling to give evidence, that should not necessarily be the end of a prosecution. We have seen recently with the use of body-worn video cameras that the police can sometimes give evidence that can secure a conviction, even if the victim is not prepared to give evidence.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Will the Attorney General work with the Justice Secretary to ensure that changes to the law on domestic abusers cross-examining their victims are fit for purpose, and that they adequately protect victims in our family courts?
The Attorney General
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that in a criminal context, courts already have the authority to stop alleged domestic violence perpetrators cross-examining their alleged victims directly. Family courts need to have such a power, too. He will know, I am sure, that the Government intend to make sure that they do have that power, and I understand that that will form part of a Bill that will come before the House very shortly.
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The CPS is prosecuting and convicting more defendants of domestic abuse, rape, sexual offences and child sexual abuse than ever before. Under the cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy, the CPS has committed to a number of actions between now and 2020 to ensure the effective prosecution of these offences.
Amanda Solloway
What is the CPS doing in the Derbyshire area to ensure that more perpetrators of violence against women and girls are brought to justice?
The Solicitor General
I know that my hon. Friend has a great interest in and concern about these serious matters. I am happy to tell her that in the last year, 1,805 cases were charged by the CPS—a rise to 70.6% compared with the figure for the previous year—and 1,867 cases resulted in a conviction. The conviction rate in Derbyshire is running at 4.4% higher than the national average.
Lucy Frazer
In Cambridgeshire in 2015-16 there was an increase in the number of convictions for violence against women and girls to 1,031. What is being done to use technology to improve the gathering of evidence for these crimes?
The Solicitor General
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has just mentioned, the CPS and the police are embracing the use of technology. The use of body-worn cameras, which is being rolled out across the country, will transform conviction rates and the number of guilty pleas when the evidence is clear and overwhelming in these cases.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Much of the violence against women and children is caused by human traffickers. Does the Solicitor General welcome the announcement today of an investment of £6 million by the Home Secretary in fighting modern-day slavery? We are really leading Europe on this issue.
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to link modern-day slavery with violence against women and girls. He knows from his leadership on this issue that if there is a co-ordinated approach to these problems, victims can be identified and perpetrators can be brought to justice. This is yet another welcome milestone along the road in our world leadership on these issues.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
The article 50 litigation concerned an important constitutional issue that it was right for the Supreme Court to consider. The Court considered both the Government’s appeal in England and Wales proceedings and five devolution questions referred by the courts in Northern Ireland after a judgment favourable to the Government. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has committed to publishing the total cost figures in due course.
Natalie McGarry
The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU has praised the article 50 debate as among the best he has heard in the Chamber. Will the Attorney General attest whether the cost to the public purse of preventing this House from having a meaningful and democratic debate was well spent or a waste of public money?
The Attorney General
It is not a waste of public money to explore an issue of this constitutional significance in the highest court in the land, and that is what happened. Of course, if the hon. Lady were right that this was a complete waste of money, three Supreme Court Justices would not have found in favour of the Government’s arguments. She will also be aware—I must gently point this out to her—that some of the money spent by the Government was spent on responding to arguments made by the Scottish Government that were rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I think that just proves that you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t with the Scottish National party. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, ultimately, we cannot put a cost on defending democratic principles such as this?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend is right. Again, I think there is merit in ensuring that the highest court in the land has the chance to consider a very significant set of constitutional questions. It has done that and produced its judgment. The Government have complied with that judgment, and the House of Commons and the House of Lords have passed a Bill accordingly.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The Bribery Act 2010 “failure to prevent” offence is holding corporate offenders to account for criminal activity. We are introducing a new offence of failing to prevent tax evasion in the Criminal Finances Bill. Building on this, the Government have published a call for evidence to explore the options for further reform, including extending the “failure to prevent” offence.
Sir David Amess
Will my hon. and learned Friend look very carefully at the way in which Uber operates? In the past year, it paid £411,000 in tax. I have been inundated with complaints from traditional taxi drivers about the seemingly unfair, unscrupulous and unregulated way in which Uber deploys its drivers.
The Solicitor General
I listened with concern to my hon. Friend’s question. As I have said, there will be a new corporate offence of failing to prevent tax evasion. If there is evidence of criminality, I urge my hon. Friend and others to report such matters to the police.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
I have regular meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions at which a variety of issues are discussed. The CPS takes the prosecution of hare coursing very seriously. I understand that the chief Crown prosecutor for the east midlands has recently had a meeting with the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable of Lincolnshire at which this issue was discussed.
Dr Johnson
Not only is hare coursing cruel to the hare, but it causes economic damage and is causing increasing fear in our rural communities. What is the CPS doing to ensure that prosecutions for hare coursing are successful, and to help to put a stop to this crime?
The Solicitor General
I know that my hon. Friend, who represents a rural constituency, is dealing with this issue and working with local farmers and others to try to combat it. Each Crown Prosecution Service area has a wildlife co-ordinator so that the knowledge needed to prosecute these offences is readily available. The CPS works closely with the police and other wildlife communities to tackle this serious scourge.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
It is the long-standing position of successive UK Governments that a state may use force in self-defence not only in response to armed attacks but to prevent an armed attack that is imminent. In each exercise of the use of force in self-defence, the UK asks itself questions such as: how certain is it that an attack will come; how soon do we believe an attack could be; what could be the scale of the attack; could this be our last opportunity to take action; and is there anything else we could credibly do to prevent that attack?
Rehman Chishti
I thank the Attorney General for that answer. Does he agree with me that there is an important difference between the threats we face now and the threats that have not materialised but that may develop later?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and there is a significant difference between those two things. What I have sought to make clear is that the UK Government are saying they have authority under the law to respond to threats that have emerged, not to threats that may yet emerge in the future but have not yet done so.
Business of the House
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)
The business for the next week is as follows:
Monday 20 March—Second Reading of the Prisons and Courts Bill.
Tuesday 21 March—Remaining stages of the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords] followed by a general debate on fuel poverty.
Wednesday 22 March—Remaining stages of the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] followed by a general debate on exiting the European Union and global trade.
Thursday 23 March—Debate on a motion on compensation for Equitable Life policyholders followed by debate on a motion on the Social Mobility Commission state of the nation report. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 24 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 27 March will include:
Monday 27 March—Remaining stages of the Bus Services Bill [Lords].
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 27 and 30 March will be:
Monday 27 March—Debate on an e-petition relating to badger culling.
Thursday 30 March—Debate relating to the future of local and regional news providers.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week. Can he confirm or deny rumours that the Queen’s Speech will be on 17 May?
I would like to wish everyone a very happy St Patrick’s day for tomorrow. I do not know whether you know, Mr Speaker, but it traditionally marks an interruption to Lenten fasting. Perhaps the Leader of the House or even the Chief Whip will say, “Salt and vinegar crisps all round” just to cheer up the troops.
This has been a week of delay, incompetence and confusion. The big six energy companies have raised their prices and consumers have been overpaying. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), in which he stated that E.ON raised its prices by 14% and SSE by 8%, the Minister said:
“It has been reported by Ofgem that there is no reason to increase prices…The time is up for these companies.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 177.]
What does the Minister do? Instead of acting, he publishes a Green Paper. The Government must take a leaf out of the 2015 Labour manifesto and step in to put a cap on prices now—no more delay. In contrast with the obsession about how someone eats a bacon sandwich, it was a popular and costed policy. May we have a debate on what powers the Government will use to protect consumers immediately?
Speaking of manifestos, it is because the Government got away with it before—they said no top-down reorganisation of the NHS but they did it; they said in coalition no increase in tuition fees but they did it—that they thought they could do it again. There is a real piece of work to be done on national insurance contributions. Bizarrely, the Government instigated the Taylor review, which is due in June, having already put the policy through. They should have given businesses the time to plan for the increase. It is very hard for small businesses to find extra money suddenly. Instead of coming to the Chamber, the Prime Minister took to the podium in Brussels to announce that the policy had been deferred. The Chancellor came to the Chamber on Wednesday. The Chancellor seems to have fallen down his own black hole—tell that to Stephen Hawking.
What of the confusion and chaos that is Brexit? As more and more Select Committee reports are published, may we have a timetable of when and how they will be debated? The Government seem to be fixated on an unamended Bill going through Parliament, rather than preparing the country for what is to follow. The Foreign Affairs Committee report on the implications of no deal said that the Government refused to give evidence, saying it would be nothing more than an exercise in guesswork. However, the Committee’s report stated:
“The consequences of such a failure are far from ‘an exercise in guesswork’. They are, in scope if not in detail, largely predictable—and, in…evidence…have been predicted.”
The report recommended that each Department should
“produce a ‘no deal’ plan…setting out proposals to mitigate…risks.”
Will the Leader of the House tell us whether that will happen, and whether those plans will be reported to the House? Pages 97 and 98 of the report “Brexit: trade in goods”, published by the other place, remind us that
“The EU is, by a significant margin, the UK’s biggest trading partner… Many UK businesses cannot easily substitute their imports from the EU with UK products.”
What help will businesses be given to secure those new suppliers—or are the Government abandoning small businesses?
Let me now raise the issue of the west midlands leaflet. Apparently, a leaflet produced by another candidate for the post of west midlands mayor—a member of the same party—suggested that Siôn Simon did not have any experience. In fact, Siôn Simon is a former Member of Parliament, a former Minister and a Member of the European Parliament, so he is quite experienced enough to take the west midlands forward after Brexit.
Women are not just for International Women’s Day, but for life. We are currently celebrating women’s history month as we continue to tell “herstory”. On 21 March, in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Room, there will be a lecture on Constance Markievicz, who was the first woman to be elected to Parliament but did not take her seat. International Anti-discrimination Day falls on the same date. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on “Race in the workplace: The McGregor-Smith Review”? Staff at the Equality and Human Rights Commission are being sacked, but it is that organisation that should be implementing the recommendations of the report, which states:
“If BME talent is fully utilised, the economy could receive a £24 billion boost.”
That would fill the £2 billion hole in the Budget.
Not only is it good for the economy to use all the talents, but using all the talents is the right thing to do for the common good, in a good society.
Mr Lidington
Let me begin by joining the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) in wishing everyone, particularly our colleagues from Northern Ireland and colleagues with Irish ancestry, a happy St Patrick’s day for tomorrow. It is one of those occasions which, whatever the divisions in Northern Ireland, tends to bring all sides together in a common celebration.
The hon. Lady asked whether I could confirm or deny a possible date for the Queen’s Speech. I am afraid that the answer is no.
The Government have made very clear that we are pressing ahead with the Taylor review, which will be a very important study of and report on the way in which digital technology is changing our notions of employment. I am sure that Matthew Taylor will produce a number of specific and challenging recommendations, which the Government will want to take seriously.
The hon. Lady asked about exit from the EU. There is provision in our arrangements for debates on Select Committee reports, which from time to time are chosen either by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in the time that is allotted to them. I do not think that the hon. Lady can fault the willingness of Ministers—and, in particular, the willingness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—to appear before the House and before Select Committees to answer the questions that Members quite reasonably ask. Detailed work is taking place, not only in my right hon. Friend’s Department but throughout Whitehall, to examine the potential impact of various possible outcomes of the negotiations on the different sectors of our economy, and it is obviously sensible for us to consult those sectors closely about possible scenarios.
I am happy to join the hon. Lady in celebrating women’s history month. I hope that, as well as a celebration of the achievements of people such as Constance Markievicz and Nancy Astor, there will be a proper salute to the two women Prime Ministers of this country.
I completely agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of harnessing all the talent and energy of our fellow citizens from the black minority ethnic communities. While it is in part down to having the right sort of equalities and anti-discrimination legislation, I hope that the House acknowledges that getting it right also means encouraging people from those communities to believe that everything is possible for them in our country. I am heartened by having seen in the time that I have been in this place ever more men and women from our black and other minority communities playing a leading role in mainstream life in my constituency and nationally, whether in business, the media, the arts, the professions or politics at both local and national level.
I do not blame the hon. Lady for wanting to try to find something nice to say about the Labour candidate for the west midlands mayoral election, but while I am the first to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of people who serve in the European Parliament, I think that in respect of having executive authority for the midlands engine—one of the real heartlands of our national economic life—the commercial experience of Andy Street puts him head and shoulders above his competition.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2017
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
Business of the House
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), is unfortunately once again unable to be with us, so may I just gently remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we have an ever-growing queue of applications for debates? Would he therefore consider allowing protected time, particularly on Thursdays, for Backbench Business debates? That might mean that this House would sit slightly later, but it would also mean that we could get at least two debates in and clear the decks.
Speaking on my own behalf, the Mayor of London has not only called in, but directed approval of, a planning application in Harrow which comprises two tower blocks next door to two-storey housing. The planning committee of Harrow Council has on a cross-party basis rejected this unacceptable planning application. The Mayor of London has called it in and directed approval, against the wishes of Harrow Council, all the residents and everyone—and not only that, it is hideous. May we have a debate on planning in London?
Mr Lidington
It was good to see the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee in his place earlier this week and I hope it will not be long before he is again playing a regular part in our Thursday exchanges. In the meantime, I say to my hon. Friend that we always take seriously the Backbench Business Committee’s requests for time, but the reality is that there is pressure on both Government and Backbench Business time and we must all select priorities. I am very happy to look at the case my hon. Friend and the Committee make for protected time on specific Thursdays, but I would be reluctant to agree a general rule for all Thursdays because sometimes Backbench Business debates peter out before the allotted time has been completed—that may be rare, but it does occasionally happen. I think my hon. Friend will acknowledge that we have in the past tried, where we know that there are statements coming, to protect the Backbench Business agenda.
On my hon. Friend’s point about Harrow, he, as always, speaks strongly on behalf of his constituents, and I am sure he will seek to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, for a possible Adjournment debate.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
May I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and wish everybody a happy St Patrick’s day?
There is so much kicking around this morning that it is difficult to know where to start, but how about we start with securing an urgent statement on the Electoral Commission’s record fine on a political party for breaching electoral law? We need to hear in that statement that this Government are taking these allegations seriously, and not hitting out petulantly, as some Members have done this morning, at the Electoral Commission and treating it with contempt. Our electoral laws are critically important to protecting our democracy, and the Conservative party will now be investigated by the Metropolitan police, just as I asked the police to do last year. A sum of £70,000 is absolute peanuts to the Conservative party, so will the Leader of the House now say today that it will fully comply, and take part in every single one of those police investigations? This could well be the “cash for honours” of this Parliament.
May we have a debate on automotive manoeuvres? The screeching of yesterday’s U-turn on national insurance contributions is still ringing in our ears, and the skid marks go all the way from here to the doors of No. 10. I do not think we have ever seen a Budget unravel as dramatically as last week’s has done. Perhaps we need to get our Budgets manifesto-proofed, or perhaps we should get Laura Kuenssberg to deliver next year’s Budget from the Dispatch Box.
Lastly, will there be a statement from the Government approving a section 30 order to approve a legal independence referendum if, as is likely, the Scottish Parliament votes next week to request one? Surely there can be no case for standing in the way of democracy or defying the will of the democratically elected Parliament in Scotland. I say ever so gently to the Leader of the House that if this Government are thinking for one minute of standing in the way of Scottish democracy, that would be the biggest possible recruiting sergeant for the cause of Scottish independence.
Mr Lidington
The Government will of course consider carefully any recommendations from the Electoral Commission for a change in regulatory powers. We are already considering a number of possible changes to electoral arrangements, following the report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) on electoral corruption. I have to say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), however, that complaints from his party, of all parties, about the use of battle buses are more than a little odd. It is not exactly a secret that, at the 2015 general election, the Scottish National party flew Nicola Sturgeon from constituency to constituency in support of its candidates, which suggests to me that some of his party’s complaints in this respect are both spurious and hypocritical—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Leader of the House must not use that last word. He is a versatile fellow: he can use another word, and I feel sure that it will spew forth immediately.
Mr Lidington
I am happy to withdraw that, Mr Speaker. I make no allegation against any hon. Member, but I think that the party in question has not displayed consistency of approach when it comes to this matter.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about a referendum in Scotland. Obviously we will want to look at whatever request might come from the Scottish Parliament in due course when it has debated whatever motion is put before it, but I say gently to him that the autumn statement and the spring Budget together have given roughly £1.25 billion of extra spending to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, and that they could use that money to reduce the tax hikes on businesses and middle income families in Scotland. They could also use it to improve failing schools in Scotland, or to help struggling hospitals in Scotland. That would be a much better service to the people of Scotland than posturing about a further referendum.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Oh sorry, Mr Speaker, you took me by surprise!
Mr Speaker
As the hon. Gentleman was standing and seeking to catch my eye, his expression of incredulity is perhaps a tad misplaced.
Mr Walker
And as I am only the Chair of the Procedure Committee, these things are lost on me!
May we have an urgent debate on the conduct of the Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership in relation to its possible misuse of £6.5 million of public money to promote and ease a planning application on behalf of Veolia? The relationship between Veolia, the LEP, Hertfordshire County Council, the relevant planning authority and the owner of the Veolia contract is too close to carry the confidence of my constituents.
Mr Lidington
As always, my hon. Friend makes his point powerfully on behalf of his constituents. I note that he has been successful in securing an Adjournment debate on Thursday 23 March, so I am sure that he will pursue those arguments then.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I would like to sign my question. Is the Leader of the House aware that 18 March marks the 14th anniversary of the UK Government’s recognising British sign language? Will he agree time to debate giving British sign language legal status like other recognised languages?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Lady has eloquently reminded us of the importance of British sign language to a number of our fellow citizens who live with deafness or a severe hearing impairment. The Department for Work and Pensions has under way a review of the provision of signing services in this country and has received several hundred submissions. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will bring forward the conclusions in due course. I can also tell the House that the Department for Education plans to accept British sign language as an alternative qualification to functional skills in English within apprenticeships, which I hope will be one step towards giving opportunities to more people who live with deafness to play a full part in the labour market.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate aimed at promoting projects to deter young people from drinking to excess and taking drugs? I recently saw the Smashed Project perform at St Thomas More High School, and I am convinced that a hard-hitting message can make a real impact.
Mr Lidington
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the devastating impact that drug and alcohol misuse can have on the lives of too many young people and their families, who are often distraught about what has happened to a loved son or daughter. The Government take a broad approach to prevention, supporting investment in a range of different programmes. We announced earlier this week new funding for Mentor UK to continue to deliver the ADEPIS programme, which includes a range of resources to give young people the tools and confidence they need to resist being drawn towards drug misuse in the first place.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When can we debate early-day motion 1079, which covers the House’s abject failure to deal with the potentially corrupt revolving door between ministerial office and outside jobs?
[That this House recalls former Prime Minister David Cameron’s condemnation in 2010 of politicians who are out to serve themselves and not the country by lobbying; notes the abject failure of the Government’s watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, to reduce the abuses of the potentially corrupting revolving door between ministerial office and big business lobbying; and calls on the Government to establish an effective watchdog that would enhance the House’s reputation for probity, removing the opportunities for former Ministers to sell their inside knowledge and contacts for financial advantage by prohibiting their lobbying for companies they influenced or regulated in their Ministerial roles.]
The temptation is there for former Ministers to use their insider knowledge and contacts for their private gain. How is it right that the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which is responsible for approving such appointments, saw fit to give its blessing to a former Minister receiving £13,000 a day in addition to his parliamentary salary? Does that not bring this House into deeper disrepute?
Mr Lidington
It is right that we have a committee that is not part of the Government and not a Committee of this House or the other place to make rulings on individual cases. It is important that former Ministers stick to the proper procedures in seeking clearance before taking on any new external appointment.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Now that the Government have expressed their determination to honour both the letter and the spirit of manifesto commitments, may we have an urgent debate on how the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can be persuaded to honour the letter and the spirit of the Government’s commitment to Parliament and to my constituents on 7 December 2015, as reported in column 822 of Hansard, that they would not force structural change on any local authority against its will?
Mr Lidington
As he has done previously, my hon. Friend speaks strongly about the continued existence of Christchurch Borough Council. He will continue to press the matter strongly with Ministers, and I am sure that his opportunity will arise in an Adjournment debate at some point.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Following a High Court judgment, the Government have to produce a new air quality plan by next month. Fifty thousand people a year die as a result of air pollution, which has an impact on my congested city of York. Even in Micklegate ward, we have five poor air quality hotspots. May we have debate in Government time about the steps that are needed ahead of the publication of the air quality plan so that we can have a real input into the Government’s plans?
Mr Lidington
The Government have given that very clear undertaking. There was a plan in place that the courts deemed to be inadequate, and the Government will respond to that court judgment by July. The right occasion for Parliament to consider the issue in greater detail will be when the plan is available.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
As the economy continues to thrive, the claimant rate in my constituency is just 1.9%, but the local economy is quite dependent on European workers. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can have a sensible work permit system for those valuable workers post-Brexit?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend makes an important point and reminds us that, when debating immigration policy, we should not get trapped into criticising people who come here from European countries and elsewhere to play an important part in our economy by working hard, paying taxes and contributing to our society. As he knows, the Government are committed to trying to agree a reciprocal deal on the status of EU nationals here and British nationals in the 27 other EU countries at the earliest possible stage of the negotiations. Although we will need a system of immigration controls subsequent to our exit from the European Union, we are alive to the need to be sensitive to British industry’s continuing need to staff posts.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Last week the Leader of the House assured me that the Government are seeking urgent clarification from the Israeli authorities on the new law banning foreigners who call for the boycotting of illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There has been a week of absolute silence from the Foreign Office on that issue and, on Monday, Hugh Lanning, chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, was the first UK citizen to be deported from Israel following the passing of that law. May we please have a statement from the Foreign Office clarifying how the application of the law will affect UK passport holders and UK foreign policy?
Mr Lidington
The straight answer is that, since the hon. Lady raised the issue with me last week, we have not yet had the detailed clarification that we are seeking from the Israeli Government. As a result, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office is raising the matter directly with Israeli officials this week.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am grateful for the fact that you have called me before calling any Liberal Democrat Member, Mr Speaker. This week unemployment, at 4.7%, was at its lowest rate since the summer of 1975. It has always been a rule of thumb that Labour Governments increase unemployment and Conservative Governments reduce it, but there is another link—[Interruption.] I apologise to Labour Members, but the link is clearly different. What happened in the summer of ’75? That was when the country decided to stay in the European Economic Community, so unemployment has gone up all the time we have been in, and now we are coming out, it is going down. May we have a debate on that?
Mr Lidington
The growth in employment and the fall in unemployment should be welcomed unreservedly on both sides of the House, and it is due to the hard work and enterprise of British business in creating jobs and to the Government’s creating an economic climate in which businesses want to invest and are willing to hire people. I hope that every Member, whichever party they come from, will welcome the fact that unemployment is now at its lowest since 1975 and that employment is at its highest in our country’s history.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
As the Leader of the House knows, next week marks the second anniversary of the conflict in Yemen that has resulted in the death of 10,000 Yemeni people and brought that country to the brink of famine. The Yemeni people now face the four horsemen of the apocalypse: al-Qaeda, Daesh, starvation and airstrikes. When can we have a debate on that important subject? Britain holds the pen on Yemen so far as that matter is concerned, and it is vital that the House is updated before Yemen slides into the greatest catastrophe of this century.
Mr Lidington
We all share the right hon. Gentleman’s sense of horror at what has happened in Yemen. The British Government are extremely active in the international work, but it would be foolish to pretend that we have a quick and easy solution to this conflict. We continue to support the tireless efforts of the UN special envoy to broker an agreement between the warring parties inside Yemen, just as we continue to commit large sums of our overseas aid budget to relieve humanitarian suffering in Yemen. That political work and that humanitarian work will continue.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
In the unlikely event of the Scottish people following the advice of the Scottish National party and voting for independence, they would be very much poorer. Many of my constituents are already concerned about the foreign aid budget. May we have a debate on the aid budget, so that the Government could make it clear that they will not sanction an increase in order to bail out the Scots?
Mr Lidington
There is some really good news for Scotland: since 2010 employment in Scotland has gone up by 171,000; 90,000 fewer Scots are out of work, and women’s employment in Scotland has gone up by 76,000. We should celebrate that.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House might know that people in Huddersfield are deeply disappointed in a Budget that does so little for the NHS and for our hospital accident and emergency unit, which might be closed. But they are good people in Huddersfield, so they wanted me to prioritise today in this House the need to do something to save the children starving in east Africa. We must have a debate on that, raise consciousness about it and get this country to donate to save those children and families from starvation.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the need to remember that humanitarian crisis in east Africa. The Department for International Development is extremely focused on that, but anything that can be done to raise public consciousness about the need for charitable donations to supplement the Government’s work is very welcome.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Last Friday, I visited Great Addington Church of England Primary School, where I was asked lots of difficult questions, inspired by the pupils’ visit to Parliament last year. They asked me to convey to the House their sincere appreciation for the excellent tour, and I ask the Leader of the House to join me in thanking the staff of the House for their help on that. May we have a debate next week about the important role that this place plays in educating young people about our democracy?
Mr Lidington
I am delighted that the pupils from Great Addington’s school enjoyed their visit. Obviously, they put their lessons to good use in interrogating my hon. Friend. That will prepare him for his future ministerial career, I am certain. I know that you have given very high priority to enhancing the House’s educational work, Mr Speaker. I certainly share that objective and am seeking to do this in programming my future external engagement. I hope that we all in our individual constituencies will try to interest young men and women in our work, because capturing the imagination of boys and girls at a young age is the surest way in which we can rebuild confidence in and enthusiasm for our democratic processes.
Mr Speaker
The answer from the Leader of the House is of great interest to me and to colleagues, but it may also be of considerable interest to a number of young people who are observing our proceedings from not very far away, at whom the Leader of the House, to his credit, is now smiling beatifically.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Race hate crime in the north-east is up by 48% since Brexit, and the English Defence League is to march again in South Shields this weekend. My constituents and I have always challenged extremism, and such groups are not welcome in South Shields, yet the process to have such marches banned is complex and arduous. Will the Government make a statement on what they are doing to stem the rise of racially charged demonstrations, which have no place in Britain?
Mr Lidington
I face the challenge of EDL marches in my constituency. A balance has to be struck between the rights of freedom of expression and freedom to demonstrate, which we all cherish in the United Kingdom—and they cannot be only for the people with whom we agree—and the importance of demonstrating our rejection of extremist groups. My view is that the best way to respond to the EDL or similar groups is for the entire community to speak and to show in their actions that they utterly reject and are repelled by the venom and hatred that those groups seek to sow in our society. In particular, those of us in leadership positions should show solidarity with the minority groups who feel so threatened.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
There are housing association tenants in my Bury constituency who would like the opportunity to buy their property. May we please have a statement on the progress on extending the right to buy to housing association tenants?
Mr Lidington
In last year’s autumn statement, the Chancellor announced a large-scale regional pilot that will enable more than 3,000 housing association tenants to buy their own home. We are undertaking pilots to ensure that we get the policy right. We will test its key features and look at the evidence to decide how we can take forward the scheme.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union admitted that the Government have made no full assessment of the potential impact on the UK economy of our leaving the EU without a deal. May we have a debate in Government time on that specific issue so that the House can hold the Government to account on that very important matter?
Mr Lidington
There will be an opportunity in the debate on EU exit and international trade that I announced in the business statement. I should correct the hon. Lady, though: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday that the Government are looking across the piece at the impact of our leaving the EU on various sectors of the economy. He was asked about a new overall economic assessment, and said that his Department, and others in Whitehall, are in the process of carrying out a programme of rigorous and extensive analytical work on a sector-by-sector basis. That, surely, is the constructive way to approach the matter.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
We all know that the Government are very keen on manifesto commitments and following through on them. I think all parties would welcome a debate on what the Government mean by “shortly”. Before Christmas, we had a debate on elephants and the ivory trade, and were told then that a decision would come out shortly. In February, we were told again that it was coming out shortly. May we have a statement on when we will know when we are going to follow through on the Conservative manifesto promise to ban the trade in ivory?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs plans to take the decision and announce her proposed way forward soon.
Mr Speaker
If we could try to speed up, that would be really good, because there is a statement to follow.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that at the recent Beacon awards, which are known as the Oscars of the further education sector, Bridgend College, which sits in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), won an award. Will he find some time for a debate on the success of the FE sector, particularly its contribution to enabling people of any age to continue on their learning path?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the importance of that sector, and I join him in congratulating Bridgend College on its achievement.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Medway hospital in my constituency has been in special measures for nearly four years. The staff and the leadership in partnership with the Government have worked tirelessly to improve standards. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the excellent staff who have won awards for their work, including Excellence in Maternity Care? May we have an urgent statement on the performance of hospitals in special measures?
Mr Lidington
It is always tough when staff have to face up to criticisms of their record and to see their institution placed in special measures. I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend that staff at Medway hospital have responded so positively, and I hope that their efforts soon receive the public tributes that I know that he hopes for.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Yet another GP surgery is closing in my constituency—the sixth in recent times. The patients are being dispersed to other surgeries, but the length of time that people have to wait for a GP appointment is growing. Can we have a statement from the Minister about the performance of NHS England in providing GP services, because the situation in my constituency is intolerable?
Mr Lidington
We want to see GP practices open for longer so that more people can benefit from the excellent services they offer. Some 17 million patients have already benefited from evening and weekend appointments. We have increased investment in general practice by nearly £2.5 billion, and there are 1,100 more GPs now compared with 2010. I will certainly draw to the Secretary of State’s attention the particular difficulty in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
May we have a debate on the northern powerhouse schools strategy? Last month saw the launch of the Pendle challenge, with more than 80 organisations involved in the provision of education from nought to 18 years coming together to improve the aspirations and achievements of young people in Pendle. I am keen to see how we can better work together across the north on this issue.
Mr Lidington
As my hon. Friend says, it is really important that we look to raise not just the standards of achievement by children in schools, but their aspirations and their expectations about what is possible in their lives. The northern powerhouse schools strategy aims to do just that, which is why the Government are putting in £70 million over the course of this Parliament. I hope that we will see a further announcement on that before very long.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Given that, shamefully, there was no mention of help for the WASPI women in the Budget, can we have another opportunity to speak on behalf of the women affected, including my constituent who was denied, with little notice, the chance to retire when she had planned and has now found out that she is terminally ill, as her voice and others deserve to be heard?
Mr Lidington
I point the hon. Lady towards questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on Monday 27 March. There has been about £1 billion of investment in transitional arrangements to help those women who are worst affected by the equalisation of pension age. None the less, the equalisation of pension age did have cross-party support in this House when it was brought in.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Millions of people have installed cavity wall insulation successfully, but many have experienced failures, leading to damp, fungal infection and structural difficulties in their homes. Those people are often elderly and disabled, and they thought that they were participating in a Government scheme. The industry’s response has been defensive and evasive most of the time, and the Government seem to be hoping to keep out of what could be a very expensive mess. Can we have an early debate on the CWI scandal?
Mr Lidington
Without checking, I do not know to what extent this is a legislative and regulatory problem and to what extent it is a matter of consumer law to be resolved in the normal way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me with details about his experience, I will happily consider the case.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House to be disappointed that the Chancellor made no mention of extra police funding in his Budget statement last week. Cuts to frontline policing in Bradford South have been profound, with 75 fewer officers engaged in neighbourhood policing today than in 2012. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on this important issue?
Mr Lidington
The spending total for the police, as for every other Government service, was announced at the time of the spending review. Crimes traditionally measured by the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales have actually fallen by a third since 2010; they are now at a record low. That shows that the police have been extremely professional in managing their budgets to ensure that the public are protected and that crime comes down.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
May we have a debate or a statement on funding third sector organisations to assist the long-term unemployed into work? I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1003, which seeks to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the GalGael Trust, an organisation in my constituency that maintains the skills and traditions of woodwork and metalwork.
[That this House recognises the 20th Anniversary of the founding of an inspiring and life-changing community project based in Govan, the GalGael Trust, founded by the late Colin McLeod whose vision for the project is still upheld today; notes that this groundbreaking boat-building and woodcraft workshop upholds the proud Glaswegian traditions of hard work, community spirit and skilled craftwork whilst changing lives by restoring pride through achievement and developing skills; further notes that GalGael shows that supporting the long-term unemployed with respect and a creative vision can be more effective and engaging than traditional methods; notes that re-using Scottish timber from landfill respects the environment and the roots of the project lie in that vision of positive action coming from protest; and supports the view that the sustainability of this project is due to the inspiring people who have been at the heart of the community in Govan, working to maintain the skills and traditions of crafts in woodwork and metalwork, and building a future whilst honouring the past.]
Does the Leader of the House agree that the sustainability and finance of such organisations can help the long-term unemployed?
Mr Lidington
I do not know any more about the GalGael Trust than what the hon. Gentleman just told the House. I am happy to salute the work that it does and the work of many other such organisations in all parts of the United Kingdom in trying to provide mentoring and support, which is often so valuable to people who have been unemployed for a very long time in helping them have the confidence and basic skills to get back into the marketplace.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Yesterday, there were three separate illegal Traveller encampments across my constituency. This problem plagued my constituents for most of last year and is taking up where it left off. I recognise that Travellers have rights—as do my constituents, especially to enjoy the public parks that they pay for. This issue does not just affect my constituency; it is a problem right across the country, and there is real confusion about the law and enforcement. May we have a debate in Government time where Ministers set out clearly the Government’s expectations about how the problem of illegal encampments should be tackled?
Mr Lidington
This might be good material for a Backbench Business debate, as it does indeed affect a large number of constituencies. Sanctions and processes are available to both local authorities and the police to deal with the problem of illegal encampments. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think what riles residents more than anything else is the sense that they are expected to stick by the rules and obey the law when it comes to any kind of planning matter, yet they see people getting away with it apparently scot-free, which they quite rightly get angry about.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
A constituent recently came to see me about his zero-hours employment with the leading automotive retailer Evans Halshaw, where he has worked for six years with no sick pay and no job security. May we have a debate on how we can strengthen the legislation in relation to this kind of insecure employment?
Mr Lidington
Of course, it was a Conservative-led Government that outlawed exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. Although we keep a close watch on this—I am sure it is one of things that Matthew Taylor’s review will want to look at—it remains the case that fewer than 3% of the workforce see a zero-hours contract as their main job, and roughly 70% of those people say that they are happy with the number of hours that they work.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Leader of the House is of course no philistine, so he will know that this year is the bicentenary of the birth of the eminent Scottish architect Alexander “Greek” Thomson. Will he join me in congratulating the Alexander Thomson Society on putting together a whole year of events to remember the architect’s work, and may we have a debate on his contribution to Scottish-built heritage?
Mr Speaker
This is the question that the hon. Gentleman would have asked if he had been present for his question at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions. He was not, so he did not, and he is therefore doing it now. I just thought I would make that by way of a public information statement.
Mr Lidington
I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the Alexander Thomson Society. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pen a brief note to all Members so that we know where we can go to see more of Thomson’s work when we come to Scotland.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
In recent weeks, there have been a number of reports of foxes being hunted by hounds in Cheshire. Graphic and disturbing images have been plastered all over the internet. This barbaric practice is illegal, and I thought this Government were keen to implement the will of the people. May we please have a debate on what more can be done to uphold the law?
Mr Lidington
The enforcement of the law is, rightly, a matter not for Ministers but for independent police and prosecuting authorities.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said in this House on Tuesday that at the recent European Council meeting she encouraged the EU to
“complete the single market and the digital single market.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 180.]
May we have a statement or a debate in this House on why it is in the UK’s national interest for the EU to complete those markets but it is not in the UK’s national interest to be part of them?
Mr Lidington
It is in the UK’s national interest that the European Union, with which we are negotiating a new partnership, has a system of economic co-operation that is as friendly to open markets and free trade as possible, because that will enhance the opportunities for our companies and citizens when it comes to that new relationship. I would have thought that was an objective that the hon. Gentleman would support.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
May we have a statement on car manufacturers who cheat on emissions tests? Volkswagen, and now it seems Renault, have serious questions to answer. If there is fraudulent behaviour, senior executives need to be held to account.
Mr Lidington
I have seen the reports of alleged malpractice by Renault. I would hope that any such allegations were properly investigated, and that those responsible for any wrongdoing were held properly to account.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Chester continues to be blighted by student housing developments built by speculative developers. Those developments are favoured because the distortion in the council tax rules mean that they get higher investment, and they take up land that should be used for family accommodation. May I add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) in calling for a debate on planning law, so that we can tackle these issues?
Mr Lidington
With the best will in the world, I suspect that we will never get a system of planning law that satisfies everybody in every sector of the economy, but I encourage the hon. Gentleman, as I encouraged my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), to seek an Adjournment debate or Back-Bench business debate on this matter.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Today is the 708th anniversary of Robert the Bruce calling his first Parliament in St Andrews. Of course, he spent a bit of time in my constituency, too. Can we have a debate on Scotland’s distinct parliamentary tradition, given that it is a story that is still being written?
Mr Lidington
That might be a suitable subject for a Scottish National party Supply day debate. Convinced Unionist though I am, I am happy to salute Scotland’s parliamentary and constitutional tradition. I see the declaration of Arbroath and the Scottish parliamentary tradition as being among those constitutional and ultimately democratic traditions in our national life that have helped to enrich the United Kingdom as a whole.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
You may be aware, Mr Speaker, that I have campaigned on periods and have, within that, looked at period poverty. I recently spoke to BBC Radio Leeds, which highlighted that in that city, a significant number of girls are playing truant because they do not have any sanitary protection around the time of their period. One can only imagine the indignity that that causes. May we have a debate in Government time on whether there is anything that we can do to provide sanitary protection for low-income families and those who simply cannot afford it in these days of austerity?
Mr Lidington
This is probably a matter to be raised initially in an Adjournment debate, but of course one of the things that we will be able to deal with when we have left the European Union is the rates of value added tax that are obligatory under the fifth directive. The hon. Lady knows that the tax on sanitary products is one of the matters that the Government are committed to re-examining.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Recently, I asked the Prime Minister whether she would at the very least exempt older people from the local housing allowance cap that is being introduced for social housing tenants in 2019. Unfortunately, she did not seem to understand the question, so to assist her—and, more importantly, to avoid causing undue hardship to thousands of people across the country—may we have a debate on the implications of the proposals as soon as possible?
Mr Lidington
I am happy to refer the matter to the Department for Work and Pensions so that it can look at the problem, if the hon. Gentleman would like to let me have a few details, but the principle of a cap is right. Funds are available to councils for discretionary use in cases of hardship, as he knows. If he thinks that there is a particular case for reform to the regulations, he can write to me and I will pass that to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
May we have a statement on the lack of Changing Places toilets across the UK? It cannot be right that parents of disabled children are having to change their children on unhygienic toilet floors in this day and age. Surely this must be put on a statutory footing. Something must be done to bring us into the century that we should be in.
Mr Lidington
That is an interesting point. I absolutely understand the difficult position for parents who find themselves in such a situation. The hon. Lady might want to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate. I also suggest that she writes directly to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work; I am sure that she will get a very reasonable hearing.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I had a Westminster Hall debate yesterday, which a number families travelled from across the UK to attend. The debate was also attended by six MPs from majority parties throughout the House. We were debating police widows’ pensions, as the widows lose their pensions should they remarry or cohabit. It is basically a tax on love. Unfortunately, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service gave only a seven-minute response—including taking an intervention—in the 15 minutes that he had in which to speak. Can we now have a debate here in the main Chamber so that a further and fuller answer is provided to those families, who feel they are facing a terrible injustice?
Mr Lidington
I am sure that the hon. Lady would acknowledge that the Minister, since he speaks last in such debates, only has such time as is available from the 90 minutes or 60 minutes that has been allotted for that particular debate. I am sure that she will be able to air her concerns further if she seeks the opportunity to raise this matter at Home Office questions, via the Backbench Business Committee or in an Adjournment debate.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to get back to my usual place in business questions—at the end.
I am not sure whether the Leader of the House is aware of the Daughters of the Vote event that was held at the Canadian Parliament on International Women’s Day. Young women from each of Canada’s 338 constituencies or ridings sat in Parliament to gain experience and communicate their vision for Canada, hopefully inspiring them to participate in the political process for years to come. Can we have a debate in this place on how we can encourage more women into politics?
Mr Speaker
Before the Leader of the House replies, I say to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) that he can always tell himself and the people of his constituency that we keep the best till last.
Mr Lidington
The way in which some of today’s exchanges have highlighted the need to engage better with young people as an institution, and the way in which we have addressed, through these exchanges, the need to encourage greater opportunities for women, help to contribute to the hon. Gentleman’s objective. I hope that he would agree that it is not just about women. We also want to encourage young men, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, who often feel disaffected and alienated from mainstream democratic processes, and people from black and minority ethnic communities to be involved more. We can all do this through leadership in our constituencies and by using the services of the parliamentary education service, which really does provide first-class education materials and will happily host visits from schools and colleges here.
Sky/21st Century Fox: Merger
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
I came to the House on 6 March to give an update on the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky. At that time, I said that I was minded to issue a European intervention notice on the basis that I believed there to be public interest considerations, as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, that may be relevant to this proposed merger and warrant further investigation.
The grounds on which I was minded to intervene were, as I explained at that time, media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards, but I also confirmed that, in line with statutory guidance, I would be inviting further representations in writing from the parties. I gave them until last Wednesday to provide those representations.
Having carefully considered the representations from the parties and the other representations that I have received, I can now tell the House that I have today issued a European intervention notice on the grounds of media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards. I have written to the parties, Ofcom, and the Competition and Markets Authority to inform them of my decision.
While the representations from 21st Century Fox highlighted areas in which it contested the position taken in my “minded to” letter, none of the representations have led me to dismiss the concerns I have regarding the two public interest grounds I previously specified. I am of the view that it remains both important, given the issues raised, and wholly appropriate for me to seek comprehensive advice from Ofcom on those public interest considerations, and from the CMA on jurisdiction issues. I note that, overall, the parties have welcomed a thorough regulatory review, and that is what will now happen as a result of the intervention notice I have issued.
Since my “minded to” decision, I have also received just over 700 representations from third parties, the vast majority of which supported intervention. A number of those representations called for me to create a new public interest consideration, which would require a fit and proper assessment of the parties to the merger to take place as part of the intervention process. They also argued that it should be made clearer that matters of corporate governance, accountability and conduct could be taken into account in assessing this merger. These issues relate to questions about the application of the fit and proper test by Ofcom, and I will come to those issues shortly.
As I have previously set out, the decision will now trigger action by Ofcom to assess and report to me on the public interest grounds I have specified, and by the CMA to report to me on jurisdiction. They each have 40 working days to prepare and provide these reports. This means that I will expect their reports by Tuesday 16 May. I will then resume my decision-making role in relation to the merger.
To be clear, this intervening period, and indeed any time after that until a final decision on the merger is taken, is subject to the constraints that apply to my quasi-judicial role. Mr Speaker, I am sure you understand that I cannot—nor can any other member of the Government—comment substantively on the case as it proceeds. I will, however, as I have done so far, keep the House updated once I have considered the reports of Ofcom and the CMA.
What I will comment on is that much of the discussion in last week’s proceedings here and in the other place focused on Ofcom’s assessment of whether a licensee is fit and proper, including the ongoing duty that falls to Ofcom under the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting Acts. I have received representations from the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), as well as from a number of other parties, on adding fit and proper as a new public interest consideration in the Enterprise Act 2002. I want to assure them that I have very carefully considered the arguments they have put forward.
The grounds set out in the Enterprise Act that allow for intervention in media mergers are aimed at ensuring plurality of the media, which is essential to a healthy democracy—something I know that Members of this House and the other place support. It is a view I fully and unequivocally endorse. However, I am also clear that the question of whether someone is fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence is a different requirement, and one that, quite rightly, sits with Ofcom, the independent regulator.
On Monday, Ofcom announced that it would conduct its fit and proper assessment at the same time it considers any public interest test in response to my decision to intervene in the merger. This means that Ofcom will conduct its assessment within the 40 working days it has to report to me on the public interests I have specified in the intervention notice. I welcome Ofcom’s announcement, which will provide not only clarity for the parties, but reassurance to those who have expressed their own concerns, that this is a matter that Ofcom will now consider before the merger takes place.
I trust, as before, that this update is helpful to right hon. and hon. Members, and that it gives us an opportunity to debate this important issue, while at the same time respecting the limits of what I can say, as I referred to earlier, given my ongoing quasi-judicial role in relation to this merger. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. She says that she will go ahead with what she indicated she was going to do last week. That might not sound like a big deal, but it is more than the Chancellor and the Prime Minister managed yesterday.
Labour Members welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is intervening. She will have noticed that 21st Century Fox is happy, too. In a letter to her last week, it said:
“We welcome a thorough and thoughtful review”.
I have no doubt that that welcome is sincere, and that 21st Century Fox is thrilled by her decision. On that basis, I hope that it will seek not to challenge or impede any element of Ofcom’s investigation. If it does, I trust that she will make a new referral to put it beyond doubt that Ofcom can investigate what it needs to investigate.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the “broadcasting standards” ground of her referral gives Ofcom the power to investigate any corporate governance issues affecting 21st Century Fox, including the phone hacking scandal, any cover-up of illegality at News International, the rehiring of people responsible for governance failures, and ongoing sexual harassment claims in the United States? Is it her view that Ofcom should examine those issues?
The Secretary of State referred to representations made by me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and others about adding “fit and proper” as a new public interest consideration, but she has regrettably chosen to reject them. I welcome Ofcom’s announcement that it will conduct a fit and proper assessment at the same time as considering the public interest test she has specified today, but I have two concerns about this. First, Ofcom has only 40 days to conduct the fit and proper assessment. Is the Secretary of State confident that it can get to the bottom of all these issues in such a short time? Secondly, the 2012 Ofcom report on James Murdoch, which found that his conduct
“repeatedly fell short of the conduct to be expected of him as a chief executive officer and chairman”,
contained this important caveat:
“The evidence available to date does not provide a reasonable basis to find that”
he
“knew of widespread wrongdoing or criminality at”
News of the World. The reason for that lack of evidence was that Ofcom did not have the power to gather the evidence it needed.
Just a few years ago, News Corporation, 21st Century Fox’s predecessor company, was involved in one of the biggest corporate scandals and one of the biggest corporate governance failures of modern times. Many of the questions about the failure of corporate governance failure within 21st Century Fox’s predecessor company, and much of the evidence of the role of James Murdoch within those failures, can be answered only by going ahead with part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Ofcom does not have the power to obtain documents and compel witnesses to appear before it. Is not the easiest way of getting to the bottom of the corporate governance questions that we all want answered to hold an inquiry in public, using powers under the Inquiries Act 2005, with terms of reference that have already been announced by a Conservative Prime Minister as a promise to the victims of phone hacking—namely Leveson part 2?
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I will address his final point first—the issue of Leveson—as I did last time I was at the Dispatch Box on this matter. As he will know, the consultation we launched, which closed in January, is subject to judicial review. I am therefore unable to comment on the consultation, or any aspects of it, with regard to the Leveson inquiry. I hope he will understand that I cannot make further comment about that.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the decision to refer this merger, but it is important that I make a couple of points in relation to his questions. He asked whether the “broadcasting standards” element could include looking at corporate governance. I was clear in my original “minded to” letter and in the statement I made to the House on 6 March that corporate governance was one of the issues on which I was referring the matter to Ofcom, and therefore I would expect it to look at that. Clearly, however, Ofcom is an independent regulator. I have made the decision to refer to Ofcom, but it is for Ofcom to decide what evidence it wants to look at. It is open to look at whatever evidence it feels is appropriate to enable it to make its decision.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the fit and proper test. I very carefully considered the representations that were made, but it is important that it is the independent regulator that looks at fit and proper and the Government who have grounds on which to intervene under the Enterprise Act. Those two things have to be kept separate. The Government should not step into the area where, quite rightly, the regulator should sit.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Ofcom has the time, resources and ability to gather the evidence that it needs. I have been assured by Ofcom that it has the time to do this and the ability to gather the evidence it needs, and I now look forward to letting it get on with the job.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Although it is clearly sensible to ask the regulator to examine this bid, does my right hon. Friend recognise that this transaction represents a £11.7 billion investment by an international company in a British broadcaster and is, as such, a fantastic vote of confidence in the UK’s remaining an international centre of broadcasting long after we leave the European Union?
Karen Bradley
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend has significant experience in matters of culture, media and sport. He is right to say that the UK is global Britain, open for business to the whole world, and that it will remain so after we have left the European Union.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I am pleased that she will intervene in the proposed merger of Sky and Fox, and that she will ask Ofcom to investigate the deal. Scottish National party Members have consistently voiced our support for media plurality and our commitment to broadcasting standards. There are valid concerns about the merger, which will increase the influence of Rupert Murdoch and his family in the UK’s media. There are concerns regarding a number of breaches of broadcasting standards by Fox, as well as News Corporation’s past behaviour and corporate governance failures.
Many people highlight the fact that part 2 of the Leveson inquiry has yet to be commenced, and they question whether such a significant deal can go ahead before that happens. This is not the first time that there has been an attempt to take over Sky, and we should be mindful of why the previous bid courted such controversy and failed.
At the same time, it should be acknowledged that television is adapting to changes in viewing habits and competition throughout the world. Some will argue that investment in Sky might allow the UK to thrive in the international arena and continue to compete with competitors such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. We welcome the fact that Ofcom will report on the public interest grounds of media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards, as well as conducting a fit and proper assessment. I trust and believe that that will provide the Secretary of State with the necessary recommendations on how to proceed, and I look forward to Ofcom’s conclusions.
Karen Bradley
I refer to my earlier comments regarding the Leveson inquiry—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand. I thank him for his welcome for the decision. I look forward, as he does, to seeing the reports from Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority, which will enable me to use my quasi-judicial role to make a fair and transparent decision.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
It appears that even the mention of the name Murdoch gets some people twitching and frothing at the mouth. Does the Secretary of State recognise the fact that while James Murdoch was chief executive and later chairman of Sky, the company grew to employ 24,000 people in this country, with investments of £700 million a year in original production and programming? Does she believe, as I do, that Sky is an important part of the creativity of this country, and that the proposal of this merger shows the confidence of the rest of the world in Britain’s productivity and future?
Karen Bradley
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I agree that media plurality is important, which is why I have asked Ofcom to look at the proposed merger and to make a decision, on the grounds set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, about whether it will affect media plurality. Like him, I am optimistic that, following Brexit, the UK broadcasting industry will continue to thrive and to be the world-leading industry that it is today.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to refer this bid. Many of us believe that in view of the conduct of the Murdochs and the untrammelled power that they already have, it is not in the public interest for them to take over Sky and have full control.
I want to ask about the question of fitness, which I know the Secretary of State has thought about a lot. The 2011 Ofcom review took 15 months to look at the fitness of the Murdochs, but she expects Ofcom to report back to her within 40 days. There is a question about timescale and powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) has said. Can she assure us that if during this period Ofcom seeks more time, or indeed more powers, to carry out the fitness review, she will grant its request?
Karen Bradley
Ofcom has assured me that it has the time and the powers that it needs, and I look forward to seeing its report in due course.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the freedom of the press, and indeed of press ownership, is a bastion of our liberties? It is for Ofcom—objectively, not subjectively—to define, as a narrow term of art, a fit and proper person; it is not for Ministers and politicians to get involved in this.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend’s point is exactly what I concluded, having considered the representations. There needs to be a distinction between the work of the independent regulator in determining who is a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence versus the role of the Secretary of State when it comes to determining whether a media merger can go ahead under the terms of the Enterprise Act.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Having encouraged the Secretary of State to take this course of action, may I now welcome the fact that she has done so? She deserves credit for doing the right thing, and I have no doubt that she will have the support of the House as this matter goes forward. Many years ago, I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Enterprise Bill, and I recall that the provisions on this process were supported by all parties at that time. It strikes me, however, that in the light of this experience, it might be appropriate at its conclusion to revisit whether we do in fact have the processes we really need to ensure that we get the ends that we want to achieve.
Karen Bradley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming this. If he wants to make representations to me regarding the Enterprise Act and areas in which he feels changes could be made in the light of changing broadcasting and consuming habits, I will of course look at them carefully.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I agree with the Secretary of State’s view that the decision on whether somebody is a fit and proper person should quite correctly be for an independent regulator, not a politician. Does she believe that that is consistent with our goals of not politicising our broadcasting landscape?
Karen Bradley
I agree with my hon. Friend. That was exactly the conclusion I reached when looking at the representations that I received.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I recognise and respect what the Secretary of State has told the House, and we all appreciate her keeping the House up to date. I again say that this is not a question of any kind of vendetta against Mr Murdoch, but it would be simply unacceptable for the amount of media ownership he already controls to be increased. That is the position, and it is why I hope that the right decision will be taken at the end of the day.
Karen Bradley
Ofcom will look at these matters and I look forward to seeing its report.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but will she assure me that the question of plurality is not just examined occasionally—when a big merger such as this comes up—but kept constantly under review by Ofcom and, indeed, her Department?
Karen Bradley
Ofcom has a responsibility to consider on a regular basis the fit and proper person test for holding a broadcasting licence. Clearly, however, when looking at the whole media landscape—there were questions about the status of Channel 4 during oral questions—the issue of media plurality is at the forefront of my mind. That is the case when looking at the right decision to take regarding the future of Channel 4 and all media matters.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. I have received a huge number of emails on this issue from many constituents, and I welcome the intervention that she detailed in her statement. A free, open and diverse press is of course important to democracy, and I want to put on record that my constituents have asked that she understands the depth and strength of feeling on this issue. I look forward to hearing from her further in due course.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady will probably not be surprised to hear that I have, I suspect, received more emails than even she has on this matter. I have taken note of them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I think my right hon. Friend’s decision will be warmly welcomed by all parties to the proposed merger, as well as across the country. However, one of the considerations is the short time in which Ofcom must carry out the review. Will she therefore ask Ofcom for an interim report part of the way through this period? If there is any obstruction or a need to extend the time, she would then be able to look at the situation sympathetically to ensure that Ofcom can do the proper job we all want it to do.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, but Ofcom has reassured me that it has the time and resources required to produce a report in 40 working days. It is important to remember that we want to make sure that there is sufficient time and scrutiny, and that we provide certainty within a reasonable timeframe, so that all parties can get on with business as usual, whatever that might be.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on her decision. She should bear in mind, however, that historically successive Governments —and Prime Ministers, in particular since Mrs Thatcher—have decided that Rupert and now James Murdoch are fit and proper persons because they own newspapers that support them in general elections. The concentration of ownership is the problem. Sky now has nearly four times as much money to spend every year as the BBC. I hope that we end up in a position in which we maintain diversity in the British ecology, with a strong BBC not being bullied by Murdoch and Sky.
Karen Bradley
I am getting slightly worried, because this is the second time this morning the hon. Gentleman has worked consensually with the Government, but I take note of his comments.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I welcome today’s statement, as will many of my constituents who have been in contact with me regarding this matter. I am sure that they will all be happy that the bid is being referred to the regulators. Given that Britain has one of the most concentrated media environments in the world, with three companies controlling 71% of national newspaper circulation and five companies in command of 81% of local newspapers titles, does the Secretary of State agree that now is the ideal time to review properly the media landscape in Britain?
Karen Bradley
I am very proud of the incredibly diverse free press that we have in this country, and I want to preserve it and ensure that we can enable it to thrive. There was a question in oral questions about local newspapers, and I certainly want local newspapers, and others, to thrive. Through this process, it is important that we ensure that we have a plurality of media and broadcasting. That is why I have asked Ofcom to look at this particular issue.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision. I would merely point out that someone has to be a fit and proper person to be a licensed London hackney carriage driver. With that in mind, this is not just a question of the amount of influence that the Murdochs already have; it is their association with so much corruption and illegality, which is still being uncovered even now. I am incredulous that they are being considered for a 100% controlling share of Sky. That must not be allowed to happen.
Karen Bradley
I am sure that Ofcom will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I hope that his comments about fit and proper persons for taxi driving is not a reflection on any experiences he may have had in the past.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on how she is handling this matter which, if I may say so, is better than any Secretary of State since 2010. She says that she cannot respond to any substantive questions on Leveson 2 because it is under judicial review. When will the judicial review be resolved so that we might come back to Leveson 2?
Karen Bradley
The judicial review is a matter for the courts. I am in their hands.
Points of Order
Mr Speaker
Yes, I will take a point of order now. There are a couple of Select Committee statements coming, but we can await those with eager anticipation and bated breath. I am sure colleagues do so, but let us first hear the point of order from Mr Christopher Chope.
Mr Chope
In a section headed “Making Commitments on the Floor of the House”, paragraph 23.42 of the Cabinet Office guide to making legislation, published in July 2015, states:
“Parliament will hold Ministers to any commitments they make on the floor of the House which are recorded in Hansard. Ministers must, therefore, take care during debates not to make any commitments for which they do not have collective agreement”.
My point of order, Mr Speaker, is how can Parliament hold Ministers to those commitments that have been made on the Floor of the House?
Briefly, the background is this. In recent days, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), have told me, the leader of Christchurch borough council and the mayor of Christchurch that they do not regard themselves as bound by the commitment made by the Government to the House on 7 December 2015. On that day, I asked the then Secretary of State:
“Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that amendment 56 will not be used by the Government to force change on any local authority?”
The Secretary of State replied:
“I will indeed.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 822.]
That is pretty clear, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) received a similar commitment. How can we hold the Government to account for the commitments that have been made?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
As his point of order is on the same matter, and it is a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, I think that I will hear from the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am a bit insulted to find that I am Tweedledee in your estimation, Mr Speaker.
This is a very serious topic. I have here a copy of the 7 December edition of Hansard. I, too, intervened on the then Secretary of State in column 822. Having raised issues concerning Lincolnshire and the desire of the county council and the Government to have a mayor and a unitary authority, I received a specific commitment from the Secretary of State that he would not use amendment 56 to force a unitary authority on Lincolnshire. I received that commitment in terms. All that the Secretary of State said to me was that he would force discussions—that is, he would not prevent discussions from taking place—but the commitment was absolutely clear. I hope that you, Mr Speaker, will protect the right of the House of Commons to hold Ministers to account.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for raising this important matter.
The Chair has no responsibility for the contents of a document or manual issued by the Cabinet Office. That is its interpretation of the responsibility and advised course of action of Ministers. However, the short answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch, who asked me how Ministers are to be held to commitments that they have made: is by interrogation, by scrutiny, and, potentially, if Members judge it fit and appropriate, by criticism, and hence by potential parliamentary or public obloquy in the event of the breach of a commitment made. That is the answer. There is no binding obligation on any Member to do exactly what he or she has said that he or she will do in addressing the House, just as there is no obligation on any Back Bencher.
That said, making a commitment from the Dispatch Box in response to a question or an intervention is a very serious and solemn matter. It is not something that should be treated lightly or cast aside. Nor is it in any sense acceptable for it to be argued—if it were argued—that there has since been a change in the ministerial team; government is, of course, seamless, and responsibility is collective. That is the situation.
I cannot possibly become involved in exchanges or debate about the future make-up of local government in Dorset. I have enough to contend with in trying to make arguments in relation to the structure of local government in my own county of Buckinghamshire in conversations with Ministers. What I will say, however, and it will doubtless be heard by Ministers, is that I know the hon. Member for Christchurch extremely well. I have known him since 1986, and I have known the hon. Member for Gainsborough since 1997. They are both extremely diligent and serious-minded Members of Parliament. If a Minister thinks that a commitment made can subsequently and lightly be abrogated without parliamentary consequence from Members of their calibre, I think that that Minister is, dare I say it, really rather misguided, as such Minister will probably soon discover. The mechanisms available include debates, and that includes Adjournment debates. So these matters will not go away. It is also open to Members to question Ministers, including very, very senior Ministers, about obligations that have been entered into on behalf of the Government.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that in the past the Leader of the House would announce not only next week’s business, but the business for the week after on a provisional basis. I have noticed that for the last few weeks the Leader of the House has been announcing only next week plus one day, normally the Monday. That is proving difficult for Select Committees and other Committees, which have to arrange their business; for ordinary Members, who would like to be able to organise their diaries better, and for those who have commitments in their constituency.
Delightfully, the Leader of the House has just come back into the Chamber, but the Deputy Leader of the House has been present, and he is a very admirable man whom we do not hear enough from in the House. Mr Speaker, will you speak to the Leader of the House, to try and encourage him to give us two weeks of parliamentary business, rather than just one at a time?
Mr Speaker
I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the practice of announcing only the first day of the provisional business for the second week is not unknown; there are many precedents for it, although I certainly accept that the norm is that the House receives two weeks of business, so the hon. Gentleman is broadly correct in what he says.
The second observation I would make is that the Leader of the House has toppled into the Chamber at a most fortuitous time. Whether he has done so because he was excited by the hon. Gentleman’s point of order or because he wants to listen to the Select Committee statements, I do not know. The Leader of the House is perfectly welcome to spring to his feet and come to the Dispatch Box and respond to the hon. Gentleman, as is the Deputy Leader of the House, but notwithstanding the extraordinary temptation to do so, both of them may feel inclined on this occasion to resist—and it appears that they do. But the hon. Gentleman has made his point, and, for what it is worth, I think that if it is possible, it should be done, but it is not always practicable. I hope my response has been helpful.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. On 23 October last year, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport issued a press release indicating that from spring 2017 film directors would face fines of up to £500,000 from the Information Commissioner’s office if found to be in breach of the privacy and electronic communications regulations. Incidentally, this information is still published on the gov.uk website and is exactly what I have called for in my ten-minute rule Bill.
In response to a letter I wrote to the Secretary of State on 17 January 2017 asking for confirmation of the timing of this legislation, I was told on 8 February:
“The Government intends to publish its consultation on this measure shortly.”
I was so surprised by the mention of a consultation—something that had hitherto not been mentioned either by the Government or in the press release, or, indeed, on their website—that I submitted a written question on 21 February trying to establish if the spring 2017 deadline could still be met. In the response to that, received on 2 March, I was told that a consultation would be issued
“during this session of Parliament”.
On 2 March I sought further clarification via another written question and was told on 10 March that the intention was to issue a consultation “in due course.”
This is a matter of great import to a huge number of people, and we have arguably already entered spring and the consultation has not begun, and was not even initially mentioned by the Government. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand how the Government can possibly meet their own deadline on this issue. Can you offer me guidance, Mr Speaker, as to how I can establish what the Government Department is doing to ensure it meets its own timetable and how I can best elicit that information, given that letters to the Secretary of State and written questions appear not to be effective in achieving that?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, of which she gave me advance notice.
It is very difficult for the Chair to assist the hon. Lady. First, I would say that Governments of both hues in this country have not always been overly preoccupied with meeting their own deadlines. It has not always been regarded as an overriding priority by them, although it is often the case that people who have depended upon their words would prefer a greater fidelity to the commitment that has been made.
Secondly, as the hon. Lady will know, there is often something of a debate about what falls within the seasons of the year. It is not uncommon for Ministers in a Government to refer to an intention to do something “in the spring”, for instance, and for them sometimes to have a slightly different interpretation of the period covered by a season of the year from that which hon. Members or members of the public might have.
Thirdly, I have been advised by the Clerk, who has helpfully volunteered some text to me, that it is not unprecedented for Government Departments to be unspecific about when they are going to do something. However, I am sure that the hon. Lady will use her ingenuity to pursue the matter further. My advice to her is almost, if you will, geographical advice. It is that she should wend her way to the Table Office to see what sort of questions she can table that might provide satisfaction. I do not wish to be unkind to her, as she is an extremely diligent Member, but my broad advice to her—not merely as Speaker but as someone who was for 12 years a parliamentarian mainly sitting on the Back Benches—is that she should make as much of a nuisance of herself as she possibly can. That might avail her. She needs to persist to such a degree that Ministers feel that it is better to provide satisfaction to her.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been informed by sources in the media that the Prime Minister is going to make a significant statement on the Scottish constitution this afternoon. Have you had any notification of a prime ministerial statement? Most of us were here at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, when she was asked many questions about the Scottish constitution and gave incredibly inadequate answers. It would be surprising, would it not, if there had subsequently been a development in her thinking and that she would want to put out a statement without the effective parliamentary scrutiny that such an important announcement—as it is being advertised—would demand. The Leader of the House is in his place. I know that he cannot be held responsible for every sin of this Government—that would be too much for any human being—but perhaps he can tell us if it is indeed the case that the Prime Minister intends to make such a statement and, if so, why she is not coming to the Dispatch Box for effective questioning by Members of Parliament.
Mr Speaker
It has to be said that, not for the first time, I have learned of something from the right hon. Gentleman. I was not aware—because nobody had told me—of any possible public statement of the kind that he envisages. Secondly, it is not always completely to be assumed that what is bruited in the media is correct. There may be no plan for any such statement today. It could even conceivably be a quiet news day, leading some people in the media to speculate that there will be such a statement, or that they would like such a statement to be made, or that there ought to be one. I am not aware that there is intended to be any such statement. The Prime Minister has, over many years, including during her tenure as Home Secretary, been fastidious in coming to the House to make statements on important policy developments. I am not aware of any plan for her to do so today, but if she were minded to make a public statement of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman envisages, and wanted to come to the House to do so, it would be open to her to do that. Whatever other plans I might have for the day, I would happily reschedule them in order to be in my place to hear the Prime Minister. Perhaps we can leave that there for now.
Chilcot Inquiry
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Mr Speaker
We now come to the first Select Committee statement. I cannot resist observing that this is the latest of the statements to the House from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and that, as a Select Committee Chair, no one has taken more seriously his responsibilities in these matters or more enthusiastically availed himself of the opportunity to make such statements to the House. Perhaps other Select Committee Chairs will copy the hon. Gentleman in due course; it remains to be seen. The hon. Gentleman will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I—or whoever is in the Chair—will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and ask the hon. Gentleman to respond to them in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. The Front Bench may take part in questioning. I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House, Mr Bernard Jenkin.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
(Select Committee Statement): I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for me to present our 10th report of this Session, entitled “Lessons still to be learned from the Chilcot Inquiry”. The decision to invade Iraq has left an indelible scar on British politics. It continues to be as controversial today as it was at the time, not least because it became apparent after the invasion that it was to become a protracted and bloody affair, costing the lives of 179 UK servicemen and women, as well as those of our allies and of thousands of people in Iraq. The consequences of the decision to invade Iraq remain profound, not only for domestic politics but for our foreign and security policy and the stability of the region.
The Chilcot inquiry was established in 2009 to provide some closure to the controversy. However, in the minds of many, it was already far too late. I am reminded that the House of Commons first voted on the question of whether to have an inquiry in 2002, on a Conservative Opposition motion. For many, the length of the inquiry that was eventually established has itself has been subject to extensive criticism. Most of the reporting and discussion of the Chilcot inquiry has been preoccupied with the substance of the decision to go to war, its legality, and what happened in the aftermath of the invasion. Yet there are also lessons still to be learned regarding the machinery of government and how it operated and regarding the conduct of public inquiries, and that is what Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee therefore agreed to focus on.
PACAC’s report, launched today, examines the striking extent to which Cabinet government and collective decision making were sidelined by the then Prime Minister in the run-up to the Iraq war. As was made clear in the Chilcot report, significant decisions on Iraq, pre-conflict, were taken without sufficient consultation of Cabinet colleagues. Chilcot concludes that there were 11 decision points prior to the invasion on which there
“should have been collective discussion by a Cabinet Committee or small group of Ministers on the basis of inter-departmental advice agreed at a senior level between officials”.
A worrying finding of PACAC’s report is that, if so inclined, a future Prime Minister could override the proper procedures of collective decision making without obstacle. Beyond making representations to Ministers and to the Prime Minister, and short of resignation, a Cabinet Secretary does not have any formal recourse to object if a Prime Minister chooses to disregard the procedures for decision making set out in the Cabinet manual. PACAC is in no doubt that this absence of safeguards cannot persist, and this leads to perhaps the most important conclusion in our report.
We recommend, in line with a proposal from the Better Government initiative, that the Cabinet Secretary and/or senior officials should be able to require a formal letter of direction if they are being instructed to carry out the wishes of the Prime Minister disregarding the normal procedures set out in the Cabinet manual. That would both safeguard the Cabinet Secretary’s independence and clarify their responsibility. It would also make clear to Ministers the vital importance of following proper procedure.
The second key finding of PACAC’s report relates to the establishment, role and conduct of the Chilcot inquiry itself and builds on the work of PACAC’s predecessor committee, the Public Administration Committee, which carried out a number of inquiries into the conduct and effectiveness of public inquiries. PACAC recommends that in future, before an inquiry is established, Parliament should set up an ad hoc Select Committee to take evidence on the proposed remit of the inquiry and to present formal conclusions and recommendations to the House. There should then be a full debate and vote in Parliament on an amendable motion setting out the precise terms of reference and an estimated timeframe and proposed budget for the inquiry. That should ensure that, in future, expectations are much clearer at the outset of an inquiry.
PACAC has not sought to reopen all the issues explored by Chilcot; nor has it explored whether Parliament was deliberately misled by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Tony Blair. However, by highlighting what the Chilcot inquiry revealed about the weaknesses in the Government’s decision-making procedures, and by exploring what lessons can be learned from the inquiry for the conduct of other public inquiries, I hope that we can ensure that the processes are in place that may enable such controversies to be avoided in future. I commend the report to the House.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I will follow the strictures to be brief.
On Iraq, the British Cabinet, the overwhelming majority in the House, much of the media, the three Select Committees, the civil service, the MOD, and the security services all came to the same false conclusion, resulting in a disastrous military adventure and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Subsequently, the usual and predictable procrastination, prevarication and obfuscation have, in the end, failed to reveal to the British people the truth of what happened.
The Select Committee’s report is clear that the Chilcot report failed to allow the Committee to answer the central question of whether Parliament was deliberately misled, leaving a gaping chasm right in the heart of the credibility of the British establishment. What a damning judgment after all these years.
I welcome the various recommendations in today’s report, particularly on strengthening the independence of the Cabinet Secretary and the role of the Commons, but the recommendations are, frankly, timid. Does the Chair, and perhaps his Select Committee, agree that root and branch transformative change of all our political structures and culture is required before we can honestly say to the British people that there will never again be such a failure?
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I voted for the Iraq invasion. I still do not know whether I would have voted the same way had we known much more about it. The salient part is the lack of preparation, and I would not have voted for it had I thought that there had been so little preparation. Having said that, I think the jury is still out on whether, in the long term, the invasion of Iraq will have been of benefit to global peace and security.
On whether Parliament was deliberately misled, the Select Committee just did not feel qualified to make that judgment. We do not have the procedures and wherewithal in this House to conduct a fair trial of the facts. Were such a Committee to be established to do that, it would need to be a very different kind of Committee with a different kind of quasi-judicial procedures. We suggest that the House should be prepared to do that if further facts and information emerge, but Sir John Chilcot was clear that he did not hold former Prime Minister Tony Blair culpable in deliberately misleading the House, and we have to accept that view.
Finally, on whether our recommendations are timid, they are limited to what we felt able to make recommendations about. However we organise our politics, I am afraid that there will always be occasions when things go wrong. I do not think that any constitutional structure can protect us from that, although we have made some recommendations that would prevent certain things from happening again.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Being a member of the Select Committee, I come at this from a position similar to that of my hon. Friend who chairs it with such distinction, which is reflected in the calibre of the report. I have my doubts about whether my vote would have been different had we had more facts, but we take our votes in this House on the facts that are presented to us and then we move forward; we do not get our time over again to relive our votes.
One concern that we were able to cover in the report was the length of time and the unacceptable delays associated with the Chilcot report. The Cabinet Secretary indicated that the Government would consider further the question of how the Iraq inquiry could have been carried out more quickly. We urge that that assessment comes as a matter of urgency, so has my hon. Friend received any indication of the timescale, or will we be waiting a long time, as we did for the inquiry itself?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. On the matter of timescales, we have until about 12.35 pm, which leaves about 10 minutes to get quite a few people in. If we can keep answers and questions a bit briefer, that would be great.
Mr Jenkin
I will endeavour to be extremely brief. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question, her participation in the Select Committee and her contribution to the report. The answer is that we are making recommendations about the conduct of inquiries, and I doubt whether the Government will like them because they would limit their control over the process. Most Governments establish public inquiries to avoid issues, not to explore them and open them up. Why did it take so long to get this inquiry? Our report is as much addressed to what the House must take control of itself in order to ensure that inquiries are better conducted in future.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
I congratulate the Select Committee, although I am surprised to hear the Chairman say that the jury is still out on the Iraq war. In terms of public opinion, the jury is in, the verdict has been delivered, and the former Prime Minister has been indicted and rightfully so, although I would have preferred more formal proceedings to those which he faced.
The crucial subject matter in the report boils down to two things. First, I congratulate the Committee on the invention of the letter of direction, which is similar to the financial direction that is part of Government accountability. Perhaps the Chairman could say a bit more about that and about why he thinks it would be effective in avoiding the total and absolute breakdown of collective responsibility that was identified in the Chilcot report.
Secondly, the Committee has not been able to make as much progress on the question of parliamentary accountability. If someone, such as the former Prime Minister, says one thing to the American President, and then says something else or does not say anything to the House of Commons, that is prima facie a misleading of the House of Commons. To avoid that accountability, either one sets up a series of inquiries with limited remits that are unable to adjudicate on that which was done, or one spins things out for so long that by the time there is an inquiry with a big enough remit everybody says, “Why are we raking over the past?” If we allow that to stand, there is no effective parliamentary accountability. Can the Chairman see that the timeous nature of parliamentary accountability and our responsibility can be effected in his report and a mechanism produced so that we have the obligation to take forward what our constituents demand, which is to hold any Prime Minister who behaves in the same way as the former Prime Minister to account in a proper and timeous fashion?
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The letter of direction should not be a controversial matter, because we already have it in our procedures for financial matters, as he says. One or two former Cabinet Secretaries have bridled at that, but others are very much in support. It does not interfere with the substance of policy; it merely ensures that proper process is covered. We recommend not that the letter of the direction, which may come at a sensitive time or involve a sensitive issue, should automatically be made public, but that it should, if appropriate and at the behest of the Cabinet Secretary, be made privately available to an appropriate Select Committee, to the Intelligence and Security Committee, to members of the Privy Council or to the Leader of the Opposition. It is just another lever for a Cabinet Secretary to use to secure their independence and the proper process set down in the Cabinet manual that Prime Ministers have agreed to in principle.
On parliamentary accountability and the Prime Minister, it remains open to this House to set up a special Select Committee or privileges Committee to establish proper procedures and provide fair representation for the prosecution and for the defence, but it would be a completely new procedure. Nothing like that has been done in the era when we expect natural justice to be carried to far higher standards. We cannot have a posse of MPs, all of whom have known views on such issues, acting as some kangaroo court to arraign a former Prime Minister. That would be ridiculous and would not do this House any good.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
On the establishment of inquiries, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is considering whether to reconvene the Leveson inquiry, which has already sat for 15 months, at a cost of more than £5 million, to examine events approaching 10 years ago. What advice would he give to the Secretary of State?
Mr Jenkin
As perhaps should have been done with the child sex abuse inquiry, I suggest that the Secretary of State comes to this House to ask for a Committee to be set up. Let us have an inquiry into the inquiry before we get stuck on the tramlines of legality and appointing people. She should look before she leaps and accept that Governments should not be able to establish inquiries to get themselves out of inconvenient difficulties. The House is here to assist such scrutiny, and it should be here to provide oversight so that an inquiry is properly conducted in a timely fashion.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I am a member of the Select Committee. I supported the publication of the report, but in the spirit of acquiescence rather than enthusiasm. The Chairman will recall that I was uneasy about one or two phrases that were subsequently corrected. In particular, does he agree with our inserting the possibility of a further inquiry—not by our Select Committee but possibly by others—if further evidence comes to light?
I personally believe that we were misled by the then Prime Minister on weapons of mass destruction and the pretext for war. I was one of 139 Labour MPs who voted against the war, and I stand by that decision. Some of the unease I feel was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). Does the Chairman accept that I expressed some unease at the time? I support the publication of the report, particularly the recommendation that it might be worth while for a future inquiry to be carried out, not by our Select Committee but by others.
Mr Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman has been a trouper on the Committee for many years. I accept that this was a difficult inquiry to agree. In our draft, because we were concentrating on process and procedures rather than on the substance of the issues, we had to reflect some of the tone of the anxiety that so many people feel about this issue. I hope he felt able and comfortable to support the inquiry. He fully supports our recommendations, for which I am grateful.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the overriding lesson that most people will think we can learn from Chilcot is that such reports take too long and cost too much?
Mr Jenkin
The inquiry is an extraordinarily thorough piece of work. Sir John Chilcot should be commended for what he achieved, the detail he went into and the seriousness with which he approached the inquiry, but it was not what the public initially expected. The Crimean war was in many respects a far bigger disaster, but the inquiry into that was conducted in the space of a few months, which I think is what the public hoped for with Chilcot—there were some fairly obvious top-level things.
We conduct inquiries using Salmon letters—the Maxwellisation process—and there is a tremendous sense of obligation to provide people with fairness in inquiries that perhaps did not exist after the Crimean war. We need to set down parameters for such inquiries, which is what a Select Committee would do if it studied an inquiry before it was set up. A Select Committee would set those parameters in a motion establishing the inquiry.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I found out only by accident that the statement was taking place. I have not read the report, but I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s statement. Nobody would disagree with due process. I sent out this Twitter message two hours ago:
“My thoughts are with the victims and survivors of Saddam Hussein’s genocidal campaign in Halabja, 28 years ago today.”
That campaign is one of the reasons why I and many others, the majority in this House, voted for the war.
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s kind remarks, and it is important that we make such Select Committee statements because they engage more Members in our reports. I regard our report as a serious piece of work that makes serious recommendations, and hon. and right hon. Members of all views on the original conflict can embrace it as a better way of making such decisions in government and a better way of conducting public inquiries.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
As a member of the Select Committee, I point out that the Chilcot inquiry was about identifying mistakes that led to loss of life, military and civilian. With that in mind, it is unacceptable that the inquiry took seven years to reach a conclusion. Those mistakes could have been repeated in that timescale. However, the Committee points out:
“The Iraq Inquiry reported that the Blair Government did not expose key policy decisions to rigorous review.”
Backing that up, paragraph 63 says:
“Cabinet was…being asked to confirm the decision that the diplomatic process was at an end and that the House of Commons should be asked to endorse the use of military action to enforce Iraq’s compliance. Given the gravity of this decision, Cabinet should have been made aware of the legal uncertainties.”
I put it to the Chairman that the evidence provided to the Cabinet appears to have been designed to produce the result that the then Prime Minister was looking for.
Mr Jenkin
I think that is an accurate comment, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the Committee and this report. It cuts both ways, because the Cabinet went along with being sidelined. Chilcot was clear that plenty of Cabinet Ministers were quite content to leave it to others to make the decisions when they had the right to insist on being consulted. Our report addresses how the legal advice was taken, explored and discussed by the Cabinet, and we make recommendations about that. Our proposals make clear what Cabinet Ministers are entitled to expect. It is not a favour to ask that of the Prime Minister; it is part of the proper procedure of Cabinet government. We do not have a superannuated presidency in this country. We have a constitutional Cabinet Government, which should be reinforced by these proposals.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I am also a member of the Committee, but I do not support this report because I believe it has been interpreted by the press as an act of absolution for the Prime Minister involved and the other culpable people who were led by him, principally the three Select Committees of this House. Going to war was the worst blunder this House committed since sending troops to the Suez war. We should be objective in dealing with our blunders and, although this report has many merits, it does not address the truth that we were led into an avoidable war by a man of vanity who was in a messianic mood—he misled the House in a very serious way.
The hon. Gentleman’s report contains evidence from Dr Rangwala, who rightly says that there are two interpretations of the evidence before Chilcot. One interpretation, which the report suggests should be referred to the Privileges Committee, might lead us to conclude that we went to war in vain. We must remember the principal need to avoid sending soldiers to war in future because of the vanity or inflexibility of this House in making fair judgments. We have that responsibility. If we do not condemn the errors of the past, we are responsible for them.
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Committee, and I respect that we differ on the report. I appreciate the emphasis he wants to make by declining to support the report, but it is open to the House at any time to refer any matter to the Committee of Privileges. There is a procedure for doing that, and he should try to implement it if he thinks there is a case for doing so.
The difficulty, as the Chilcot inquiry said, is that there are two interpretations of all this and that there is no definitive evidence to suggest culpability or that the former Prime Minister deliberately sought to mislead the House. There are lots of lessons to be learned. As an aside, for the House to be able to make an informed decision, it relies entirely on what the Government tell it. We are in a new era in which the House is consulted about such things, which never used to be the case. We used to have rather more retrospective accountability on such matters, rather than forward accountability, and I question whether such forward accountability works. I do not think the House of Commons is competent to make strategic judgments on the spur of the moment and in the heat of a crisis in the way that a Government should be.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
As a new Member in 2015, what struck me about the whole Chilcot experience was the unacceptable delay. As the hon. Gentleman just said, we in this place want to take educated decisions, based on evidence, so for us—and more so for the families of the soldiers who died—the length of time it took to produce the report was unacceptable. He made welcome recommendations about having a stricter remit and stricter timing for such inquiries. How can we take that forward in this House to make it happen? Do we need to have a vote on it, or is it in the Government’s gift to do or not do this?
Mr Jenkin
Ultimately, it is in the hands of this House, subject to whipping and all the pressures that are put on it, to decide how inquiries are conducted. If the Government are setting up an inquiry that this House does not like, this House can stop it; we are a sovereign House and that is what we should do. I agree so much with the hon. Gentleman’s comment that the length of time this took was unacceptable. Indeed, we make the point that it undermined not only the credibility of the inquiry, but the very confidence in public institutions that it was intended to try to restore. It did not serve the purpose that this House might have wanted it to serve because it took so long, and of course it was grievous torture for the families of those who had lost life and limb in this conflict.
Suicide Prevention
Health Committee
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
(Select Committee Statement): The scale of the avoidable loss of life from suicide is unacceptable. In 2015, 4,820 people in England took their own lives, and across the UK 6,122 people did so in 2014. But those official figures underestimate the true scale of the devastating loss from suicide, which remains the leading cause of death in young people between the ages of 15 and 24, and it is the leading cause of death in men under 50. It is strongly linked to deprivation and is a major contributor to health inequality. However, the key message our Committee heard throughout its inquiry is that suicide is preventable, and we can and should be doing far more to make sure we reduce it. That was the key focus of our suicide prevention inquiry.
First, let me thank all those who contributed to the inquiry, particularly families bereaved by suicide, and those who had experienced suicidal ideation and been users of mental health services. Their evidence was courageous and compelling. I also thank all the voluntary groups and volunteers who are working to provide support for people in crisis, and all our front-line staff. Finally, I thank my fellow Committee members and our Committee staff, particularly Laura Daniels, Katya Cassidy and Huw Yardley.
I shall now move on to what we found in our inquiry. First, let me say to the Government that we welcome their suicide prevention strategy, but as with any strategy the key is implementation. We therefore call on them to go far further in implementing and resourcing it, and to give greater attention to the workforce in order to make the important improvements come forward. We also make further recommendations and we are disappointed that the Government have not gone further in a number of areas. We know that we can take actions to reduce suicide and we highlight a number of these in our report. For example, we know that half of those who take their own lives have previously self-harmed, and we feel it is really disappointing that the experience of so many of those who have self-harmed when they go to casualty departments is that they are made to feel that they are wasting people’s time. We know that liaison psychiatry makes an enormous difference, but there are resourcing issues on that.
We also know that those who have been in-patients in mental health settings should receive a visit within three days of leaving in-patient services, but there simply are not the resources available for that to be put in place. We call on the Government to go further in looking at the workforce and resourcing needed for that to happen. We know of other serious issues, for example, the fact that about a third of people who take their own lives are not in contact with either primary care or specialist health services in the year before their death. We feel that suicide is everyone’s business and we all have a responsibility to reduce the stigma attached to mental health so that it is easier for people to seek help. Again, I pay tribute to all those who are working in this field, reaching out to people in non-health settings and making a real difference. However, many of those voluntary groups are coming under great financial pressure. It is welcome that the Government have announced that there will be £5 million for suicide prevention, although that does not come in until next year, with £10 million in each of the subsequent two years. However, we feel that that is too little, too late, particularly given the cuts to public health grants and across local authorities to those services that can reach out to people who are vulnerable to suicide.
We would like the Government to put a greater focus on adequately resourcing the measures they set out in their suicide prevention strategy. We would particularly like them to look at how those plans are being implemented. It is very welcome that 95% of local authorities have a suicide prevention plan either in place or in development, but there does not seem to be sufficient quality assurance for those plans. We would therefore like a national implementation board to look at how we can move those plans forward, because any strategy, however good, cannot be effective if it is sitting on the shelf and not being implemented. That was one of the key messages we heard from our witnesses, and I know that the Minister will have heard it from the National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group loud and clear.
We also know that there are things that need to happen when people are in contact with services. It is disappointing that greater focus has not been put on the consensus statement for information sharing. On too many occasions, when someone hears that a loved one has taken their life it is the first time they have heard that their loved one had been in contact with services—nobody had let them know. Understandably, health professionals are concerned about issues of confidentiality and consent, but what the consensus statement makes clear is that if we ask people in the right way, they are much more likely to give that consent to information sharing. We would like to have seen the Government put a greater focus on how we can increase awareness of how health professionals go about sharing information with people’s loved ones, because we believe that will save lives.
We think that measures can be taken across the board both out in the community and within health care settings and specialist settings, but the Minister will know that our inquiry also examines the role of the media. Irresponsible reporting of suicide increases suicide rates, as we know, and far more can be done within the broadcast media, the mainstream media, on social media and on the internet to make sure that we save lives. I was very pleased that during today’s Culture, Media and Sport questions the Culture Secretary agreed to a meeting with me, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), will assure me that she will be liaising with colleagues in the Government to make sure we can save lives in that way.
Finally, I wish to touch on the issue of data. We know that there is an issue relating to the increasing use of narrative verdicts which are hard to code. That results in the official data we have on suicide under-representing the true scale of the avoidable loss of life, and with the huge variation we have around the country this makes it much more difficult to understand what works best in preventing suicide. We would like the Minister to revisit the recommendations in our report on how to provide better training to coroners and how we review the evidential standard and move from using “beyond reasonable doubt” to the “balance of probability” in recording suicide. Only in that way can we ensure that we are doing absolutely everything possible to protect families and individuals in future. I commend the report on suicide prevention to the House and call on the Government to go further in implementation.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Labour welcomes the recommendations in the report, and I join the hon. Lady in thanking Select Committee members and staff for their work.
The Committee visited the award-winning Salford mental health liaison team, which offers 24/7 mental health support at Salford Royal hospital and has been able to halve the admission rates for people with mental health problems. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reminds us that only 7% of emergency departments provide 24/7 liaison psychiatry services, and said it would be difficult to recruit enough psychiatrists and other staff to provide such a service in every hospital—the hon. Lady touched on that in her statement. What does she think the Government must do to ensure that there are enough trained staff to establish and sustain liaison psychiatry services in every acute hospital to help to deliver the suicide prevention strategy?
Dr Wollaston
We need to start right back at medical school recruitment and what happens in medical schools and beyond, to encourage more health professionals—not just doctors, but nurses as well—to consider psychiatry and mental health services as a career. One of the key issues is the lack of a workforce. I know the Government are working with Health Education England to improve the situation, but we would like to see them go further. Also, we need to ensure that resources get to the frontline.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her chairmanship of the Select Committee and its recent report. She will know that recent studies, particularly one done in Sweden, have indicated that people with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder have a ninefold increased suicide risk. What more could be done to help those individuals and their families? How can we raise awareness among the agencies that intervene with them and their families, and particularly among health professionals, so that they are aware of the heightened risk?
Dr Wollaston
I commend the work my right hon. Friend has done over her whole career on autism and to highlight what more can be done to help those individuals and their families. She will know that one of the key barriers is having an assessment in the first place for people who suffer from autism. Too often, they fall between the gaps in mental health services. My key message would be that we must ensure that they receive the services and support that they need and that that is delivered in the right way.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this critical issue to the House and I fully support the report. I declare an interest as the patron of Chris’s House, a centre for help, response and, critically, intervention on suicide, and the first 24-hour interventionist suicide support service in Scotland. We set up the centre to offer a safe environment in which people in crisis may have respite from their current unwellness. They can find refuge in Chris’s House and receive an individually tailored programme to offer support and respite throughout their journey to wellbeing. I urge others throughout the UK to look at this more interventionist model and replicate it to the benefit of all UK citizens. I further urge as many people as possible to join us in our Walk of Hope on 6 May 2017 in Glasgow, as we walk from darkness to light to raise awareness about suicide prevention.
Dr Wollaston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and join him in paying tribute to voluntary groups throughout the country that are doing extraordinary work to reach out to people in crisis. As he will know, the level of variation in support is a key issue, along with the financial challenge faced by people around the UK who are trying to provide proper support.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for the work that she and her Committee have done on this issue. The suicide rate among men is three times that among women, and the gap has increased since 1981. As she mentioned, suicide is the leading cause of death for men under 50. A particular problem is contagion, whereby one suicide can often lead to a spate of others in the same area. During the inquiry, did the Committee identify how this aspect could be dealt with?
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. We absolutely looked at that issue and specifically mentioned it in our report. He will know that part of the problem is that irresponsible reporting can sometimes lead to contagion. We know that when local areas work together closely to identify suicides, particularly early clusters, measures can be taken—people can go into workplaces, schools and colleges—to provide support and stop it. It does, though, require that we notice it early, so the Committee urges coroners to work with local authorities and public health teams to ensure that they are aware of the high risk of suicides spreading.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the Select Committee and the hon. Lady for the report. The Scottish National party welcomes the recommendations and urges that they are fully taken into account. We particularly urge the Government to commit to rolling out crisis intervention teams and support to prevent suicide, so that people in such circumstances can be followed up directly. Suicidal individuals are not always mentally ill, and lengthy waiting lists for psychological treatment or attendance at A&E are sometimes not the most appropriate options. Liaison psychiatry is under-resourced, and urgent follow-up through crisis support is needed. How will we ensure liaison between services? Only when that occurs seamlessly between health, social care, community services and criminal justice will we prevent suicidal individuals from falling between the gaps.
Dr Wollaston
I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting a really important point about the need for communication, not only with families but within services. One problem is that there is what happens in local authorities and what happens in the health service, and too often there is not sufficient communication between the two.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Lady and her Select Committee on their work. She might be aware that in the mid-2000s there was a series of tragic suicides across the Bridgend County Borough Council area, of which my constituency forms part. I obviously was not a Member of this House when those suicides took place, but they are a major part of people’s memories of what happened across those communities.
On media attention, the hon. Lady may be aware that a film was made about those suicides that was not welcomed by the various communities; I am glad she is pursuing the part of the report on tackling the media impact regarding the glorification of suicide, if I can put it like that. Suicide prevention and health policy more widely are devolved to the Welsh Government, but will she consider sharing the Select Committee’s report with the Welsh Assembly’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee? I passionately believe that if we can learn best practice on tackling suicides from Select Committees in the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or, indeed, the Welsh Assembly, we should share that throughout the UK.
Dr Wollaston
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and share the report, as he suggests, because I agree that we should be sharing best practice throughout the devolved nations and England. On the specific point about the role of the media, the Samaritans has produced really clear guidelines, which I hope all media organisations will look at closely. We should also go beyond broadcast and print media and look at the role of social media and the internet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
I welcome the Health Committee’s report on suicide prevention and congratulate my hon. Friend and her Committee on their work on this very important issue. I join her in thanking those with lived experience who bravely contributed to the Committee’s work; the impact of their contribution cannot be overestimated.
Every death by suicide is a tragedy that has a devastating effect on families and communities, which is why the Government are committed to reducing the national suicide rate by 10% by 2020. We want all areas to learn lessons from organisations such as Mersey Care, with its zero suicide ambition. We were particularly grateful that the Committee published an interim report in December, as it allowed us to address many of its recommendations in our update of the national strategy. These included how we are driving local delivery, addressing stigma, improving suicide bereavement services and increasing awareness of the consensus statement for information sharing for people at risk of suicide. However, we do accept that we need to go further on implementing the cross-Government national suicide prevention strategy, which is why we published the updated strategy to strengthen delivery in key areas, including in implementation. It is also why we will continue to provide further updates.
The refreshed strategy now includes better targeting of high-risk groups and, for the first time, addresses self-harm as an issue in its own right, which is one of the most significant issues of suicide risk. We are working with the National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group, delivery partners across Government, and other agencies and stakeholders to develop an improved implementation framework.
We are already making good progress in ensuring that all local areas have a suicide prevention plan in place by the end of the year. To date, 95% of local areas have a suicide prevention plan in place or in development. We will also work with local areas to assess the quality of those plans, building on guidance on good practice. We have run a series of suicide-prevention planning masterclasses carried out by Public Health England to improve that quality. We have also published guidance to local authorities in January on developing and providing suicide bereavement services as an important plank of the plan.
Furthermore, we have announced that we will publish a Green Paper this year on children and young people’s mental health and develop a national internet strategy, which will explore the impact of the internet and social media on suicide prevention and mental health. That will address some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised about the media and suicide. Hon. Members will also know that we are committed to all A&Es having core liaison services by 2020. They have rightly raised the fact that the workforce will be essential in delivering that ambition, and we will imminently be publishing our mental health workforce strategy, the performance of which I am sure that the Select Committee will closely scrutinise. We will carefully consider all the recommendations made by the Committee in this report and respond to them in due course.
My hon. Friend has rightly raised the connection between mental health services and suicide prevention. Does she agree that we cannot think about suicide without considering the broader matter of mental health? Will she and the Committee join me in welcoming the wide range of measures set out by the Prime Minister in January, in addition to the five year forward view for mental health, with a focus on earlier intervention and prevention in mental health services, because those improvements will be essential if we are to make the progress on suicide prevention that all of us in this House want to see?
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her comments and agree with her absolutely about the importance of prevention and early intervention. I look forward to the strategies to which she has referred and to working with her to do all that we can to improve mental health and to reduce the terrible toll from suicide.
Backbench Business
Energy Prices
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House deplores the big six energy firms’ treatment of out-of-contract energy customers on default tariffs; believes immediate action is needed to protect those consumers, and that pushing customers to start switching will not fix the problem sufficiently quickly or completely on its own; and calls on the industry, regulators and the Government to consider solutions which recognise that many people lead busy lives and that switching their energy supplier may not always be a high priority.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for us to debate this important and topical motion today. I also thank my two co-sponsors, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and the 50 or so MPs from across the political spectrum who all feel that the treatment of most energy customers is sufficiently outrageous and unjust to merit raising it here, in the mother of all Parliaments.
Most industries believe that customer loyalty is hugely important; an asset to be prized. Most businesses reward their most loyal customers with special treatment to keep them coming back—whether it is a supermarket’s loyalty card, an airline’s air miles scheme or just the coffee card that gives you a free cuppa after it has been stamped 10 times. Energy is an exception. What other industry does not give its most loyal customers any discounts or special deals, but instead charges them higher prices than anyone else? Which companies believe that loyalty should be exploited, not rewarded? Which one of them treats their longest-serving customers as chumps, to be quietly and secretively switched on to expensive, unfair deals when they are not looking, and then milked—ripped off mercilessly for as long as possible? The answer is the big six energy firms. The rest of the energy industry is pretty good. There are 30 or more newish energy firms snapping at the heels of the big six, and they understand that customer loyalty matters if they want to grow.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
As my hon. Friend will know, there has been a huge roll-out of smart meters, which is one way of people keeping an eye on their energy bills. Unfortunately, though, when people do switch providers, they find that their smart meter has to be replaced at the same time. Does he agree that that is one reason why perhaps some people are becoming unwilling to change providers?
John Penrose
There are many reasons why switching has not caught on to anything like the degree that we need it to if we are to transform the sector. I understand that one factor may very well be this problem with the introduction of smart meters, but there are others, too. My hon. Friend was quite right to point that issue out, and I will mention some others later on in my speech.
As I said, there are 30 or more newish energy firms snapping at the heels of the big six, and they understand that loyalty matters. Obviously, some are more impressive than others, but they all have one thing in common: they are hungry. They know they have to impress and delight their clients, because they cannot rely on exploiting a “back book” of long-term customers to stay fat and happy. The figures are stark. Roughly two thirds of all customers—at least 20 million households—are on the expensive, rip-off deals: the standard variable tariff. A minority of customers switch to a different energy supplier regularly, but most of us do not. The amount of switching has been creeping upwards, but much of the change has come from the same bargain hunters churning round and round in ever faster circles between different energy firms. The number of households that have rarely or never switched remains stubbornly high, which suits the big six just fine. So, what is the answer? How do we put energy customers in the driving seat? Do we give them the same power to choose a new supplier as easily as we switch to a different brand of toothpaste or coffee? How do we make them compete to delight us, rather than quietly exploiting us?
First, we have to make switching a lot easier. Choosing that different brand of toothpaste in a supermarket is easy: we just pick a different tube off the shelf. Too many people find switching to a different energy firm scary and stressful, and are frightened off as a result. Even the price comparison sites, which have an interest in making the process as simple and as easy as possible, say that huge numbers of customers abandon their search when they are asked a basic, essential question such as what is their current energy usage. Others think that switching is likely to go wrong, and that they might end up cold and shivering in a home without power if the move does not happen smoothly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has already mentioned the impact on some households of the new smart meters. Others simply have not got the time to switch. Many of us lead busy lives, juggling careers, childcare, school runs and goodness knows what else. Switching our energy supplier can easily become one of those things that we all know we should do, like washing the car or joining a gym, but we never quite get round to doing. The difference is that other products do not automatically switch us to a super-expensive brand of toothpaste or coffee unless we tell them not to. They do not expect us to be on our toes all the time to stop them changing the terms of our deal and ripping us off when we are not looking. For toothpaste, coffee and almost everything else, loyalty and inertia work in the customer’s favour; they are on our side. That does not apply to energy. If we relax, they will have us.
Fortunately, there are some simple things that make switching easier, less stressful, simpler and not so scary. The main one is making our customer data easily available to a new energy firm if we give them our permission. That way we do not have to fill in endless online pages with information that we cannot remember or that we have not got. At the moment, the information can take days to come through, and the big six throw all sorts of obstacles in the way. They have no interest in making it easy or simple.
In future, we should just be able to ask our new firm to get it from our existing supplier in a few seconds, with a click of a mouse or a tick of a box—simple, quick, easy and safe. The number of people switching will go through the roof if we do that.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, and I agree with it. Does he agree though that it is more problematic for people who live in tower blocks, where the energy supply is collectively controlled by the landlord who might not have any incentive to switch to another supplier?
John Penrose
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. One of the things that may be improved by the roll-out of smart meters, which we heard about earlier, is those collective bills, which would be broken down. Many energy suppliers and others in the industry are concerned that too many hopes may be being invested in smart meters and they may not necessarily produce a lasting uplift in customer engagement and interest—they will start off as an interesting new gadget in the corner of the room, but after a few weeks or months that interest may die away. We will have to wait and see, but he is right that there is an opportunity, at the very least.
In the spirit of trying to make switching simpler and less scary, firms such as Make It Cheaper, Flipper, OVO and Money Saving Expert provide end-to-end services that do the donkey work for us, handling everything from finding a better deal to organising the switch itself. They appeal to those of us who currently think that even the most convenient price comparison sites take too much of our valuable time.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with the big six and other generators, such as Veolia, is that they are not straightforward and honest with their customers and stakeholders? Until they are straightforward and honest, there will be disquiet about their conduct.
John Penrose
That is one of the underlying concerns about the way that this industry operates. People are not necessarily asked at the moment they are switched to the default tariff, so when they notice that they have been—if they notice—they feel that they are being ripped off, because those default tariffs are so much higher. That leads to distrust of the suppliers, and that is one of the things corroding the underlying trust in the industry as a whole. It is incredibly dangerous. I think some forward-thinking people in the industry understand that and the brand damage that is being done, not just to individual firms but to the sector as a whole. Trust is slow to gain and easy to lose. My hon. Friend has a background in marketing and consumer business, so I am sure that he understands what I mean.
Rolling out the end-to-end services that I mentioned, which are still in their infancy, should persuade a new group of customers who currently do not switch at all to do so, extending the number of people in that stubborn two thirds of the customer base who do not switch, or do so very rarely.
These changes, taken together, are essential steps to solving the underlying fundamental problems that make the energy market such a rip-off. If the Government, the regulator—Ofgem—and perhaps even enlightened energy firms themselves are willing to take those steps, abuses and consumer detriment will start to fall and customers will finally be in the driving seat, as we already are and expect to be for everything else, from toothpaste and coffee to cornflakes and soap.
But how long will this take to fix? How quickly will the rip-off stop? Even then, will there still be stubborn pockets of problems left over here and there? Given that fully two thirds of all customers are on these rip-off tariffs and that proportion has been glacially slow to change, there is an awfully long way still to go. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, an unacceptably large number of households will still be being ripped off for too many years yet. So we need a stopgap—a temporary solution—while all those other changes to make switching easier and less scary start to take effect.
The answer is a relative price cap—a maximum mark-up between each energy firm’s best deal and its default tariff. If someone forgot to switch to a new deal when their existing one came to an end, they would not be ripped off too badly, but people would still be able to save plenty of money when they got round to switching again, so it would always still be worth their while to become engaged and take that additional action, should they be so minded.
Under these proposals, energy firms would still be able to compete on price—they could still decide whether they wanted to be the Aldi or Lidl of the industry, or the Waitrose or Marks and Spencer—and could still have as many tariffs as they wanted, so there would be plenty of customer choice. If someone wanted a green energy tariff, that would be fine. If someone did not like computers or wanted to do it the old-fashioned way with offline paper and an ink deal, that would be no problem.
I am delighted to confirm today that the idea of a relative cap is supported by three of the largest challenger brands—OVO, Utility Warehouse and Octopus Energy, which cover hundreds of thousands of customers between them—and I hope to persuade others to join the cause in due course.
Crucially, a relative cap is a lot better than a normal price cap. A relative cap would mean that each energy firm could still adjust its prices whenever the wholesale price of gas or electricity went up or down, but a normal cap would mean that Ofgem had to approve any changes, which inevitably would be slower and create work for lawyers and lobbyists. A relative cap would also mean that energy firms still had plenty of incentives to innovate and find new ways to please particular groups of customers however they wanted, without needing Ofgem’s approval first.
Lobbyists and lawyers will hate a relative cap, because there will be much less lobbying and lawyering to do. Putting customers in the driver’s seat would mean fewer fat fees and fat lunches. If customers could switch their supplier as easily as changing their brand of cornflakes or soap, we politicians, and the bureaucrats and regulators, would rightly matter a lot less in this area. Because of the extra clarity and simplicity, a relative cap would mean that we could deregulate, too, by striking out reams of regulations, red tape and guidelines that complicate the market and stop energy firms thinking about their customers first and foremost and make them focus on their regulators, lawyers and compliance directors instead. A relative cap would reduce red tape rather than add to it.
But the people who would hate a relative cap the most are the big six, because it would force them to treat us, their consumers, fairly, to reward loyalty rather than exploit it and to fight hard to keep long-standing customers rather than take us for granted. In other words, it would force the industry to be a normal industry with normal firms where the customer, not the regulator or politicians, is king.
I know that both Ministers and regulators understand this problem. They have spoken to me and many others in this House about it, and both the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Prime Minister have been trenchant in criticising the sector for not delivering an economy that works for everyone, so I hope that they will accept the thrust of this motion.
The time for action has come. We simply cannot argue, as others have tried to, that even though fully two thirds of the country is being ripped off, we are not going to help or protect those victims because it is their own silly fault if they are not savvy enough to switch. Yes, we need to make switching easier and safer so that, eventually, most of us do it most of the time. That is clearly the right long-term answer. But I hope that Ministers accept that, until that glorious day, we cannot simply sit back and allow consumers to be harmed on this scale for this long and do nothing. We need to do more.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is further to a point of order I raised a couple of hours ago with Mr Speaker about a prime ministerial statement on the Scottish constitution that he pointed out was hypothetical at that time. He said that if such a statement were made, he would entertain a statement from the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister. That statement has now been made by the Prime Minister, and it has been interpreted as an attempt to bounce the Scottish Parliament’s vote next Tuesday on a Scottish referendum. She seems to be dictating the timing of any such referendum. These points were put to her at Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday, and she had a full and fair opportunity to give her answer and to be questioned.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will understand that parliamentary accountability means that if somebody such as the Prime Minister makes a statement about a change of policy, Members of Parliament are prepared to ask questions about it—questions such as, “What happens if the Scottish Parliament is not bounced and votes for a referendum next week? Why does the Prime Minister believe that the timing is not right when this House is going to be asked in 18 months’ time to take or leave a deal with Europe?” Fundamentally, there is arrogance in saying to people in Scotland that they shall not have the right to an act of self-determination or saying to this Parliament that we do not have the right to examination.
Madam Deputy Speaker, have you had a request from the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and go for parliamentary accountability, or does she feel that Scotland is some sort of county as opposed to the country that it actually is?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution, which was not a point of order. I was here when he made his previous point of order—the Speaker was in the Chair—and I heard the response to it. I have been in the Chamber the whole time, so I have not heard any statement made by the Prime Minister, but the right hon. Gentleman has successfully put all his questions and concerns on the record.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose); it is an honour to follow his speech. He set out the arguments incredibly well. He is passionate and knowledgeable, and his points about the energy market were incredibly measured. I pay tribute to him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this important debate. The issue affects all our constituents—millions of people up and down the country—and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the debate.
The excellent opening address of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare made it very clear that the energy market is not working in the best interests of customers. That is not to say that there is any collusion whatever between the energy companies—far from it. Ofgem told us on the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that the major energy companies have quite different price strategies; there can be a difference of about £140 a year between what the major energy suppliers charge dual fuel customers. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman said, there have been welcome new entrants to the energy market, which have disrupted, in a very positive way, the energy oligopoly that has been in place for far too long. There are more innovative companies offering better choice, service, and value to the energy customer. Ten years ago, the big six companies dominated the entire market, with a 100% market share. Last year, that had moved to 85%, which is great. That is positive news. New entrants are taking market share and offering quite competitive fixed-term deals.
I said that there was no evidence of collusion between energy companies, but there are marked similarities between the major energy companies’ business models, and they do not act in the best interests of customers; in fact, as the hon. Gentleman said, they actually punish customer loyalty. Their business models are predicated on a sizeable proportion, if not the majority, of their customer base being, and continuing indefinitely, on their standard variable tariff. Looking at the big six companies, 74% of British Gas customers are on its SVT; for EDF, it is 56%; for E.ON, 73%; for npower, 59%; and for ScottishPower, 50%; and an astonishing 91% of SSE’s customer base is on the SVT.
SVTs are, in the main, the most expensive of all the energy tariffs available, yet almost half of all customers have been with the same supplier for five years or more, and 44% of customers have never changed tariff. It is almost guaranteed that those households are overpaying for their energy. The Competition and Markets Authority estimates that, due to a lack of competition in the market, collectively customers are overpaying for their energy to the tune of £1.4 billion. Despite all that, and the very clear evidence that the market is not working in the interests of customers, energy companies continue to penalise customers for their loyalty. The longer a person is with a company, the more they are likely to pay. In a modern, customer services-oriented economy, what other market could possibly say that?
When npower raised its prices by 14% last month, Ofgem stated to the Select Committee quite categorically that it did not see a case for such a significant rise. Ofgem’s chief executive told our Committee that wholesale costs had risen by about 15% in the past year. However, the overall cost of energy was marginally below what it had been three years ago.
Mr Charles Walker
I made this same point to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose): the big six and Veolia behave in this way because there is a culture of arrogance and entitlement. That is the problem, and we—or, more to the point, the companies—need to address that culture.
Mr Wright
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A market has to be dynamic. Companies should be nervous about customers moving away, but customers are not doing that. As I said, these companies’ business models are entirely predicated on the fact that people will, for a variety of reasons, stay on the expensive tariff; because of that, though companies may provide loss-leading deals for new customers, they scoff at customer loyalty. This market is not working in anybody’s interests. It is not dynamic, efficient or effective, and ultimately it is not benefiting customers.
Mr Wright
This is not just about price and cost; it is about customer service, and what teeth the regulator has—and, ultimately, the Government provide—to ensure a dynamic energy market.
It is true that wholesale costs went up by about 15% last year, and obviously the wholesale cost of energy is ultimately a big part of the energy bill that goes to the customer, but the cost of energy is marginally lower than it was three years ago. Companies hedge their risks when it comes to purchasing energy, which should flatten any price spikes that they experience when buying their energy on the global market. That means that retail prices to customers might not fall as quickly and as sharply when wholesale prices fall, but conversely, it certainly should stop big price hikes when wholesale prices rise, and we have seen no evidence whatsoever of that.
Last month, in announcing its big price rise—the biggest for many years—npower stated on its website:
“over the past few years, the cost of supplying energy to your home has increased, as well as the amount we need to pay towards government schemes.”
This is slightly unusual for me, but allow me robustly to defend the Government. The phrases that npower and other companies have used about the cost of Government schemes are simply wrong. The Committee on Climate Change today published its analysis of energy prices and household costs, which showed that 9% of the average dual fuel bill for domestic customers is accounted for by the cost of moving towards a UK-based low-carbon electricity supply and support for energy efficiency home improvements. The notion that energy companies can justify price increases through Government action or policies is simply disingenuous.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is worth everybody reading that report from the Committee on Climate Change. Does he accept that part of that 9% of the bill goes on helping people—sometimes the poorest in our communities —to reduce their household bill by introducing energy efficiency measures? It is a worthwhile 9% investment.
Mr Wright
Absolutely, and as my right hon. Friend, who has done fantastic work on this, knows all too well, energy efficiency measures are a key plank of ensuring our competitiveness, tackling fuel poverty and addressing our decarbonisation targets. Everybody wins when energy efficiency measures are prioritised.
Mr George Howarth
My hon. Friend is making a very good case. Does he agree that the energy efficiency measures introduced in tower blocks, and sometimes in low-rise properties, can be complicated to use, and if they are not used properly, they can be more expensive to the consumer? I have had two examples in my constituency over the past few years in which people have ended up paying more for a lower standard of heating. Does he think that there is a case for the Government looking at issuing guidance to local authorities and registered social landlords about how to install these systems and inform tenants about how they are supposed to be used?
Mr Wright
My right hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. I was in the Chamber when he made an intervention about switching suppliers and noted that often people in tower blocks are not able to do that. He makes a powerful case and vividly illustrates that the market is not working in the interests of consumers, who might often be in low-waged and vulnerable households. The Government and regulator need to take steps to make sure that the market works.
Ofgem told us that energy companies have increased their prices largely because they have not been successful in controlling their own costs. Sufficient and efficient companies have been able to reduce and absorb cost increases, and have therefore passed on those benefits to the customers by eliminating any risk of price increases. Others have not done so and, due to the nature of their business model, which I explained earlier, feel that they do not have to consider customers because customers simply will not switch and will continue to stay on the most expensive tariff. Customers are literally paying the price for the failure of energy companies to manage their businesses and control their costs. I said to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that I would mention that this is about not just costs, but customer service and a lack of trust in energy companies. There is a huge number of examples. I imagine that every hon. Member has cases regarding this in their inbox.
Citizens Advice told the Committee that companies are getting the very basics wrong with late, missing and inaccurate bills. When they get things wrong, they are failing to provide customers with redress. The market is simply not working. So what is the solution? The current policy response seems to be a dual approach—to encourage companies to engage with their customers more efficiently and to communicate widely the benefits that come from switching. Switching should certainly be encouraged, as customers can make savings of hundreds of pounds if they switch. On the back of the recent price rises from energy companies, I switched the energy supplier for our house and we saved £249. There are big savings to be made. I encourage customers to switch, switch and switch again.
As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said, a small proportion of domestic customers do switch, and they switch very often. They are savvy customers who know the market and want to get the best possible deal, but that remains relatively rare. The vast majority of energy customers do not switch for a wide variety of reasons. For example, people may think, “Can I switch? Aren’t I still with the local electricity board?”, “Will it be too complex? I’m frightened of the hassle factor”, or “I’m frightened that my energy supply might be disrupted.” There is a whole range of things, not least, as the hon. Gentleman said, that people lead busy lives, so they often do not consider an essential utility such as energy. It is not sufficient to state that the energy market will be fixed by encouraging more switching and better engagement. There needs to be a fair deal for all energy customers—for the two thirds who do not switch, and not just for those who do so.
The Government often talk a good game when it comes to tackling energy prices. When it was revealed in the autumn that the energy companies were making higher profits than reported, the Secretary of State hauled those companies into his Department for an explanation, but nothing materialised. When npower raises its prices last month, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said:
“We are concerned by Npower’s planned increases—we are committed to getting the best for households. Suppliers are protected from recent fluctuations in wholesale energy prices which are set two years in advance so we expect them to treat customers fairly and clearly where markets are not working we are prepared to act.”
Only this week, in answer to my question during business, energy and industrial strategy questions, the Secretary of State said that “time is up” for those energy companies. But no action has been taken. Customers will have to endure in the next days, weeks and possibly months high prices rises with no action taken whatever. The regulator says the price rises are not justified, No. 10 says that it is concerned, and the Department has had energy companies hauled in, but nothing has been done. This does not seem to reflect the urgency that should be given to the issue. The key point that I would like to be made in this debate is the Minister saying how the Government are going act—and act now—to ensure that customers get a better deal.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has an important policy response suggestion when it comes to a restricted price cap, and this could be an important means of providing customers with some respite. He mentioned a number of energy companies that have put forward the idea, and there are some quite striking quotes from the people who run those companies. Stephen Fitzpatrick, chief executive of Ovo Energy, said that the energy market was failing because companies were
“free to charge whatever they think they can get away with, at the expense of disengaged or confused customers.”
He also said:
“The time has come for the Government to step in and take bold action to protect consumers’ interests.”
Greg Jackson, chief executive of Octopus Energy, which has about 80,000 customers, said:
“Energy customers are being robbed in broad daylight, and it’s time for decisive action to end the misery for millions.”
Will the Government look favourably on the hon. Gentleman’s point about a price cap? It is very clear that, at a time of crippling price rises from companies seemingly indifferent to the plight of customers, there needs to be a fundamental change to ensure that the market works for all. In the Minister’s response to the debate, he must set out the detailed steps he will take immediately and in the longer term to act in the interests of customers, and set out the timetable. The time for strong words, for hauling the companies into the Department, and for Green Papers and future legislation is over. If the regulator says that there is no justification for price increases and the Prime Minister is saying that action needs to happen, why can we not have action now? Customers are facing price rises now. We should not have to wait for a Green Paper or legislation in the months to come. We need to act immediately. On that basis, what are the Government going to do now?
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee.
I will pick up where my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) left off regarding the Government. The Conservative party has changed its leader and, in the process, it seems to have changed some of its policies, thinking that we would not notice. To be honest, it is just not good enough. Many hon. Members have campaigned hard on energy pricing. In response to Labour’s campaigning on energy prices, the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that his Government would legislate to ensure that customers received the “lowest possible tariffs”. The current Prime Minister has refused to honour that pledge, and I do not understand why, especially after she stood on the steps of No. 10 promising to look after vulnerable people. That must include people who suffer from fuel poverty including older people, people who have English as a second language and those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool says cannot switch easily. They are vulnerable people who are not being protected by the Government.
The Government are proving just to be all talk on this important issue, which is a real shame. They must act to stop the jump in energy prices, or they could adopt one of Labour’s policies—they are used to adopting our policies—and renationalise the energy companies. They could listen to the Mayor of London, who has some innovative ideas on providing energy to people in London. The price hike is a bitter blow to millions of families that will add more than £100 to their typical bill. When people are struggling to make ends meet, this is just not good enough. This is one of the largest ever increases we have seen, and it is simply unacceptable.
The recent Fuel Poverty Awareness day brought home the reality of the fuel poverty situation across the country. Families are facing the agonising decision of whether to heat or eat, and my constituency in Brent has seen a rise in food banks as a result. Last year, the first ever fuel bank opened in my constituency in order to help residents, especially those on prepayment meters, to get through the winter and difficult times. The food banks came to the conclusion that a fuel bank was necessary as people were approaching them to ask only for food in tins—food that can be eaten cold—because they did not have the money on their meter to heat up or cook food. Lots of people were just surviving on baked beans, for instance. More should and must be done.
I have been campaigning on energy prices for many years because my constituents have struggled with their energy bills, and more and more have come to my surgery with problems. The hardest hit are those on prepayment meters; the House of Commons Library produced figures showing that prepayment customers pay around 15% more on their gas bills than direct debit customers.
So I launched a prepayment meter campaign, and I am really pleased that lots of Members—on both sides of the House, I must say—participated in it. I called on the Government to ensure that fair tariffs were made available for all. Following the campaign, the Competition and Markets Authority recommended a cap on prepayment meters. That was a significant victory, and I was really pleased, but although the cap will reduce the cost for prepayment customers, it will not reduce it by enough—only by about £80. However, the price penalty on prepayment customers can be as much as £320, so a lot more still needs to be done.
One in five families is being hit by prepayment penalties, and they are often the “just about managing” families. As I say, these are the people the Prime Minister often talks about—the very people the Conservative party public relations machine goes into overdrive about, saying that the Conservative party represents them. If it does represent them, the Government would surely do something about this issue, because these people’s inability to heat their homes means they live in damp homes, and it is reckoned that cold-related ill health costs the NHS around £1.36 billion each year. If we want to help the national health service and “just about managing” families, tackling this issue is one step that can be taken very quickly—if there is the will on the Government Benches.
Fuel poverty is a massive problem. It affects over 4 million UK households. In my constituency, one in eight households is classified as fuel-poor, which is higher than the national average of one in 10. The Labour party will continue to work towards ending fuel poverty. When in government, we will put energy efficiency back on the agenda. Struggling families need more than warm words from the Government—they need warm homes.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). I congratulate her on the work she has done serving communities and families that are over-reliant on prepayment meters, and it is a welcome change that they will get some help in the months ahead. I would also say that I have a number of people living in the private rented sector in my constituency—I am sure the proportion is far higher in her constituency. It is a big problem for tenants when landlords do not do enough to make sure that the homes they rent out—they often get housing benefit from the state for doing that—are not decent homes with proper energy-efficiency measures. I know that my hon. Friend will carry on working on behalf of her constituents and people elsewhere.
I would like to thank the co-sponsors of the debate, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who helped to secure the support of 50 other hon. and right hon. Members to obtain this important debate.
My thanks also go to the Backbench Business Committee—Parliament’s own “Dragons’ Den”—for agreeing to our application. It was only five minutes before we went in that I realised the meeting was going to be broadcast, so I had to get my act together quickly, but we were clearly successful, and we secured this debate for today.
It is well known to family and friends that I love the movies. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. It is still on my bucket list to be an extra in one—I just put that out there. One of my favourite comedies is “Groundhog Day”, in which the character played by Bill Murray has to replay a single day until he sees the error of his ways. For me, today’s debate feels like “Groundhog Day” because we are reliving the same arguments about our uncompetitive energy market, companies’ poor customer service and ripping-off of customers on standard variable tariffs—points I have made for the past six years. The Ministers keep changing, but I am still here, and I hope that the Minister today, like Bill Murray in the film, will break this spell, because, not for the first time, the headlines have, as hon. Members have mentioned, been full of the eye-watering price increases made recently by four of the big six energy companies—price hikes that are completely unjustified.
However, in many respects, that is not the principal reason for this debate. We sought the debate to address the fact that the energy market is not working; it is failing Britain’s consumers in almost every respect. It does not promote effective competition. The regional giants created after privatisation remain the dominant players in their home regions 30 years later. We talk about the big six, but for many regions, it is the big one.
The energy market also does not promote transparency. In the period following the Thatcher privatisation of British Gas in 1986 and of the regional electricity boards in 1989, there was a succession of mergers and takeovers. That led to companies being, at one and the same time, energy retailers and power generators. Today, the generation and retail arms of these companies remain within pretty much the same corporate structures. One consequence of that is a complete lack of transparency over the price at which these companies sell energy to themselves before retailing to the public. The reforms Labour proposed in 2015 would have resolved that.
The energy market does not promote consumer confidence. The issue is not whether, superficially, one company offers a fixed-price deal for £150 less than another; it is why 88% of consumers still refuse to switch from one supplier to another. The evidence from the CMA survey of 7,000 consumers was clear: 56% had never switched supplier, or did not recall ever switching, and 72% had never switched tariff with an existing supplier. This market is suffering a long-term crisis of consumer confidence. While a minority of customers shop around, the vast majority seem to want little or nothing to do with the energy companies.
That is not a sign of contentment—of millions of satisfied customers—but quite the opposite. The CMA found that the number of recorded customer complaints rose sixfold from 2008 to 2014. Ofgem’s own research between 2014 and 2016, which was published in September 2016, found that the proportion of domestic complainants who were very dissatisfied with how their complaint was handled increased significantly over that two-year period. The most recent figures showed that 67% of npower customers and 64% of Scottish Power customers were very dissatisfied. Even the medium-sized and smaller companies were not immune—we cannot let them off the hook. First Utility performed worst, with 63% of customers very dissatisfied. The figure for Utility Warehouse was 53%, and for OVO, it was 49%.
The Government preside over a domestic energy market that is not competitive, lacks transparency and has a hell of a lot of dissatisfied consumers. Those factors alone should ring alarm bells in Whitehall and Westminster, but it is the outcome for consumers that ensures that the Government must act. The secrecy, the dominance by a few uncompetitive companies, and the disillusioned, untrusting customer base, which is largely disengaged, all lead to one certain outcome: a consistent failure of the market to offer fair prices. That should be no surprise to any of us. We have regional monopolies—secret and inefficient—low customer engagement and unresponsive pricing. That is why this debate is so important.
I said the UK energy market does not offer fair prices, so let me illustrate that central criticism. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) said, the big six energy giants account for 85% of the market, and they treat their long-standing loyal customers worst, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare pointed out. Those customers, without exception, will pay for energy on the most expensive default tariff. The only customers treated worse are those forced to live in a home that has a prepayment meter, either because the landlord requires it or because they have a poor credit or payment history. In 20 years, this group has grown to account for 16% of all households. Even the CMA could not ignore the fact that this group pays a premium of around £80 a year, as well as paying in advance for its energy. I therefore welcome, as I said, the decision to provide some price protection by capping the amount an energy company can charge these customers, but that measure does nothing for the remaining majority of customers who are also being overcharged year after year.
What about the overcharging of the majority of mainstream consumers? Even the CMA could not fully explain this overcharging. Its best estimate was that between 2012 and 2015 the average amount overcharged was some £1.5 billion per year, reaching almost £2 billion per year by 2015. The CMA also found that the revenue from standard variable tariff customers was 11% higher for electricity and 15% higher for gas compared with the average revenue for other customers—and this before any of the current price hikes came into effect. The CMA concluded that in any one year the “detriment”, as it describes it—the amount that is overcharged—was made up of about £600 million a year in excess profits, and the remainder, about £850 million, was down to “inefficiencies”, whatever they may be. This points to bad management by some very highly paid individuals.
John Penrose
The right hon. Lady is making a very compelling case, as she did with me in the dragons’ den pitch for this debate. She is absolutely right about the CMA’s figures showing such horrendous levels of customer detriment. Not only that, but the gap between the standard variable price that is being charged and the wholesale price has been getting wider over the past four years, so the situation is bad and getting worse as time goes by.
Caroline Flint
Exactly. We have the historical evidence that month by month people are still paying far too much for their energy bills.
It is absolutely astonishing that this is happening in what is meant to be a competitive market. The overcharging and the excessive profit margin made from standard variable tariff customers clearly provides no encouragement to move those customers on to a better deal. I believe that this is a bankrupt business model. If we are all admitting—even the energy companies have had to face up to this—that people are paying over the odds, then the companies have a business model based on that. If all these customers were miraculously to move to a lower tariff tomorrow, where would the companies be left? The inertia is compounded by a management approach that does not seem to want any form of effective change.
Unfortunately, the more the Government have publicly urged consumers to switch to save, the more the companies are absolved of any responsibility to move customers on to a better deal. A sticky, passive, unengaged customer base appears to suit some of these firms down to the ground. When, back in 2012, EDF automatically moved vulnerable elderly customers on to its cheapest tariff, sadly other suppliers did not follow up with this better practice.
The CMA’s final report concluded that to eliminate overcharging, prices would have to fall across the board by an average of 3% per year between now and 2020. It hoped that its measures to promote switching would create more competition in the market and have a downward effect on prices, but it was reluctant to say exactly how successful it expected that to be. The problem that the CMA faces is that the UK has an energy market with unhappy consumers, a dysfunctional pricing mechanism, and companies that are, I am afraid, largely immune to competitive pressures.
Ofgem has reported that some 3.3 million households switched supplier from January to December 2016. This is apparently the highest level of switching for six years, but it equates to less than 12% of households. I worry that we have a two-tier energy market: an active, informed class of consumer who is energy-conscious, internet-savvy, shopping around and managing their accounts online, and a far bigger, less informed, less engaged, less internet-savvy, discontented majority.
Mr Iain Wright
My right hon. Friend is second to none in her knowledge of energy policy. She may be coming on to this, but I would be interested to get her thoughts on policy fixes. Does she think that the regulator has the powers but is not using them, or that the Government need to give the regulator more powers to help fix this broken market?
Caroline Flint
The regulator already has powers in its back pocket. It can intervene if it thinks that the market is uncompetitive. It can, if necessary, take customers off a company that is failing and allow them to get a better deal elsewhere from other suppliers. However, we do need Government to take responsibility. Whether we have the relative price cap that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare proposes or my suggestion of a protected tariff—if not permanent, then temporary—to fix this market, it is clear that more reform is needed. I wish that the regulator would use its powers; it has been very slow to do so, although it has speeded up in recent years. There is more it could do, but there is more that Government could provide it with to do a better job.
One of the CMA’s proposals is that data on customers should be shared so that other energy suppliers can send their offers to customers. The problem is that people will be bombarded with leaflets and emails from operators in a sector in which their trust is already so low that they may not put any more in this marketing mechanism. These are the very people—immune to direct mail, annoyed by calls from would-be energy suppliers, and mistrustful of the whole industry—who are not being helped by any of the measures put forward since the CMA report.
The CMA believes that by encouraging switching and a shared database for companies to market new tariffs to each other’s customers, price competition can be made to work. However, I am afraid that this shared database seems to be a new label for an old solution. We have had six years of trying to bring a consumer benefit by switching—six years of abject failure. I must therefore ask the Minister whether it is realistic to assume that 28 million households will be able to reduce their average bills by 3% a year, as the CMA suggests, for each year between 2017 and 2020. The CMA believes that if it succeeds in its aim, this steady price fall would eliminate the overcharging—the detriment—but even if it did, it would not repay one penny of the money already unfairly taken from consumers. I see no mechanism in the CMA’s prescription that can achieve even the objective it has set. Adding customers who have remained on a standard default tariff for three years to a huge marketing database for other companies to prey on will not, in itself, make this market more competitive.
In March, Ofgem published the information that January’s cheapest available tariff was 22% cheaper than the average customer’s bill, but did not identify how long that offer lasted or how many customers benefited. However, let us follow its logic. What if that tariff was widely available? What if the 12% of switchers—3.3 million consumers—all switched to this new best value tariff, and what if those 12% of customers all got a saving of 20% on their bills? This change alone might notionally cut average bills by 2%—almost the 3% the CMA hoped to achieve through its measures—but it would not reduce the detriment by one penny for the 88% who do not switch. The penalty incurred by the vast majority would remain.
Also among the CMA’s recommendations is that price comparison websites should no longer have to display every deal on the market, so consumers may only see the deals that give the website a commission. The majority of customers who remain resistant to the lures of the marketeers will still see no gain. Those customers—some 20 million who pay the default standard variable tariffs and endure their prices going up and down as the energy provider chooses—are left at the mercy of their supplier, which the CMA has already identified as consistently overcharging them. They certainly cannot rely on wholesale prices to save them, because there is no obligation to pass on falls in wholesale prices to consumers—not even in part. Ofgem reported that wholesale gas prices fell by 44% between 2012 and 2016, yet consumers saw their energy bills rise by 7% over the same period. Such a perverse result could happen only in a dysfunctional market. Where do consumers turn to get fairness? The only avenue for the majority of consumers is the Government, who are the one agency with the powers to change the game at a stroke. How long will the public have to wait before the Government finally act as a consumers’ champion?
In 2011, when I became shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, I advised the Government that energy bills were soaring, but they did nothing. In October 2011, the then Prime Minister convened an energy summit and proposed to write to millions of consumers about switching, but that did not work. In November 2013, Mr Cameron tried a different approach: “get rid of all the green crap,” a senior source reported him as saying.
As has been touched on in this debate, the big six always like to divert discussion of bills on to green levies, even though investment in renewable energy and low carbon energy is exerting a downward pressure on wholesale prices. It is ironic that domestic consumption of energy, in kilowatt hours, has gone down, but we are paying more in our bills. The former Prime Minister said, “get rid of the green crap”, and he did so. The Government shortly afterwards reduced some of the environmental obligations and network charges and cut bills by between £39 and £50. Unfortunately, that year energy bills rose by an average of £120, so that did not work.
Mr Cameron always ridiculed Labour’s energy price freeze, which was a proposal to cap energy prices for 20 months while the energy market was reformed. Instead, in 2014 he announced the CMA investigation. Its initial findings the following year and its final report in June 2016 entirely vindicated Labour’s concern about unfair energy prices. We now have it on the record from one of the Government’s regulators: Britain’s consumers were ripped off year after year for a period of four years—that we know of. About that there is no dispute. It is an £8 billion scandal, and every month the financial punishment for customers grows.
So what do we want? My plea to the Government is simple. Recognise the scale of the problem. Recognise that switching campaigns, which have now become a gimmick, can only scratch the surface. They will never get to the heart of the problem. Recognise that the industry needs reform, and that until it is reformed, the Government need to introduce price protection for consumers.
I believe that that protection should take the form of a protected tariff, and I first argued for such a tariff after the general election in 2015. Consumers need nothing less than some sort of regulated maximum charge that companies can levy, which is based on wholesale prices, network costs and an acceptable level of profit. I do not believe that that can be left to the companies. Any voluntary measure is welcome, but the approach has been too piecemeal. We need the Government to act by introducing a protected tariff, which is set by Ofgem. We know that Ofgem is capable of that calculation, because it has just done a similar exercise for 3.5 million prepayment meter customers.
Am I asking for something outlandish? No. Northern Ireland still has price regulation, and a majority of countries in the European Union still have price controls of one sort or another. In the matter of price controls, we are not thwarted by the European Union. We cannot blame either the EU or Brexit for the Government’s failure to address this injustice. The problem lands on the doorsteps of No. 10 and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Government have the power and the means to end the unfairness in our energy market, or at least to offer a temporary respite, as they have done for prepayment customers, until more substantial reforms can be enacted.
In November the Secretary of State said:
“Customers who are loyal to their energy supplier should be treated well, not taken for a ride. It’s high time the big companies recognised this. I have made clear that this cannot go on and they must treat customers properly or be made to do so.”
I say to the Minister: now is the time. This problem is not going away, and I urge the Government to listen to the voices of Members of all parties who believe that the current energy market does not serve the British people well. Action is long overdue.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), if a little daunting to speak after such a tour de force. As has been said, she is second to none in her knowledge of this issue. I congratulate the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on their support in securing this timely debate, which comes in the wake of the most recent excessive price rises by the big six energy companies. It is good to join this cross-party platform to urge the Government to do something to stop those companies ripping their customers off. The companies have been getting away with it for far too long.
My right hon. Friend has campaigned for fair energy prices for the past six years. If dogged determination were enough to secure victory, it would have paid off long before now, but very little has changed during that time, as we have heard. Despite talking big on energy reform, the Government have failed to act where the market is failing. They quietly dropped a promise made by the Prime Minister in 2012 to force companies to switch customers to their lowest tariff; and, despite the rhetoric about cutting the green crap, they failed to ensure that the reductions they made to environmental and other obligations resulted in lower energy bills.
Ofgem’s capping of prices for customers on prepayment meters on the recommendation of the Competition and Markets Authority is welcome, but I agree that we need action for all standard variable tariff customers. In recent weeks, npower and SSE have raised their electricity prices by an eye-watering 15%, and another three of the large companies have increased their bills by nearly 10% on dual fuel standard variable tariffs. That is despite Ofgem saying that it saw no reason for price increases, given that wholesale prices are only just starting to increase from a low base. It has not gone unnoticed that many of those rises have been piled on to electricity, no doubt to ensure that as people start turning their heating off, bills remain high over the summer.
As has been said, it is grotesquely unfair that the current structure penalises the most long-standing and loyal customers, as well as the most vulnerable. The difference between a company’s cheapest tariffs and its SVTs is almost £200, and customers on SVTs pay 11% more for their electricity and 15% more for their gas than customers on other tariffs. In 2015, consumers overpaid by a staggering £2 billion; The Observer estimated that that was the equivalent of a halfpenny rise on income tax. With 70% of big six customers on SVTs, these tariffs are clearly helping to support record profits; the profits of the big six increased tenfold between 2007 and 2013.
As we have heard, rising energy prices are putting a real strain on household budgets and hitting the poorest households, which are far less likely than others to switch, particularly hard. Energy bills now account for 10% of spending in the poorest households, compared with just 5.5% in 2004. Citizens Advice estimates that 2 million low-income families pay £141 extra every year.
I want to talk for a moment about my own constituency and the city of Bristol, which I am proud to represent. We have some of the worst incidence of fuel poverty in England. People always think of Bristol as an affluent place, but, as I am sure the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare will confirm, the fact that parts of a city or town are thriving does not mean that people in other parts of it are not living in poverty. More than 25,000 people in Bristol—13% of the city—are living in fuel poverty, against a national average of just under 10%. Variations within the city are particularly stark. In some neighbourhoods, nearly a quarter—more than 23%—of households are in fuel poverty. Those areas are within a mile of neighbourhoods in which the figure is only 5%. Local food banks increasingly have to help people who self-disconnect or who ration their energy use, as well as their food consumption, to save money. People too often have to choose between heating and eating—fuel or food—as we have heard.
For those who suffer from long-term health conditions, living in a cold home can cause considerable suffering and even early death. Last year in my constituency there were 30 excess winter deaths, of which around a third are estimated to have been caused simply by cold homes. Over the years, I have heard some shocking stories from constituents. I was contacted a while ago by one woman whose husband was extremely ill. Their cold home was not only making her husband’s health condition worse, but denying them the most basic of comforts. In her email to me, she said,
“all we would like is to be warm in our home”.
I do not think that that is too much for anyone to ask in this day and age.
Other MPs will have in their localities the new breed of municipal energy providers, which provide a very different offer from that of the big six, with fairer rates and cleaner energy. Bristol Energy was set up fairly recently by Bristol City Council. Bristol Energy is a national company, so anyone can switch to it, but there is a special tariff for people with a Bristol postcode. It was set up to help local people, as well as people from outside the city who want to join in, to pay less for their energy and to provide a new way to raise funds for the city, as all the profits will be reinvested back into Bristol. Its standard variable tariff is significantly cheaper than that of the big six—on average, £105 cheaper—and it keeps its fixed deals fair, too. It is currently trialling a warm homes plus tariff, to bring households in Bristol out of fuel poverty. This non-profit-making tariff is only available by referral, and Bristol Energy is working with the citizens advice bureau, the council and Bristol’s Centre for Sustainable Energy on those referrals. It is looking for 1,000 people to put on this tariff to start with, limited to a year, to help lift them out of fuel poverty. As I have said, the profits will be invested back into the city. In the longer term, we want to be really ambitious in tying energy in with the waste sector. I was told on one visit to a waste plant on the outskirts of the city that it is reckoned that Bristol’s waste alone could generate enough energy to heat 250,000 homes. That has absolutely to be the way forward: a local solution to a local problem.
However welcome new entrants such as Bristol Energy are to the energy market, they seem to have had little impact so far in putting pressure on the big six to reduce their prices. Despite better practices by some companies, pushing people to switch or telling them that that option is available is clearly not enough. Ann Robinson, an independent energy expert, said in The Observer at the weekend:
“Although I believe in competition—because when it works it can result in fairer prices—we have to face the fact that not everyone can and will engage in the market.”
A spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has said that Ministers are ready to act when the market is failing. Those words are encouraging, but it is absolutely clear that the market is failing for the majority of people. I am not sure when the Department will decide that it is time to act, but if it had not been made before this debate, the case has certainly been made very powerfully on both sides of the Chamber today that the market is failing and it is now time for the Government to act.
Just 15% of households are regular switchers, and 66% of the remainder are customers who have never switched supplier—the so-called sticky 66%. As proposed in the motion, we need an approach that keeps open the option of full switching, but ensures the sticky customer does not become disadvantaged by remaining on an uncompetitive tariff. I very much support the proposals from Labour’s Front-Bench team and my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for tariff reform, which is fairer and much more transparent.
Much greater transparency—as a first step, the inclusion of a breakdown of costs behind each of the tariffs, as well as the wholesale energy and transmission costs, and add-ons, including green energy—with an improved annual renewal notice along the lines of motor insurance, would encourage more switching, but I believe we need to go further still. We also need some kind of price controls for those on standard variable tariffs, and I urge the Government to pick up my right hon. Friend’s proposals for capping these tariffs.
My concern is that if we wait for the completion of the consultation on the Green Paper on when the Government should intervene in markets—it is due in the spring—it will be too late to affect energy prices next winter, and people will again suffer from having to pay above the odds with extortionate energy bills. The Observer said in an editorial:
“The government must reinstate price regulation until there is convincing evidence that market forces will provide value for consumers rather than unfairly enriching corporate profits.”
Consumers have been exploited for too long, and it is now time for the Government to act.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to be a co-sponsor of this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and, indeed, the Backbench Business Committee, for enabling it to take place. As has been pointed out—this is one of the disadvantages of speaking so far down the list—this debate is long overdue. Ultimately, it is a debate about how we can empower consumers, as they too often face injustice in relation to energy prices.
We know that average annual domestic gas and electricity bills in Scotland increased by up to 114% and 50% respectively between 2004 and 2015, but the price that consumers pay varies, depending on their method of payment, and the consumer does not always have control over their method of payment. On average, electricity and gas consumers across Scotland using standard credit and prepayment meters face bills that are approximately 10% higher than for those able to use direct debit. The cost of a unit of gas is similar across Scotland and the rest of the British energy market for domestic consumers, but the unit price of electricity differs considerably within Scotland. Consumers in the north of Scotland pay on average between 8% and 9% more per kilowatt-hour of electricity, depending on payment type, than in the rest of Britain.
The big six energy companies supply gas and electricity to over 50 million homes, with a market share of 85% of UK domestic customers. Last year, the Competition and Markets Authority completed a two-year inquiry into the energy market, and the hope is that costs can be driven down by increasing competition between suppliers and helping more customers to switch to better deals. However, as we have heard, there is a problem. The Competition and Markets Authority has found that the
“vast majority of people don’t switch providers”,
and, even worse, that 70% of all big six customers are on the default standard variable tariff, which means that 16 million homes are paying more for their energy than they should. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare pointed out, loyalty is treated as something to be exploited, rather than rewarded. The premium that standard variable tariff consumers pay over those who switch has tended to increase over time. In 2008, it was less than £100 each year, but by mid-2015 it stood at £330, and it currently stands at about £230. In all that time, rates of switching are no higher, so clearly, as the motion sets out, the way to protect consumers cannot be done simply by encouraging them to switch suppliers; much more is required.
Consumers on standard variable tariffs are much more likely to be older, disabled, on low incomes, living in rented accommodation and without internet access. Those on standard variable tariffs did not see their bills fall by much when the cost of providing energy dropped in 2014-15. Such savings as were available were passed on only to consumers who were active switchers. Not all consumers can engage in the switching process, so clearly suppliers need to do more to ensure that these customers are not trapped in poor deals.
The existing market provides scope for households to save money on their energy bills by switching, but a low level of consumer engagement in the market still persists. Indeed, the Competition and Markets Authority found in its investigations that one of the main issues is
“a lack of engagement in the markets on the part of many customers which suppliers are able to exploit by charging high prices.”
Some 34% of domestic energy customers had never considered switching supplier, with 56% saying they did not know if it was possible or did not know if they had done so in the past. In the context of this debate, I want to draw attention to one issue of concern. Switching can take up to 21 days, which is a considerable period. A consumer thinking about switching may be concerned or fear that something will go wrong during that extended period, for which I do not believe there is sufficient justification.
One result is that energy is becoming increasingly unaffordable for consumers. Between 2004 and 2014, average annual domestic gas prices rose by about 125% in real terms. Significantly, consumers who are engaged in the market are typically higher income earners who have access to both a mains gas supply and the internet, so they can carry out comparison shopping much more easily, and they can of course pay by direct debit. This is yet more evidence that the way to protect consumers is not simply to encourage them to switch suppliers.
Energy efficiency measures are important, as we have heard. The Scottish Government have done a lot of work on that, and they are driving down fuel poverty, although it still remains stubbornly high. Ultimately and fundamentally, however, we need effective regulation of the retail energy market, and we need to work collaboratively with energy suppliers to explore ways of helping low-income households with their energy bills. We need a market that works equally well for all energy consumers, regardless of where they are on the income scale.
It will be important to monitor closely the widespread review that Ofgem is currently undertaking of its consumer regulation framework. Given what we have heard today, there must be a case for the safeguard tariff—the limit on the amount prepayment customers are charged—to be expanded to include consumers on the standard variable tariff who are eligible for the warm home discount on a credit meter. It is also important for the Government to set targets for suppliers to reduce significantly by 2020 the number of customers on standard variable tariffs. If suppliers cannot or do not meet these targets, consideration must be given to broadening the safeguard tariff to protect other standard variable tariff customers. I would very much like the Minister to address these issues today.
Just because consumers, who very often are vulnerable, are not able to negotiate the process of switching does not mean they should be left at the mercy of a market that punishes them for it. Energy is an essential utility and much more must be done to protect those who are currently very poorly served and overcharged. I think we all agree that doing nothing is not an option. I hope the Minister addresses the concerns that I and others have raised today, and reassures the House that he is protecting consumers and putting energy companies on notice that things cannot and must not continue in the same way as they have been.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).
Bradford is a proud city, but it faces its share of challenges. Many in Bradford endure poverty despite being in paid work. In-work poverty is rife. Despite working long hours week-in, week-out, pay-packets simply do not meet the basic necessities. One such basic necessity is how to pay gas and electricity bills when they drop on to the doormat. To my mind, that is what today’s debate is all about.
As energy prices soar and wages continue to stagnate, hard-pressed families and those on low incomes are faced with desperate choices. What should they pay first: their rent or their electricity bill? What is more important: their weekly food shop or their gas bill? What is better for their family: a warm home or food on their kitchen table? Without doubt, soaring energy prices touch every single person in this country, but the poorest suffer disproportionately.
What is clear is that the wider energy market is in chaos. For how many hours have coal-fired power stations provided electricity to the grid this winter? Previously, coal provided 12 terawatt hours a year. How many terawatts has coal produced in the last year? Is it not the case that coal stations produce more emissions on lower loads? How will the current capacity market mechanism guarantee new power stations? Is the bid price not too low? The market is failing consumers and failing to secure the nation’s energy future.
It is also clear that the energy sector is no longer operating in the interests of our constituents. All the big six energy companies—except British Gas, to its credit—have recently announced price hikes. Competition is supposed to be there to drive down costs and lower prices. The big six enjoy a near monopoly position—a huge 85% market share. When prices are hiked within days of each other, that is strong evidence the market is broken. The Government cannot continue to argue that competition in the energy sector is the key to lower bills. The big six are failing to get ordinary families and hard-pressed individuals on to their cheapest tariff. For 20 million households to be stranded on default tariffs is a scandal. The mantra about helping customers—my constituents—on to the cheapest tariffs is little more than spin. Customers could be paying an additional £230 each year. That is a huge sum when family budgets are under such pressure.
In Bradford, I am fortunate that my local council is working to tackle fuel poverty, but it cannot control the big six energy companies. That is solely within the gift of the Government. In 2015, Bradford Council adopted a fuel poverty framework for action. This, devised in partnership with the respected National Energy Action, undertook a detailed analysis of the scale of fuel poverty in Bradford. The study discovered that although in recent years homes in Bradford have benefited from some 50,000 energy efficiency measures—from loft insulation to new boilers—one in eight households continue to suffer fuel poverty. That remains the case today.
Bradford is a city blessed with a long and rich history, but its historical and industrial past means that a substantial proportion of its housing is very old. Nearly 40% of the city’s housing stock was built before 1919, which is considerably above the national average of nearly 25%. A further 21% of the city’s housing stock was built between 1919 and 1944. These homes are classified as hard to treat, as they are stone-built or feature irregular constructions. In many other towns and cities throughout the country, a family faced with soaring energy prices might consider improving the energy efficiency of their home—if, of course, they could afford it. In Bradford, however, the prevalence of hard-to-treat homes means energy efficiency schemes are neither quick nor affordable. Measures are complex and expensive. The prospect of a hard-pressed family meeting the expense of a complex scheme is ever more unlikely in light of the Government’s policies.
The plight of families is especially desperate in the private rented sector in Bradford. As families have been priced out of the housing market, many have found themselves in rented accommodation that has seen little investment for many years. The number of households in the private rented sector in Bradford has rocketed from 17,500 households in 2001 to nearly 40,000 in 2015. It now accounts for over 18% of the total housing stock.
I recognise that the Government are taking steps to tackle fuel poverty in the private rented sector. Regrettably, the measures announced by the Government lack ambition. The legal minimum requirement in the private rented sector has been set at “E”. This represents the average rating for the country’s housing stock. An ambitious Government would have set the legal minimum much higher. If the Government had done so, an average family in private rented accommodation could have looked forward to a warmer home and saved hundreds of pounds every year.
The damage wreaked by fuel poverty is not limited to people’s finances. A cold home severely damages the health and wellbeing of my constituents. Evidence proves that living in a cold home aggravates a range of health problems, including circulatory conditions, cardiovascular disease and mental health. In extreme circumstances, living in a cold home leads to premature death during the winter months. To my shock, the rate of premature death in Bradford for the period 2010 to 2013 was over 22%. That is 5% higher than for the Yorkshire and Humber region, and for England as a whole. People are literally paying for fuel poverty with their lives.
This situation must not go on. The Government must take action to tackle fuel poverty. The double whammy of soaring energy costs and cuts to energy efficiency schemes is pushing hard-pressed families in Bradford close to the edge. For many families, the desperate choice is between a warm home and food on the table. That is unacceptable in this day and age.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I would like to thank every single hon. Member for their contribution today. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for bringing the issue of energy prices and the treatment of consumers to the House, via the Backbench Business Committee.
The big six have a lot to answer for. Rewarding long-term and loyal customers with the highest tariffs is simply appalling. Many of these individuals are elderly, vulnerable or disabled, have learning disabilities or mental health problems and can least afford them. When my own grandmother was transferred to hospital in her 90s, we examined the tariff she was paying for. It was about two times higher than what we were paying. Pensioners have a tight budget and may be frail and very elderly. They rely on heating to prevent pneumonia. How can these companies sleep at night?
There has been a great deal of talk about switching, and why we do not do it more. I hope I am not the only person who has been bamboozled by energy tariffs. I have a doctorate, but I find the system absolutely incomprehensible and the tariffs incomparable. I have tried on a number of occasions to compare day rates, night rates and standard daily charges, but without a PhD in mathematics, it is all but impossible. On two occasions I switched rates to save money, and then found that my bill had increased. I cannot help thinking that the system has been made over-complex for people on purpose.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has suggested a relative energy cap to help those who are currently being mercilessly ripped off. That proposal is apparently supported by a number of competitor brands, and I urge the Minister to consider it. It may be an interim solution, as has been said, but it will save customers—our constituents—money. Our focus should, indeed must, be on them. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned the exorbitant price differential if consumers make the wrong decision, pointing out that the big six often do not act in the interests of customers.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Over the years the House has had many debates about the big six, but is it not time for a proper inquiry into how they actually operate? It seems to me that they are a cartel that fixes prices most of the time, and at the end of the day the hon. Lady’s constituents and mine suffer as a result.
Dr Cameron
That is an important point. It has been made clear repeatedly today that many Members feel that there is a monopoly, and that consumers must be put at the heart of energy pricing. The hon. Member for Hartlepool described the difficulties that people have experienced in switching suppliers, and pointed out that, while energy costs have fallen, prices have been hiked. That in itself is an absolute disgrace.
Mention has been made of smart meters, which, although they help individuals to monitor energy usage, appear to place responsibility on consumers, as though they were using too much, when in fact they are paying too much. Smart meters are not the sole answer, and companies must step up and take responsibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has asked me to point out that fuel poverty rates in the Western Isles are higher than those in any other local authority area in Scotland. The announcement from SSE that it will increase energy prices by 14.9% is a huge blow to his constituents. What measures will the Government take to address the issues that are being faced exponentially by those in island and rural communities?
The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) said that “just about managing” families were being most affected, and that the Government were not standing up for their rights. She also rightly drew attention to the impact of fuel poverty. In an excellent speech, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) discussed the levels of dissatisfaction among customers throughout the United Kingdom, which she said should ring alarm bells for the Government. She emphasised that those who were struggling to pay were paying the most, and that, meanwhile, company profits were increasing. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) spoke of Bristol Energy’s contribution to fair pricing locally, and the level of local fuel poverty. She was right to highlight her constituency concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) described the situation in Scotland, particularly in rural and northern areas. She said that it could take 21 days to change supplier, which in itself was putting people off—the process is inflated. She called for an extension of the safeguard tariff, and said that the Government should consider the need for reductions in the percentage of consumers on the standard tariff within a set time frame. There are rural areas in my constituency that are still off the grid. Much more needs to be done to support rural communities that have little choice when it comes to costs and types of energy. I urge the Minister to address that, because those communities are among the worst affected by price changes. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) spoke of soaring energy prices, and said that the poorest suffered disproportionately.
As for Scottish Government policy, a draft Scottish energy strategy is now open for consultation, and I encourage those who are interested to give their opinions. The Scottish Government remain committed to putting consumers at the heart of their policy, and to their renewables targets. I urge the Minister to act, because we do not need a postcode lottery. Everything that we have heard today makes clear that the energy sector needs reform and needs it now, and that that reform must be made to serve customers rather than itself.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
We have had an excellent and powerful debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing it. I know there were a number of problems with the televising of the pitch for it, but as it turned out the pitch was successful, and the wisdom of the Backbench Business Committee has been borne out by the powerful contributions made today by my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins).
I intend to comment specifically on what Members have said today, but I think we can agree that they all emphasised that the present energy market is broken and no longer doing its best for customers, who, after all, are at the heart of energy generation and supply. We have found ourselves in rather an odd position, in that we have not been discussing—as we frequently do in the Chamber—the plight of a persecuted minority and what we might do about it; instead, we have been discussing the plight of a persecuted majority and what we might do about it. If that does not emphasise the point that Members have been making about the brokenness of the market, I do not know what does.
We have seen eye-watering price increases lately. A number of companies have raised the price of dual fuel by 10%, and there have been double-figure increases in electricity bills from others. The companies justify their increases on the basis of a combination of wholesale prices and the Government’s environmental measures, and even—as we have heard recently—the impact of smart meters. The problem is that we have no easy way of assessing the extent to which those claims are justified. However, as was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, we need to lay one canard to rest, and that is the suggestion that price rises are a result of low-carbon levies. They are not. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, the recent report from the Committee on Climate Change indicated that, overall, only 9% of bills result from Government energy measures. Indeed, not only are those energy measures not a huge part of the overall bill, but they will contribute to decreasing bills in the future by decreasing demand, by increasing energy efficiency, and, in terms of renewable energy, by changing the merit order of energy supply so that eventually the wholesale price of energy can be driven down over a period.
Mr Iain Wright
What does my hon. Friend think about the fact that E.ON UK last week justified its dual fuel price increase by saying:
“It is due mainly”—
we should think about that word—
“to the rise in non-energy parts of the bill such as social and environmental schemes which support renewable energy and help customers use less energy”?
Yet today it has announced big rises in profits, primarily owing to lower costs in conjunction with Government-mandated energy efficiency measures. They want to have their cake and eat it.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; they do want to have their cake and eat it. The problem is that we are not sure where the cake is and how we can work out which bits of the cake come from which source, because the whole energy market as it stands is non-transparent. Transparency is central to being able to judge whether such price rises are justified. The transactions that the energy companies undertake in order to trade, to hedge their trading, and to bring the costs of wholesale into the retail market are almost wholly opaque, and they continue to be so.
In addition, as we have heard this afternoon, the persecuted majority get hit all ways; they are hit by the price rises and hit by paying for the most expensive tariffs in the company roster—and in some cases, up to 90% of the customers of those companies are paying for the most expensive tariffs. So not only should we not speak about standard variable tariff customers as if they are an endangered minority, because they are in fact an endangered majority, but we must stop suggesting that it is somehow their fault that they have not switched and as if they are responsible for not switching. If we look at the history that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley pointed out, we see a correlation between the areas from which modern energy companies originated and their sticky customer base. In fact, in a number of instances, a large proportion of those sticky customers were inherited when the companies were privatised and have stayed with them ever since. One might think that that shows admirable loyalty to those companies, and that to treat those customers in the way we have heard about this afternoon is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Such behaviour produces a huge base of customers that is advantageous to energy companies, not to put too fine a point on it. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said, those customers will pay more for less year after year, they will not desert the company as a result, and they can be relied on to be milked to the benefit of the company’s finances. That points to the problem with the solution to this issue that the Government and the Competition and Markets Authority have been pursuing, which is sort of to blame those sticky customers for the plight they find themselves in and say, “Well, if only you’d switched, everything would be okay.” Indeed, that idea is at the heart of the recent CMA report on the energy market: “Why don’t all these sticky customers switch? If they don’t, how can we poke and prod them until they do? If we keep prodding and poking them and they still do not switch, we can get other companies in to poke and prod them a bit more and then they might switch.” That is not a satisfactory final remedy, given the scale, the nature and the brokenness of the market.
However, we should not therefore be surprised to read in the principles attached to the provisional remedies that the CMA put forward—the principles on which it operated the recent inquiry—the following statement:
“It is through customers shopping around and making choices between the offerings of rival suppliers that the benefits of competition emerge.”
That is what it thought it was doing through the inquiry.
The CMA has come up with the idea of putting a cap on tariffs for customers on prepaid meters, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central, who has been instrumental in securing that through her campaigning on the status of those on prepaid meters and the excess sums they were paying. However, although that cap idea is welcome, it does not do very much for the overall issue. We know that those sticky customers are not going to switch in a hurry and that the energy companies know that; we know that there is no evidence that companies are trembling at the thought of their customers switching and are trimming their rises accordingly. As we have heard this afternoon, the evidence from reports is that switching is a substantial occupation for some, but not for most. Switching figures in total often conceal a churn of switching between companies, often ending back in the same place, and multiple switching by a proactive few, but none by most.
So we have almost a perfect storm in our markets. Prices are spiralling. Ofgem said about recent price rises that it did not
“see any case for significant price increases where suppliers have bought energy well in advance.”
Customers were stuck in the middle of that spiral, however, and in most instances were paying out on disadvantageous tariffs, to boot. So, in the customers’ interest, we need to get a grip on that problem urgently.
We have heard this afternoon that getting that grip has been promised on a number of occasions. We heard that the Prime Minister suggested that everyone should be put on the lowest tariff. That has disappeared. We heard more recently Ministers saying that companies are in the last-chance saloon and something has to happen, but very little has actually taken place. That is despite the fact that, as Members have mentioned, it is plain that customers have been overcharged for a long period by energy companies, with the CMA itself estimating a sum of almost £2 billion by 2015.
So a regulated price cap within which competition could take place is a good idea. I recognise, however, that a price cap has to be considered within the context of the fact that there will be real pressures on costs. It is true that, on occasions, wholesale markets go up, and the energy companies will have to absorb that through price increases. So a cap that allows that arrangement to take place, but within which work can be done to ensure that competition remains, is a good starting idea, as is the idea that sticky customers should, after a certain period, be taken into protected tariffs, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley suggested, or on to the lowest tariff that a company offers. That is one way of starting to take action in relation to sticky customers.
I believe that there is rather more to the present dysfunction of the energy market than just the question of sticky customers, however. Ofgem said recently that there was not a case for significant price rises when suppliers had bought energy well in advance. Perhaps we need to deconstruct that sentence. It is not clear whether Ofgem was referring to companies buying wisely in advance or a long time in advance. Either way, the injunction is sound. Long-term buying strategies and smart hedging mean that price rises should not be spiking in the way that they all too often do, but we do not know what companies are actually up to when they are buying.
We do not know what is happening as far as energy company trades are concerned. For example, 95% of trades by wholesale energy companies are over the counter and we cannot see what they consist of. We do not know the extent to which energy companies that are vertically integrated effectively trade with themselves, or the extent to which this reflects fair trade in the market in forward trading. Surely we need to open up the market to full transparency, not just day-ahead but right along the curve, so that we know what is going on and we can act to prevent the abuses of trading positions that take place to the advantage of companies’ resources but to the disadvantage of customers.
John Penrose
I am sure that transparency is a sensible and worthwhile thing to aim for, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it does not matter terribly much from a consumer’s point of view, because consumers do not care whether their supplier has a good hedging strategy or a bad one? That is up to the supplier to deal with and to manage. Some will get it right and some will get it wrong, but if they get it wrong, it should hit their managers’ bonuses and their shareholders’ returns rather than the price that the consumer eventually pays. We might want to understand this, but we should not seek to use it as a justification for high or low prices. Ultimately we should be tougher on the suppliers than that.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the relationship of the customer to those transactions. However, with vertical integration, those transactions could cause money that should go to the customer to be siphoned off into different areas as a result of those opaque trades, and that is important to the customer in the long term. That is why we need full transparency in all those market trade arrangements.
Caroline Flint
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the vertically integrated nature of these companies. In this dark, dark world of electricity generation and supply, is it not the case that the big six generate energy, sell it to themselves and then sell it on to us? That not only impacts on the fairness of pricing but excludes others, including independent generators and retailers, from coming into the market to put downward pressure on prices.
Dr Whitehead
My right hon. Friend’s point is spot on. It demonstrates the need to understand a lot more about how those trades work, who is doing what to whom and, sometimes, who is doing what to themselves. This is a complicated picture, involving trading right up to closure and trading in times of scarcity. There has been a suggestion that traders can pull back on their generation in order to trade when the generation becomes more scarce in order to get more money. The lack of accountability in those companies and the opacity of the system mean that we are badly served in regard to knowing what money goes where and who is benefiting from it, and what is happening to the customer in the end.
We need to open up the market to full transparency but we need to go still further and introduce a pool system of trading, so that all trades into the pool and all trades out of it are conducted transparently and, most importantly, on a level playing field for all suppliers. This works in other European countries—Scandinavia has the Nord Pool, for example—so why can it not work here? That does not mean that companies cannot make money. As Ofgem says, if companies have a good purchasing and hedging strategy, they can make money. What they will not be able to do is pass benefits on to themselves that otherwise ought to go to the customer.
We need urgent action, which is perhaps a little ironic. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley will recall that we have between us been through several Bills, now Acts, and reforms that have passed through the House under the heading of energy market reform. We have seen a great deal of reform, but we certainly have not seen reform of the energy market in all that time. It is time that we got serious about reform of how the energy market works, of its opacity, and of how it does not serve sticky customers properly, victimising and demonising the majority of them. We need urgent action on that. Otherwise, we will be condemned to the same old cycle of price rises, muttering, remedies being tossed around, commissions being engaged, remedies gathering dust on shelves, and then another round of price rises. I commend the motion, but it should herald the start of a serious look at how the whole market works and how the customer can finally be brought into its centre. It is a fine start, but we need to follow it through to the end.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
This is the second debate in which I have had the pleasure of speaking this week, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, as the fellow said, truly you’re getting to be a habit with me, and I thoroughly welcome that.
Jesse Norman
Let that be noted in the record. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on fighting his way through the dragons of dragons’ den and, with his colleagues, securing the booty of this debate, which I greatly welcome. Whatever else its effect might be, it sends a powerful signal about the feelings of not only the Members who have spoken so well today but Members up and down the country on the issues that have been described. I will talk about those issues and the policy and will try to weave in my responses to the speeches during the course of my comments.
The Government are firmly focused on getting the best deal for energy consumers and on ensuring that the market works for everyone. We absolutely expect energy companies to treat all their customers fairly. We therefore continue to be concerned about price rises that will hit millions of people already paying more than they need to. It is not acceptable that five of the largest suppliers are increasing their standard variable prices, hitting customers hard in the pocket when they are already paying more than necessary. It must be noted that wholesale prices, which account for about half of an average bill, are still lower than in 2014. This is a moment not for crisis, but for sober reflection.
Prices are not the same as bills. The recent report from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee reminded us that electricity bills have risen little over the past 25 years, which is due to insulation, appliance improvement and other things. Prices are not the same as bills, but that is not to say that prices are not important and that price rises are not a matter for concern.
Caroline Flint
It is important that we have a candid, open and honest discussion. The Minister makes a good point about prices versus bills, because the amount of energy that we use has gone down significantly over the past 10 years. Is he as concerned as I am that the big six might be keeping their tariffs unwelcomely high because they are having to compensate for the fact that we are using less energy?
Jesse Norman
It is an interesting suggestion that the changes may have cushioned the effect of price rises in the way the right hon. Lady describes. I thank her for that thought, and I would certainly like to give it some reflection.
John Penrose
Further to the intervention of my co-sponsor, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the point about prices versus bills is an important one. Does the Minister agree that if prices stay unfairly or unnecessarily high, one of the Government’s other main goals of improving overall productivity across the economy—energy bills are a vital and central part of the cost base for most businesses—will be much harder to achieve? We can do more with less if we are more efficient in our energy sector.
Jesse Norman
This is really a debate about retail energy prices. The problems are less marked in many areas of the business market, but it is undoubtedly true that business bills must be kept as low as possible to encourage productivity. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have undertaken several steps precisely to achieve that.
Colleagues on both sides of the House have noted that, with suppliers buying their energy up to two years in advance, suppliers should be protected from recent fluctuations in the wholesale energy price. Some suppliers have chosen to act differently by freezing standard variable prices through winter and beyond, which alone shows that price rises are not inevitable. It is a fact that the majority of customers—around 66%—are on standard variable tariffs and continue to pay considerably more than customers on fixed-term deals.
The Competition and Markets Authority highlighted that such customers have been losing out by an estimated £1.4 billion a year—that figure is disputed—over the past few years. There have been persistently high differentials between the cheapest fixed deals and standard variable tariffs. The latest published Ofgem data show the differential to be some £200. There has been good focus today on fuel poverty, as there was the other night, and it is those who can least afford it who are most likely to lose out. Households with low incomes, people with low qualifications, those in the rented sector and those over 65 are more likely to lose out than others. The recent price rises serve only to underline the fact that the majority of consumers are paying more than they need to pay.
What can be done about it? The House widely recognises that, in many markets, effective competition drives down prices, promotes innovation and assists improvement in customer services. The Government have worked hard with Ofgem to try to improve competition. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) mentioned “Groundhog Day,” possibly inadvertently casting herself in the role of Andie MacDowell, which is certainly how I see her. It is not fair to say that we are in “Groundhog Day” because there has been some progress. Members rightly point to the fact that there are now more than 50 energy suppliers in the domestic market, up from 13 in 2010, and of course there are potential new entrants, including local authorities, waiting in the wings—we welcome them to the market. Independent suppliers now have more than 18% of the dual-fuel market, up from less than 1% seven years ago.
I was pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who mentioned Bristol Energy and the social conscience it brings to energy supply, which is typical of a tier of new and wider-ranging suppliers, including not-for-profit suppliers, that have entered the market—there are housing providers, too. Smaller suppliers are leading the way in using smart, pre-pay and other technologies to support customers in finding the best deal using their mobile phone.
We had a good discussion on switching, and it has been rightly noted that an increasing number of households are switching their energy supplier. There were some 7.8 million energy account switches last year, an increase of 28% on the previous year. Switching is putting increasing competitive pressure on the big six—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare noted, there is a great deal of churn—but it is still only 15.8% of gas and electricity customers, so we are a long way from a position where anyone should feel that a large number of people are actively availing themselves of the opportunity to switch, as one might expect in a more competitive market.
For too long, too many customers have been left on poor-value deals. At the end of last year, the Government announced new measures to increase transparency for consumers. I welcome the point the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) made about transparency, and he is right: several studies have found that the markets are less transparent here in many different ways than one might like. An effort was made to begin to crack that and increase transparency for consumers, including through the publication of an energy supplier league table by Ofgem, which was designed to shine a light on the most expensive standard variable tariffs.
We know that some consumers worry that switching supplier may be difficult and time-consuming. This is not just an economic matter; it is also a cultural matter. We must recognise that and not allow purely economic analysis to take over. We are also taking forward proposals to mandate Midata in the energy sector, which should also have an effect. Midata will allow consumers to get hold of their energy data electronically and use them to find the best deal. It will make the switching process quicker, easier and more accurate, and, with luck, it will allow people to switch using tablets and smartphone applications more easily. We are very keen that the benefits of this are not restricted, in any sense, to the tech savvy, but are available to anyone who owns a mobile phone at the very least. We will therefore work with industry, switching companies and consumer groups to ensure that all consumers can access and use their data to switch.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) rightly mentioned the time it takes to switch supplier. All I would say is that it used to take five weeks and the Government are working with Ofgem to get it down now to 21 days. Once we have done that, we will work to push it down to where it should be, which is at 24 hours. That will be a major improvement to our system.
There was some discussion about customer service, where some improvement has been made. The latest Ofgem data show that suppliers received more than 3 million fewer customer complaints in 2016 than in 2014, but as there were still 3.5 million complaints that is not saying much and they still have a long way to go. We are working with Ofgem and the ombudsman to identify and fix systemic issues, which damage customer service. As the House will know, an Ofgem review last year resulted in increased communication between Ofgem, the ombudsman and Citizens Advice, an organisation I greatly esteem, as I know many colleagues do. It is working on developing a rating system that will help customers to see at a glance how their energy suppliers are performing.
As Members noted, the CMA had some positive things to report after concluding its two-year energy market investigation. It found that wholesale energy markets and the retail market for larger businesses are working well, but for domestic energy suppliers the report is a wake-up call. It is important to note that the CMA’s report was not unequivocal in every sense, and it has been contested; I note a letter from some senior energy regulators who raised the question of whether it is true to see detriment in the way the CMA has. It is important to acknowledge that fact. However, the CMA’s position was clear: consumers should be able to trust energy companies and to know that they are getting a good deal. The CMA found that a lack of competition meant that about 70% of big six customers remained on their supplier’s most expensive tariff despite the savings they could make by moving to another tariff. We have encouraged, and Ofgem is introducing, a prepayment meter cap, which will protect 4 million households across Britain from the beginning of next month.
We are determined to go further and, as the House will know, we have a consumer Green Paper in prospect, which will examine specific sectors. We will respond sooner rather than later, and separately, to the CMA energy market report. Our Green Paper will examine markets that are not working fairly for consumers. In general, consumers in this country enjoy strong protections and an effective regime which help them get the best deal, but where those markets are not doing their job—where competition is not effective—the Government will look to intervene to improve competition and to strengthen outcomes.
The Green Paper will complement and sit within the Government’s industrial strategy to build on the work to deliver an economy that, as I have described, works for everyone. We announced some proposals in the Budget, including the ending of the cycle of subscription traps, the shortening and simplification of small print, and the introduction of new powers to impose fines on companies that mistreat customers. The Green Paper will provide more detail on those proposals.
Let me round up my speech with a couple of reflections on some of the helpful comments that were made in Members’ speeches. I was intrigued to notice that, according to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), it is now Labour policy to renationalise the big six companies. I would welcome further clarification on that, together with an explanation of how much it would cost and how it would be funded. That was an interesting contribution.
I very much congratulate and thank my shadow, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, for recognising the complexity of the problem we face. He is certainly right to focus on transparency. In recognition of that, I assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare that the Government will reflect on such contributions. The Government’s record on intervening in electricity and energy markets is not absolutely unblemished. On several occasions, changes have been made, only for them to have to be unwound because it turned out that they were contrary to competitive pricing or innovation. That is worth recognising.
Caroline Flint
I listened positively to what the Minister said about the Government being prepared to intervene when a market is not working. I remind him that the Confederation of British Industry refers to the energy market as a managed market, because energy is an essential-to-life product; it really is set apart from the products that we discussed earlier, such as toothpaste, that we buy every day. I urge the Minister to stand up for what Governments should do, which is set the framework in which markets operate.
Jesse Norman
The right hon. Lady’s point is well taken. One does not need to have read far into “The Wealth of Nations” to know that markets are most effective not only when they are as deep as possible—when the benefits of specialisation and the division of labour, and therefore value generation, can be realised—but when they are supported by a strong state and a strong system of justice and enforcement. That is absolutely the tone of our approach to the market in this case.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for a thoughtful and interesting debate that has covered a great deal of ground in a limited time. As the House will know, the Government are acting to make switching easier and quicker. We are rolling out smart meters and we are continuing to help the vulnerable and those in low-income households with their energy bills. The CMA did important work to highlight how much consumers are currently losing out, and we recognise that the recent price rises underline the fact that the majority of consumers are paying more, it appears, than they need to. We believe that current practice is not acceptable, and we will set out proposals to address the issues shortly.
John Penrose
I repeat my thanks, not only to my co-sponsors, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), but to everybody else who took part in the debate, which has been full of passion and determination. This issue has been around for far too long and, in spite of the best efforts of successive Governments, it has not got better sufficiently quickly, so there is clearly further to travel.
I am very reassured by the direction of travel that the Minister has just laid out. I particularly welcome his comments about rolling out Midata, as it should solve many of the problems with data access, which are obstacles to switching. However, it has been around for six years, and we are still waiting for its roll out—it is rather like waiting for Godot. We anticipate and we hope that it will arrive very shortly. It is good to hear that there is fresh impetus and fresh energy behind that move.
Equally, 24-hour switching will help to drive up competition. Right the way across the political spectrum and throughout this debate, there has been recognition that progress towards a properly competitive market in which the big six suppliers feel under pressure to look after their customers has been too slow and needs to move faster. I am very reassured to hear my hon. Friend making that commitment from the Government Benches, and saying that it is not moving fast enough. The clear implication of all the speeches we have heard today is that, politically, his way is clear. When people such as me, a bone dry free marketer, and others from across the political spectrum are willing to look at a relative price cap or other measures—I am talking about the Chairman of the Select Committee and the two Opposition Front-Bench speakers, the hon. Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and for Southampton, Test—we can say quite categorically that this is an idea whose time has come. There is a thirst for action and for movement. Therefore, the Government should be bold and willing to move soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House deplores the big six energy firms’ treatment of out-of-contract energy customers on default tariffs; believes immediate action is needed to protect those consumers, and that pushing customers to start switching will not fix the problem sufficiently quickly or completely on its own; and calls on the industry, regulators and the Government to consider solutions which recognise that many people lead busy lives and that switching their energy supplier may not always be a high priority.
Adjournment
Ministerial Correction
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
According to the National Audit Office, even if the defence estate strategy was implemented in full, we would still have an £8.5 billion budget shortfall caused by the deterioration of the estate. Is the strategy fit for purpose?
Mark Lancaster
The strategy is absolutely fit for purpose, and it is based on delivering military capability. Reducing the estate by some 30% means that we have less estate to look after, and that we can reinvest some £4 billion over the next 20 years.
[Official Report, 13 March 2017, Vol. 623, c. 23.]
Letter of correction from Mark Lancaster
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson).
The correct response should have been:
Mark Lancaster
The strategy is absolutely fit for purpose, and it is based on delivering military capability. Reducing the estate by some 30% means that we have less estate to look after, and that we can reinvest some £4 billion over the next 10 years.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fourth sitting)
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “owner of the vehicle” and insert
“person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident”.
This amendment ensures that the person who was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident is liable, rather than the owner of the vehicle who may not necessarily have been in the vehicle at the time. However “person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident” can also include the owner of the vehicle if they were in charge of it at the time.
It is a pleasure, Ms Ryan, to serve under your chairmanship. We had a thorough debate this morning and perhaps took a little bit longer than we anticipated. I promise to be exceptionally quick on this amendment, which seeks to clarify who would be liable in the event that an automated vehicle is not insured, and relates not to the owner of the vehicle but to the person in charge.
I tabled the amendment because it appeared to me that we run the risk that a thief of a vehicle would get away scot-free if that vehicle was not insured; the owner would be liable, which would be a perverse outcome. We had some helpful information from Mr Howarth at our evidence session when I put that scenario to him. He correctly pointed out that the clause relates to Crown Estate vehicles, local authority vehicles, police and ambulance vehicles and so on and that the current insurance arrangements will apply to automated vehicles. That is clear, but I wonder whether the Minister considers that matters would be even clearer if the word “and” were to be inserted in clause 2(2)(b). That is not included in my amendment, which I intend to withdraw, but does the Minister think that that addition would bring further clarity to the Bill, because at first blush, I think there could be some perverse outcomes.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
The shadow Secretary of State has made it clear that he intends to withdraw the amendment, so I will be very brief and straightforward about clause 2. It mirrors the Road Traffic Act 1988, which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, allows some public bodies and the Crown itself to insure the use of conventional vehicles. In effect, they take the role of the insurer in terms of paying compensation to an innocent victim in the event of a collision.
Just as clause 2(1) places a first instance liability to pay compensation on insurers, clause 2 (2) places it on the public body or the Crown, as the hon. Gentleman has said, if they choose to self-insure a vehicle. That will ensure that innocent victims would have quick and easy access to compensation, and mirrors the arrangements under the Road Traffic Act, where a public body or the Crown self-insures a conventional vehicle.
The risk with the amendment is that it might confuse that policy intent, as the driver of the vehicle may not have sufficient financial resources to pay compensation at all, let alone in a timely manner. I know that that is not the intention of the amendment but it might be its effect.
There is also a question of fairness. One can imagine that in a large public sector body, it would be unlikely that the driver of an automated vehicle would be the person who made the decision whether or not it should be self-insured. Also, the driver may not have contributed in any way to causing the collision. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to press his amendment, but my fear about it is that it may actually confuse all the issues in respect of the relative responsibility of the body and the driver. I will certainly look at the semantic point that he raised; the addition of a single word is a modest request, and inevitably as the Bill progresses a series of minor and technical changes will be made. If his suggestion is helpful, we will of course consider it. I absolutely understood that the intent of the amendment was not to do what I said, but I think that might be its effect.
Andy McDonald
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. I have a couple of minor points for the Minister.
First, on line 5 of page 2, the first three words of subsection (1)(c) are “an insured person”. I tried to clarify this, I think with the Association of British Insurers, during our oral evidence session two days ago, but my understanding is that the insurance architecture for automated vehicles is changed by the Bill. Rather than the driver being covered by a policy of insurance, which is the existing situation, for an automated vehicle pursuant to clause 2 it will be the vehicle itself that is insured. Unlike now when negligence is alleged in a road traffic collision, the claim legally will be against the tortfeasor, the wrongdoer, not against the insurance company, although legislation from the 1930s enables the insurance company to step in at present. Under the Bill, were there to be legal proceedings, the person on the other side would be the insurance company directly, not, as now, indirectly, in lay terms.
If that is the case, there is no insured person on the scene, unless “person” in that context somehow means the insurance company as a legal person. The way the clause appears to be worded, the policy of insurance is carried not by the driver, the human being, but by the vehicle itself. In which case, if I am reading the Bill correctly, there is no insured person. I am hoping that the Minister will clarify that today or in writing to me later. I fully accept that he might say that I have misinterpreted it.
Secondly, on lines 19 and 20 of page 2, subsection (3) includes a definition of “damage”, but that definition does not include what used to be called special damages and have since 1998, I think, technically been called financial losses and expenses. For example, if someone is injured in a road traffic collision and loses pay at work as a result, that is liquidated damages, but it does not seem to be covered in the definition of damages in that subsection. That might be deliberate and might come in somewhere else, but I hope that the Minister will clarify the wording.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point about special damages. As he knows all too well, special damages in any given case could dwarf the compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, so it is a hugely important point, which I want to support. I hope that the Minister can clarify it.
Rob Marris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For someone who has to have two years off work, is earning £50,000 a year and so on, that can be a loss of money. I fully concede to the Minister that I may have overlooked something, or it might be covered somewhere else or not need to be covered, but I would find it helpful were he able to explain to the Committee why special damages, as they used to be called, are not included in the clause. Will he also explain why we have “an insured person” in subsection (1)(c)?
Mr Hayes
Welcome to the Chair, Ms Ryan. We had a fairly lengthy discussion this morning about the early parts of the Bill, but in doing so we were able to establish context and purpose. Many hon. Members in all parts of the Committee made important points that I have listened to carefully. I will take them into further consideration as the Bill enjoys its passage.
At the very beginning of our consideration we set out the tone of this scrutiny. The Bill matters a great deal, but it is essentially a technical, not a partisan, measure, and not one that should give rise to unnecessary discord, disharmony or contumely. None the less, it is right that we get it right, as it is for all legislation, and so I want to say a word about clause 2.
Clause 2 details the liability of insurers where an accident is caused by an automated vehicle. Where an accident is caused by an automated vehicle when it is driving itself, the clause creates first instance liability on the insurer to compensate innocent victims.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West has made a number of interventions already, and in each one, with a humility that personifies all of his contributions to this House, has suggested that he is finding his way through this, just as other members of the Committee are. He is right to say that the definition of damage that applies will be the definition established in the Road Traffic Act 1998 and so it is not necessary to do more here. He suggested that might be so and I can confirm that that is indeed the case.
The hon. Gentleman raised a second important issue about the character of the relationship between the driver and the vehicle. The point is that the driver has motor insurance. It is true that when someone has motor insurance, they designate a vehicle, but the driver will apply to an insurer to take out a policy in the same way that they do now. In respect of a claim, the difference that automation will make is that the insurer will then be in the business of determining subsequent liability. Of course, that will depend whether the car is being driven in automated mode or not, which is something we have all talked about both informally and formally in the Committee.
In a sense, that is immaterial to the hon. Gentleman’s question, because our absolute determination is to ensure that all the changes that are necessary as a result of the developments we are discussing are largely invisible and that, from the driver’s point of view and that of any other party that might suffer a loss as a result of an incident—a victim of an accident and so on and so forth—they are no worse off than they are now and at no greater risk, and that the driver, from the perspective of acquiring insurance, is in the same situation as they are now. So the issue of subsequent inquiries necessary to settle a claim is not dealt with in the Bill and, frankly, does not need to be, for that is in the end a matter for insurers. I think that clarifies the point, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, I am happy to give way.
Rob Marris
I understand the points that the Minister is making, but clause 2(1)(b) says, “the vehicle is insured”. It does not say a policy of insurance is in effect covering the person in charge of the vehicle. It specifically says that the vehicle is insured. Secondly, I would point out to the Minister that unless we get this right, there may be problems later if a minor is in the vehicle alone because of full automation—that minor cannot hold an insurance policy because as a minor they cannot contract insurance.
Mr Hayes
That is true enough. I suppose perhaps the easiest way of putting this is that, compared with the compulsory insurance cover that is the necessary result of the Road Traffic Act 1998 and is long established, the clause widens the insurers’ liability to include damage as a result of automation. Essentially, it includes damage suffered by the driver when the automated vehicle is driving itself, or damage suffered by any third party.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at clause 7, which deals with this matter—as I am sure other Committee members will do so with enthusiasm and speed. Clause 7(1)(a) describes a vehicle “driving itself” and subsection (1)(b) states that
“a vehicle is ‘insured’ if there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road or other public place in Great Britain”,
and so on.
That clause provides the clarity the hon. Gentleman seeks. When it is combined with what I described—the existing arrangements under the Road Traffic Act—I think he can be satisfied that we have got this right.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Contributory negligence etc
Andy McDonald
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations define when it is and is not appropriate for a person in charge of the vehicle to allow the vehicle to drive itself.”
This amendment requires the Government to provide regulatory guidance for when it is and is not appropriate for a person to allow an automated vehicle to drive itself.
Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to define by regulations when it is appropriate for a person in charge of a vehicle to allow it to drive itself, because under subsection (2), the insurer or owner
“is not liable under section 2 to the person in charge of the vehicle where the accident that it caused was wholly due to the person’s negligence in allowing the vehicle to drive itself when it was not appropriate to do so.”
We are talking about the realm of automated vehicles, so this issue warrants some discussion. It should always be appropriate to allow the vehicle to drive itself—that is the whole purpose, but perhaps we can explore it.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that if, when someone gets into an automated vehicle, a dashboard warning light said, “Software error: do not move”, and they ignored it, that would indeed be a case where they should not have proceeded to use the vehicle?
Andy McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We will consider in what situations it would be inappropriate to continue in that mode. If he bears with me, I will come to that. A great advantage of automated vehicles is to allow people with disabilities and without capacity to enjoy the same freedoms as we do. If they are in that environment, it would be somewhat difficult, as I am sure he would concede, to impose an obligation on certain individuals to do the very thing that he is suggesting, so I would be grateful if he bears with me.
As the clause is drafted, whether or not it was appropriate for the person in charge of a vehicle to allow it to drive itself has a consequence for negligence, but the Bill does not outline when it is appropriate or not for a vehicle to be used in automated mode—it talks about it, but it does not tell us. I accept that it might not be appropriate in some circumstances for vehicles to drive themselves. For example, early automated vehicles might be deemed safe to use only on motorways and not on some urban roads. Perhaps a known fault with the software that manages the function might have come to people’s attention, so using it would be inappropriate. I wonder whether the true intent of subsection (2) was to focus on bi-modal vehicles, because to my mind it is a bit of a nonsense to apply it universally to fully automated vehicles.
One of the primary purposes of part 1 of the Bill is to provide a framework to give insurers, manufacturers and potential users greater clarity, providing confidence and encouraging progress on automated vehicles. However, it is still not clear from the Bill what the Government have in mind about when their use would be inappropriate. I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote at this stage, but I think the Minister has got the point I am making. We are asking for regulations to be brought forward that better define those circumstances, because we cannot afford to have any fudging or confusion. People must be clear where there obligations lie. If we are to see the growth of the industry as we all wish, we do not want to leave this issue hanging over it.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It just occurred to me when the hon. Gentleman mentioned manufacturers that some of the conditions or stipulations for when the vehicle should not be driven should derive from the manufacturers rather than Government regulations, although I am not sure how that could be worked in with his amendment.
Andy McDonald
That is an excellent observation. That could form part of the regulations, so that the obligation sits with the manufacturer to ensure that the situation we are describing is avoided. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which highlights the lack of clarity about describing the circumstances in which it is inappropriate for the vehicle to drive itself. Somebody could get into the vehicle, fully anticipating it to be totally automated and expecting to be free to eat their fish and chips or make the cup of tea that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West referred to with impunity. If that is not the case, we need clarification of when those circumstances arise, especially when we talk about issues concerning capacity, capability and so on.
Mr Hayes
GK Chesterton said:
“The centre of every man’s existence is a dream.”
To dare to dream is to drive us beyond the prosaic towards the sublime. For me, the achievement of the sublime is indispensable from a redistribution of advantage in society. To redistribute advantage we must seize opportunities where they do not exist, in exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman described. To seize the opportunity to travel for those to whom, for no other reason than their incapacity, it is currently unavailable would indeed be the achievement of a dream leading to the sublime, so he is right that we need to get the circumstances in which people can achieve that right now, but we also need to be mindful of the fact that as the technology develops there will be a need to do more.
Therefore, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for further regulation. There will certainly be a need to look at Road Traffic Acts, because of what he queried in respect of the obligations of very vulnerable people. We will certainly need to look at that. That is a matter for future standards and Road Traffic Acts rather than the Bill, but I fully acknowledge that that will need to be a part of the legislative package that is bound to emerge as a result of these changes.
The Bill is very much a first step, as we have all acknowledged. It is a first step that, rather strangely, as he pointed out, begins with insurance. It does not begin with insurance because of any philosophical or doctrinal belief that insurance matters most, but it certainly matters enough to stop further investment and development. That is why insurance is the beginning of the process. In the end, the other adjustments to law and the publication of regulations will be necessary to achieve some of what he has described. We therefore recognise entirely the need to put in place a proper regulatory framework in this area. This is about the safe deployment and safe use of automated vehicles. It is also about public confidence, which was raised this morning by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who is not now in his place. By doing what he said subsequent to the Bill, and through the passage of the Bill, we will send a signal to the industry and the wider public that we are indeed at the beginning of that journey, which I hope might lead us to the sublime.
Perhaps it is worth pointing out by way of illustration that we consulted on changes to The Highway Code and the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 to support remote parking systems, because there are also Highway Code issues associated with the changes. We are looking at how the existing regulatory framework will need to be amended, leading up to a series of incremental changes that will take us to the place where full automation will become accepted by the public and available through the industry.
I must not compliment the hon. Member for Middlesbrough so much so early, because not only might that encourage him to believe that I will do so throughout our consideration—at some point I might no longer wish to do so—but also because it might make him a trifle big-headed, and I would not want to do that. However, he is also right about the likely first stages of the development. He is right to point out, as has been written elsewhere, that automated vehicles might initially be used in particular circumstances in particular modes. Some of the developments that manufacturers are researching, considering and rolling out are likely to be for use on motorways, as he said, or in particular driving conditions. As part of the incremental change I have described, it is possible that automated vehicles will be used in specific situations, or what are sometimes called “use cases”. This would involve a kind of geo-fencing of vehicles, defining when and where they are used—perhaps in part of a city or something of that kind, or perhaps on high-speed roads exclusively.
It is also important to point out that we are not considering this matter in isolation. The development of the technology is international and, as I described earlier, international regulations will create a set of safety standards leading to type approvals that may reflect that limited case use. It is also likely that those regulations will contain requirements for the vehicle to be able to detect where it is, so that the system can be used only in those situations that are designated or defined. It is not clear whether we need to make matching regulatory changes in our domestic framework, but if we do, we could use existing legislative vehicles. We typically use the Road Traffic Act 1998 to revise existing or create new road vehicle construction and use regulations to reflect and reinforce those international regulations.
I acknowledge also that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that further work will need to be done. I am not sure that the Bill is the right place to do that—by the way, I do not think he is suggesting that—but it is the right place to ask that question. I freely acknowledge that the issues he raised about obligations, specificity—how a vehicle might be used in what circumstances—and so on will require further consideration, consultation and regulatory measures. With that assurance I hope we can move on in the spirit of harmony and agreement to which I have attempted to add by my not excessive but generous compliments.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister, who has been very kind and generous. However, I do not want to misquote him, but he seems to have set out a strong argument for a regulatory framework, the better to describe the circumstances in which it would be unsafe to allow a vehicle to be conducted in the automated mode. In fact, he set out a number of circumstances where that would be relevant.
The Minister also referred the Committee to international standards and to international regulatory application in this case, but we have no information before us about how that would address the current situation in an evolving market for an evolving technology. I am struggling to understand where the deficit would be if we were to commit to a regulatory framework to address the issues—not by saying, here and now, what would be in it, but simply by saying “That is what we are going to do. We recognise it needs to be done.” I am not persuaded that this is not the right time and place to do that very thing.
Mr Hayes
Perhaps I may intervene, to avoid the need for another speech by me—which is probably unnecessary, although it would be widely welcomed. I do commit to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Global regulations will develop. Such discussions are happening worldwide, of course, and the manufacturers are international in both their reach and their location. We will introduce regulations that are in tune with those regulations. Let us not forget that the Bill is about insurance—about a first step in establishing enough legislative work to allow insurance to be put in place. We will commit to taking further necessary steps along the way.
Andy McDonald
The Minister is very persuasive. He has made things very clear. Although I feel some disappointment that we are not dealing with the matter now, his unequivocal commitment to bringing forward regulations at some later stage terminates the discussion as far as I am concerned. I am grateful for what the Minister has told us, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Accident resulting from unauthorised alterations or failure to update software
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out “operating system” and insert “software”.
This amendment replaces “operating system” which is too narrow a term. A vehicle may have firmware which is software in non-volatile memory, an operating system which is software in volatile memory, and application software.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 3, line 15, leave out “’s operating system”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, leave out “operating system” and insert “software”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 3, line 23, after “install software updates” add “to the vehicle”.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 29, leave out “operating system” and insert “software”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 1.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 3, line 32, leave out “’s operating system”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 1.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 3, line 39, leave out “operating system” and insert “software”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 1.
Amendment 8, in clause 7, page 5, line 31, at end insert
““software” in relation to an insured vehicle, means those components of the vehicle’s computer system that are intangible rather than physical, however stored.”
This amendment would add a definition of software.
Mr Baker
At last it seems that it was worth studying for that MSc in computer science, not because we shall discuss formal specification using Object-Z, or the state of communicating sequential processes, and not even because of implementation languages, emulation and testing, but because I think it would be appropriate to replace the term “operating system” in clause 4 with the single word “software”. All the amendments in the group are intended to do that.
I should like briefly to elaborate on what I said on Second Reading, to explain why these amendments are necessary to achieve the purpose of the Bill. In the explanatory notes, clause 4 is described very simply:
“This clause ensures that insurers should not have to bear liability to the insured person in some situations where the vehicle’s software or operating system are altered, or not updated.”
That is the purpose of the clause, but subsection (1) refers to
“alterations to the vehicle’s operating system made by the insured person, or with the insured person’s knowledge, that are prohibited under the policy…a failure to install software updates to the vehicle’s operating system”.
I should like to make briefly and, I hope, engagingly the case that that is drafted too narrowly and that, to achieve the purpose of the Bill if it were tested in court, we need to simplify it and use the term “software”.
The “Oxford Dictionary of Computing” defines “operating system” as:
“The set of software products that jointly controls the system resources and the processes using these resources on a computer system.”
That refers to the software that controls the hardware and makes it available to other programs. Opposition Members have gamely tabled amendment 20, which would delete “vehicle’s operating system” and insert
“application software related to the vehicle’s automated function”.
There is great merit in what they are trying to do. Again, the dictionary defines “an applications program” as:
“Any program that is specific to the particular role that a given computer performs within a given organization”—
it is talking about business, rather than cars—
“and makes a direct contribution to performing that role.”
Just as I said on Second Reading, it would technically be the application software that did the automated driving in such cars. I therefore fear that if the Government and the Committee were to keep the definition used throughout clause 4 and specify the term “operating systems”, we could find that an unintended conclusion was reached if it was necessary to test the law in court after an accident.
The solution is simple. The “Oxford Dictionary of Computing” defines software as:
“A generic term for those components of a computer system that are intangible rather than physical.”
I propose in amendment 8 that
“‘software’ in relation to an insured vehicle…means those components of the vehicle’s computer system that are intangible rather than physical, however stored.”
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his dissertation on software systems, but can he advise me? We want to avoid the problem that we were talking about earlier in trying to define what might happen in the future. New software systems might be created that were unknown at the beginning and software—malware, for example—that was never conceived of when the operating system was developed might be added and somehow find its way into the computer systems of an automated vehicle. Under my hon. Friend’s amendment, how would those adaptations, legal or otherwise, or those new types of software be handled?
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for extending my remarks with his question. The reason why I have included “however stored” is to distinguish software stored in volatile memory from software stored in non-volatile memory, such as a USB key, and to include the firmware used to start up the low-level devices. The term “software” as I have defined it from the “Oxford Dictionary of Computing” is all-encompassing; it includes everything in the computer system that is intangible rather than physical. To answer his question directly, that definition encompasses all the software in the system however it might arise, so it is the maximal definition.
If we go back to making the legislative definition work, what I propose in amendment 1 is to leave out “operating system” and insert “software”. Amendment 2 would delete “’s operating system”, because that phrase is otiose, as a colleague said earlier. Clause 4 would simply read “a failure to install software updates to the vehicle”. I am trying to make this maximal to ensure that the Bill is absolutely clear that all the software in the system must be untampered with and up to date.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
This is simply a question of clarification. Would the clause as the hon. Gentleman sees it include, for example, not just the vehicle but the software on the electronic key that will be used to engage the vehicle?
Mr Baker
That is a very good point, and I think that the Bill already deals with it. I shall try to find the right part of the Bill—it does not leap out at me instantly—but I think that it states that updates are as specified by the manufacturer. Perhaps a colleague might find that and intervene. The point is that all the software that should be up to date must be up to date, and it should be as specified by the manufacturer. As I said on Second Reading, I do not think that the House should tightly constrain what is necessary. Unless anyone wishes to correct me, there is only one software engineer on the Committee, and I am certainly seven years out of date. As legislators, we should seek not to constrain but simply to ensure that the legislation is drawn up so as to encompass the entire software system and ensure that the legislation meets its intended purpose.
I hope that the Government will accept amendments 1 to 8, if not today then on Report and having consulted the industry. I am very much aware that we did not take expert evidence on this issue, so I would understand if the Government wished to consult outside the Committee and return to the issue on Report. I should say that owing to a lamentable lack of attention to detail on my part, it would be necessary to table a duplicate of my amendment 4 to amend line 41 of clause 4, as my proposed manuscript amendment would have done. I draw that to the Government’s attention. If they want any assistance in preparing amendments for Report, I would be glad to help.
The Chair
I think that my co-Chair ruled this morning that we would not accept a manuscript amendment. That decision still stands.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
May I first ask for a point of clarification? I have a few brief comments to make on the clause, but they do not relate directly to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. Do you plan to have a separate clause stand part debate?
Mr Hayes
Regarding the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, I said earlier today and again this afternoon that the essence of our intention with the Bill is to provide a starting point by getting right the insurance provisions for automated vehicles. It is important that we do so with precision. His case is that if we do not get the technical language right, we risk failing to achieve our policy objective. Getting the language wrong would risk insurers not being able effectively to exclude liability in instances where we wish them to be able to do so. Conversely, it would also allow insurers to limit liability in circumstances where we do not intend them to be able to. Although we are working closely with the insurance industry and, as I said this morning before you joined us, Ms Ryan, the industry welcomed the Bill during our evidence sessions on Tuesday, it is important that the signal we send to them and the underpinning legislation reflect the certainty that my hon. Friend advocated in his amendments and his speech in support of them.
The Opposition have tabled amendments in the same area and, I think, recognise that the issue raised by my hon. Friend is significant. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Middlesbrough is going to speak on those amendments—he may choose to. In essence, the message that I want to broadcast is that although we will not accept these amendments today, we recognise their salience. My hon. Friend’s case is certainly well made and well understood by us. He invited us to consider the issue further, and I commit to doing so.
Andy McDonald
I was not sure whether we were dealing with amendment 20 now, because it speaks to exactly the same area.
Andy McDonald
Although we are in the same territory, I will defer my comments, Ms Ryan.
Andy McDonald
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 4, page 3, line 15, leave out “vehicle’s operating system” and insert
“application software related to the vehicle’s automated function”.
This amendment makes clear that insurance liability is limited or excluded where damage is suffered following an accident as a result of failure to update the application software related to the vehicle’s automated function, rather than the whole operating system.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, at end insert
“, provided that the vehicle manufacturer has made all reasonable efforts to—
(i) notify the owner of a vehicle about the need for an update of the vehicle’s operating system,
(ii) provide the relevant update of the vehicle’s operating system to the owner or insured person, and
(iii) arrange for the installation and update of the vehicle’s operating system.”
This amendment ensures that manufacturers have made all reasonable efforts to provide an update to the vehicle’s system for the owner before placing liability on the owner for not updating the software.
New clause 9—Updates to software and operation of automated vehicles—
“The Secretary of State must bring forward regulations to require that automated vehicles cannot operate in automated mode on public roads unless the application software relating to the vehicle’s automated function is up to date.”
This new clause would require the Government to introduce regulations that require automated vehicles to be up to date in order for them to utilise automated functions on public roads.
Andy McDonald
As we have a software engineer in the room, I bow to his superior knowledge, but I think he has already acknowledged that ours is a bold and perhaps even decent attempt to narrow the definition to the very function—not bad for an old personal injury solicitor. I recognise that we are all trying to be specific about the what the software is intended to do, so I will not detain the Committee long on amendment 20 but rather move on to amendment 21, which is in the same territory but not on the same point. It would add a proviso to exclusions and limitations on an insurance policy, because, as drawn, the policy would simply be void in the event of failure to install the software.
We discussed this subject during our evidence sessions, and I think we were all quite fascinated by how software would ultimately be installed, but we think it proper to oblige the manufacturer to attempt to notify the vehicle’s owner, provide the update and arrange for its installation. If an automated vehicle is to be able to drive itself, it is critical to safety that the software responsible for the driving operation be up to date. No one doubts that.
I do not know whether everyone can say with certainty that their mobile phone or home desktop computer has the latest version of the software installed. If a smartphone or computer is out of date, that is pretty poor, but significant consequences are unlikely; if an automated vehicle’s software is not up to date, the consequences could be catastrophic.
Mr Baker
This is a sensible amendment, but I think it suffers from defining in terms of operating systems rather than software. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether the definition needs to be in the Bill, or whether updates could be required under the policy and it should be for insurers to determine how software updates should be installed.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the necessary correction. My concern is that there is nothing in the Bill that requires software to be updated. I find that somewhat difficult to understand. These vehicles will be available for use and there will be several iterations of the software updates, so I am staggered that there is nothing to require that to happen. It is almost an assumption—the nature of the beast is such that of course it will be part of the debate—but there is no obligation.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Many businesses have insurance for business disruption based on their updating cyber-security software for their accountancy models and so on. I am not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman feels that such a provision is needed in the Bill when it works alongside the insurance element, so in reality the insurance company would provide that check.
Andy McDonald
I am not entirely sure that, as a matter of course, insurers would check whether the software on all the vehicles they insure is up to date. They might demand that at the outset but I am not sure what mechanism would make sure of it, other than to warn people that otherwise policies would be voided.
Tom Tugendhat
Would not that in many ways be similar to servicing vehicles? My insurance policy, like many others, requires me to service my vehicle, which is about as non-electronic as it is possible to get these days, pretty regularly. The insurance company will not have checked in advance, but if they later find out that an accident was caused because the vehicle was not in a roadworthy condition because I did not maintain it properly, my insurance is invalid. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but not why he believes it should be in the Bill, rather than leaving it to insurance companies to manage.
Andy McDonald
I think there is a distinction between ordinary, conventional vehicle maintenance arrangements, with which people are familiar, and the requirements of this brand-new environment, where if software fails because critical updates were not installed or it has been infected in some way—I am not an engineer—the consequences can be catastrophic. Mechanical failures may not be picked up, but we have MOT tests and warranties and it may be starkly obvious that something is fundamentally wrong with the vehicle; software failure may not manifest itself so clearly.
Rob Marris
Is not part of the problem that we have several players on the scene? We have the manufacturer, the supplier of the vehicle—the main dealer for example—the insurance company, the owner of the vehicle and the driver. Part of the problem is that the owner of the vehicle may not have any contractual nexus with the manufacturer and may not know that the update is available for their software, just as many people may not know that their smartphone can be upgraded from Android Marshmallow to Android Nougat.
Andy McDonald
The point is well made, so I will not expand on my hon. Friend’s intervention but simply accept it.
In short, that the manufacturer should notify the owner of a vehicle of the need for an update of the vehicle’s operating system or whatever term we settle on, provide the relevant update to the owner or insured person, and arrange for the installation of the update, are reasonable expectations. We are shifting into a completely different model of vehicle ownership. We have already embraced the principles of personal contract plans and everyone in this room will be aware of the potential to migrate to bundled services, which might not be about one person with one vehicle; they might have a variety of options—a small vehicle for the home and a more comfortable vehicle to make longer journeys, such as touring the Scottish highlands.
We are getting into new territory, and it occurs to me that if we want motor vehicles to be sustainable, rather than rapidly obsolescent, it might be eminently sensible if, rather than someone owning and maintaining a vehicle, such maintenance were part of the services they received and the vehicle was ultimately returned to the manufacturer or retailer. We get into issues about extensions on product liability. With every iteration, there are issues around that. We heard from Mr Wong on Tuesday that the manufacturers will no longer support vehicles beyond a particular time. He did not expect the support to carry on for ever. If it was my Toyota Previa with 163,000 miles on the clock after 17 years it would be unsupported, but there we go.
Andy McDonald
Yes, it did, several times. It is still running, but it is partly rusted to death. The point is that the measure fits in with the new modelling and is entirely consistent, but it must be underpinned by the obligation to take reasonable steps to update the software. Otherwise, we have difficulties. The amendment would not put the manufacturer behind the eight ball if people are determined to avoid updates or interfere with them—far from it—it just sets out a framework that there should be an obligation on them. I recommend the amendment.
New clause 9 is directly related to the amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to make regulations preventing automated vehicles from being operated in automated mode on public roads unless the software for that function is up to date. We addressed the importance of updating earlier in the Committee, so I will not repeat those arguments, but I underline the seriousness of ensuring that the software is up to date. Out-of-date software can present safety risks. Because of the issues surrounding liability, it should not be beyond the wit of man or too difficult to prevent un-updated vehicles being on our roads, and it would make sense to do that. If a vehicle had a serious mechanical fault that could endanger the driver and others, we would not allow it on our roads. It makes sense that an automated vehicle would similarly present an increased safety risk if its operating system was not updated.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I find the hon. Gentleman’s new clause a bit absolute. My experience of updating software is that some updates are critical and some are quite nice to have and may not relate to safety. For instance, with an autonomous car, there might be a software update that tells the car to take a particular angle of bend at a slightly more comfortable speed. That has an impact on comfort; it does not necessarily have an impact on safety. My reading is that the new clause would rule out that car from being authorised to be on the road unless it had that update.
Andy McDonald
I think there is a difference. The new clause says that the car has to be up to date and fit with the current requirements, but it does not say it has to be the latest software. A software product may have several versions—we are now getting into nice-to-have mode and additional facilities—and the one someone has in their car may be safe and up to date without being the latest. What I am trying to address with the new clause is software that is updated on safety grounds and essential changes to the programming.
Without the new clause, people would be able to take un-updated vehicles on to our roads, either by accident or on purpose. Insurance companies would surely factor the increased risk into premiums, which would be higher as a consequence. For reasons of affordability, it would be sensible to include the new clause in the Bill.
The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should introduce regulations to prevent an automated vehicle from being operated on public roads unless the application software relating to the vehicles’ automated functions is up to date—not the latest available, but up to date. From a technical standpoint, that should not be too difficult to achieve. Most people with a smartphone or computer are likely to have software that prevents it from being used until it is updated; I am not struck by any reason why a similar mechanism could not be included in automated vehicles. By preventing un-updated vehicles from being used, we would achieve safer roads and cheaper insurance.
One primary benefit of AVs is that they reduce the likelihood of human error, yet one of the few areas in which scope for human error remains—the responsibility for ensuring that software is updated—would not be addressed, even though it would not be difficult to do so. The new clause would address that. I trust that it will have the Committee’s support.
Mr Baker
I rise to make two points, one at slightly more length than the other. The first is that the amendment mentions application software. At the risk of labouring this point, there is a stack of software in the car: firmware at the low level, the operating system, which makes the low-level devices usable, and application software on top. We have reached the point where we are all agreed that all the software needs to be up to date.
The second point is one that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire just made: not all the software is safety-critical. That is an important point, so I will take a moment to consider it. Safety-critical software will almost certainly have been derived from formal specifications, proved safe as it is manufactured and then tested comprehensively before it is deployed. I would hope and expect that any responsible engineer, before putting an automated car out on the road, would have a very high level of confidence that the software was in fact safe to use.
The issue then is that there are often bugs in software, so it is not inconceivable that a safety-critical update might be required, but I would like to think that it would be an edge case. If we were to prevent all cars with an automated function from being on the roads because some software update was required, we might end up defeating our purpose. On one hand, I think it reasonable that all safety-critical software must be up to date; on the other, I think that the amendment probably would not achieve the purpose intended.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is focusing, quite correctly, on “safety-critical”, but is not the software relating to the automated function by definition safety-critical?
Mr Baker
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire in a moment if he wishes, but I think that he put his finger on the point very well, not least because he drives a semi-automated car. Imagine my hon. Friend’s Volvo, which requires him to keep his hands on the wheel when it is in semi-automated mode. There could be a software update that allowed him to take his hands off the wheel for an additional five seconds. That is not safety-critical; it is just a variation on the length of time during which it is not necessary to hold the wheel. The point is that such an update would not be critical to the safety of the car’s ability to drive itself—I am grateful to him for indicating assent—but it would be an update related to the software related to the automated function. That is where the amendment falls down. It is possible to conceive of updates that are related to the safety-critical software but not safety-critical. That is where the issue lies.
The other point is that if I have understood correctly, the overall thrust of the Bill, which I welcome, is to be permissive but absolutely clear where liability lies. Drivers know that they are insured whether or not the vehicle is in automated mode. That is the crucial point.
Mr Baker
I am grateful to the Minister for indicating assent. The point then becomes that it is between the insurer and the manufacturer to ensure that these vehicles are safe, properly insured and that the risks involved are insurable—in other words, low.
I have in mind skydiving. I like to skydive. The parachute that has saved my life a couple of hundred times was sold to me without warranty for use for any particular purpose—in other words, it is formally a novelty item under the law. However, it seems to keep saving my life, provided I use it properly. I am quite comfortable with that, because I understand that the vendors of the equipment—the container and the parachute—produce good, reliable equipment to which one can reliably trust one’s life.
I rather imagine that, in relation to cars, while it will all be much more formal and the software will be more complicated than the parachute’s, we are in a similar position. Provided everyone understands where the trust and the liability lies, and provided those relationships are correctly defined, so that they can be tested in court, and provided that the arrangements that are in place are understood, we have a basis on which we can proceed. The quite detailed, technical arrangements, which I would suggest we as legislators are not equipped to either foresee or handle at the time, can actually be dealt with in a way that allows innovation, spontaneity and creativity, but within a fixed framework of law that is suitable to the purposes.
If I may say so, that is why I am so excited about the Bill. I think it shows that the Government are embracing a better way of structuring our society that allows for freedom, but within a fixed institutional framework that does not seek to intervene too much. That is why I reject new clause 9. It is very well intentioned, but for the reasons I have set out, I personally cannot accept it today. If the Government wish to achieve a similar intent, they will need to choose a different form of words at the fore.
Alan Brown
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I will mainly speak to amendment 21, and I will be brief. To remind the Committee, the amendment relates to clause 4. The title of the clause, “Accident resulting from unauthorised alterations or failure to update software”, implies that software that has not been updated causes an accident. Part 1 of the Bill is about defining the liabilities and responsibilities needed to make insurance practical and able to be rolled out, and to facilitate the roll-out of autonomous vehicles. On that basis, amendment 21 makes a lot of sense to me. In defining liability and responsibility, it clearly sets out that manufacturers have a responsibility to try to make sure that vehicles are updated with the latest software. That is important, and I do not think it should be left to the small print of individual insurance policies. If we are trying to improve consumer confidence going forward, placing an onus on manufacturers to fulfil their responsibilities make sense, and putting that in the Bill would help that. It would facilitate that for insurance companies as well.
New clause 9 complements amendment 21. I take on board the comments about incorporating terminology such as “safety critical” in the new clause; that is something that should be considered going forward as well. I think there is merit in the amendment and the new clause.
Rob Marris
As you know, Ms Ryan, Labour Members are particularly sensitive to getting the wording of clause 4 accurate. On new clause 9, I think the hon. Member for Wycombe is quite right; it would be better if, at the end of it, it said something like “up to date as regards safety”, because of the points that have been made on the difference between safety-critical updates and leisure or convenience updates or whatever.
On amendment 21, it may be that the Minister will be able to assure me that we already have a suitable system. I am thinking, for example, of the system in which, providing they can be traced, the current registered keeper of a vehicle in the United Kingdom gets a safety notification from the manufacturer. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and I are pleased to drive Toyotas, but Toyota and a number of other manufacturers have a problem because the Japanese supplier of airbags and their ignition devices supplied about 15 million duff ones around the world. Those are gradually being replaced. As the registered keeper of a Toyota, I get a letter from the manufacturer—not from the mainline Toyota dealer from whom I bought it, but from the manufacturer—telling me that in due course this problem will need to be sorted out.
We are all familiar with that process now in relation to safety-critical updates for software introduced by the manufacturer, presumably as a result of its discovering a bug in software, which occasionally happens. We already have a system—for shorthand, “the airbag-type system”—that might read across in terms of the software system, and therefore we would not need amendment 21. However, I would like the Minister’s reassurance on that point, or his acceptance that we do not already have that kind of system as regards safety and therefore we need either amendment 21 or something akin to it.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough began this part of our discussion by claiming that he was courageous and then admitting that he was imprecise. Courtesy obliges me to emphasise his courage and not his imprecision, although he also said that he recognised that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has expertise in this field. I have already said that I agree that it is important that we address the issues dealt with in these amendments, which were also highlighted by the comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West. It seems to me that we can look again at whether this part of this Bill needs the proposed improvements.
In respect of new clause 9 and amendment 21, I suppose the obvious point—I will go on to make less obvious points, or at least I hope they will be less obvious—is that manufacturers should and will ensure that they update software in a way that guarantees safety. That seems to me to be fundamental, but I just do not think that this Bill is the right legislation to do that.
Perhaps I can make a less obvious point—
Andy McDonald
The Minister heard the evidence from Mr Wong on Tuesday, in which he made it abundantly clear that it would be impractical and totally uneconomic for a manufacturer to maintain software support ad infinitum; there has to be a limit. To assume that there is a manufacturer out there that will just do that forever is perhaps a little dangerous.
Mr Hayes
Or even innocent, perhaps, not to say naive. I did not say that, though, did I? What I said was that manufacturers should and will update software so as to guarantee safety. Where safety would be compromised by any change that a manufacturer might make, or where safety was not the result of the original incarnation of what a manufacturer issued, clearly that would be unacceptable, and it would be covered by vehicle standards and other regulatory and legislative mechanisms. It is absolutely right that if a vehicle comes to market, the software, like the other parts of the vehicle—for example the mechanics—is of a kind that passes the necessary tests allowing the car to be sold, purchased and driven safely, and any changes to that vehicle should comply with those core requirements. The idea that we, or indeed the law, would allow a manufacturer to update software in a way that compromised safety is clearly not sensible; we simply would not allow that.
The hon. Gentleman says that a manufacturer might not choose to update software ad infinitum. Indeed, a customer might not want their vehicle changed forever, and as long as the vehicle can be driven safely, that would be a matter for the driver; it is not a matter for us. A vehicle that can be driven safely but does not have all the latest mechanical gadgets or software is not a matter for the Bill, or even for the Government, beyond the existing legislative requirements. It is certainly not something that I would want to address in this legislation.
Rob Marris
May I ask the Minister to reconsider that point? As he said, part 1 of the Bill is largely about insurance. Let us imagine that a manufacturer says of an automated vehicle, “We are not going to update the software for a vehicle that is more than 10 years old. We just don’t do that. We are not saying whether it is needed or not, but it has reached the 10-year mark and we will no longer support it.” At that 10-year mark, that vehicle is likely to be uninsurable, because the insurers will say, “We don’t know anything about the software. After 10 years, we don’t know whether it needs updating or not and the manufacturer isn’t telling us—end of story. We are not going to insure a vehicle that is more than 10 years old, or however long the manufacturer selects.”
Mr Hayes
We are ranging a little widely, but I must say that the hon. Gentleman is entering the realms of fantasy, to use a phrase often used by Captain Mainwaring of Corporal Jones in that legendary programme, “Dad’s Army”. Insurance models are currently available for all kinds of vehicles of all ages and at all stages of development and iterations—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire is a renowned expert on the subject. Some of those vehicles are very ancient indeed and include no modern technology or mechanics, but they are safe, they can be driven safely, and they are insured accordingly. It would be extraordinary if the insurance industry did not develop products that suited vehicles of all ages. They do so now, so why would they not do so in the future?
Tom Tugendhat
The Minister makes an impassioned defence of his point, and he is absolutely right: the market has solutions for these things. It is not necessarily for the state to decree the exact contractual relationship between an insurer and a vehicle manufacturer. It is certainly true that some software solutions, unlike the mechanical solutions that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire enjoys, will inevitably become obsolete, just as some computers and telephones have done, but the Bill’s purpose surely cannot be to ensure that no car built from now on is allowed to go obsolete and that all its systems and software must be kept constantly up to date until the last person who wishes to drive it decides no longer to do so.
Mr Hayes
He is rising to the occasion. Perhaps I can find a compromise, because it is important that we have a regulatory framework in place that ensures that manufacturers bring safe systems to market and that the process is as simple and effective as possible. I think we can do that, but not necessarily through the Bill or even through primary legislation. There is a good argument that understanding of the kind the hon. Gentleman advocates will emerge from the continuing dialogue that we enjoy with manufacturers and the further frameworks that result from it.
Our public engagement in this process is determined and well funded. We have invested more than £100 million in the research and development of connected and autonomous vehicles. Many of those projects have had a significant component of building public understanding, and part of that has been to explore precisely the issues that are dealt with in the clause and amendments
We have published a series of documents such as “Pathway to Driverless Cars: Proposals to support advanced driver assistance systems and automated vehicle technologies” and “Proposed ultra low emission vehicles measures for inclusion in the Modern Transport Bill”, which hon. Members will be familiar with. With the establishment of the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, the programme of work continues. We will work with the industry and academia to ensure that we not only test the behavioural response to all this, but work on where manufacturers’ responsibilities begin and end and how much further legislative action is required. I do accept that, and perhaps we can find a happy middle ground, but I am not sure the Bill is the right place.
I underpin that by drawing the Committee’s attention to the briefing we have had from Ageas, which is the third largest motor insurer and leading provider of award-winning insurance solutions in the United Kingdom—that sounds a bit like an advert. None the less, Ageas says that:
“The Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill will establish a new insurance regime for the next generation of autonomous vehicles currently being developed. Ageas is supportive of the Bill as it reflects the extensive discussion that have taken place between the government, insurance industry and other stakeholders.”
It goes on in a similar vein, but for me to amplify it further would seem a little self-congratulatory. I simply ask Members to give it their fullest consideration following this short speech.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for finally giving way. I appreciate him saying that there may be a middle ground; that gives some sort of hope. Touching on the previous intervention, this is not about the state legislating to stop vehicle software becoming obsolete. Clause 4 is about accidents arising from a failure to update software. That is critical; we are setting out responsibilities and liabilities, and that is why amendment 21 has merit. In terms of worrying about the state, there are 42 lines in clause 4 already and we are only asking for another five or six to be added. It is not too much and not too prescriptive, so I ask the Minister to think carefully about amendment 21.
Mr Hayes
Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman is that it is important that the insurance industry is entirely confident about the basis of this legislation. That is why I quoted a leading insurer a moment ago. The essence of their confidence is the creation of the first instance liability on the insurer to settle a claim involving a car in automated mode. That first instance liability will mean that the driver and other parties cannot be adversely affected in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I can see why he said that, and that it was with the best intentions. I am not seeking to undermine his principles, but I do not think we need to do more at this juncture.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for giving way once again. Although he quoted a letter that says the industry are supportive of all this, I request that he asks what they think of the amendment and whether they are happy with it. Rather than saying that they are happy with the Bill as it is, they might see merit in the amendment as well.
Mr Baker
I say as gently as I can to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that the problem with amendment 21, as I said earlier, is that the Government cannot accept it in its current form, however long or short it is, because it is phrased in terms of operating systems. I think the hon. Member for Middlesbrough accepted that earlier. Should the Government wish to look at the function of the amendment and bring it forward on Report, I implore them to choose different words.
Mr Hayes
Yes. Let me be even kinder to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun than I have tried to be already. Without wishing to put words in his mouth, I do not think that he is arguing for this precise amendment to be made to the Bill—it has been acknowledged that that is not the case. What he and others are arguing is that the spirit of the amendment might add to further consideration. I have said that I think it is important, in regulatory terms, that there is a commitment from manufacturers of the kind that has been described. I essentially agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe—I used to think that it was me and the Labour party against the free market liberals, but I am very impressed with and reassured by his contribution.
Andy McDonald
Will the Minister seek that reassurance from the motor manufacturing sector? If he says that will happen, that would make life an awful lot easier.
Mr Hayes
I think it would be reasonable for me to say to the manufacturing sector what I have said to the Committee: that a core part of the work on updating systems is ensuring that a framework is put in place that compels manufacturers to bring to market systems that make the process as simple and effective as possible. That is perfectly reasonable. We will certainly have that discussion. I think that regulations are bound to be the consequence of that later; I just do not think that this is the time or the place to do that.
I said this morning, and I will say again—this is so important that I make no excuse for repeating it—that we accept that as this technology develops there will be a need to return to the House, to develop subsequent regulation and consult further. That is very much part of our approach. Of course, in our ongoing discussions about that later regulation I am more than happy to put the case that has been articulated across the Committee.
Andy McDonald
I think it falls to me to deal with all of the amendments and the new clause, if I am following the procedure correctly.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful for that guidance, Ms Ryan. I will turn to amendment 20 and, if I can, encapsulate it with new clause 9. It is my intention to seek leave to withdraw the amendment and the new clause, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Wycombe. I think we are as one across the Committee about the need to get the wording absolutely accurate. There is consensus on that, which feeds into the new clause and the amendment. It also has an impact on amendment 21.
I wish to clarify that we are talking about trying to have some balance. Clause 4 describes circumstances where liability may be excluded, which includes a failure to install software. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun rightly outlined, it is without any consequence and there is no balance to this if it is left as drawn. There is no obligation upon the manufacturer to take any reasonable steps to ensure that the software is updated. It would strike any reasonable observer as entirely out of kilter if it remains as it currently is. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his undertaking to seek assurances from the industry that it will express a view on the clause and develop a conversation about its obligations to install software. I accept that assurance and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
I expect Members to be brief because we have already had a fairly wide-ranging debate.
Iain Stewart
I will be brief, Ms Ryan. The first part of the clause title is:
“Accident resulting from unauthorised alterations”.
I am perfectly comfortable with the contents of the clause that relate to the owner or driver making alterations themselves, but on Second Reading I flagged up my concern about where the liability lies if an external alteration is made either deliberately or accidentally. By deliberate, I mean the computer system being hacked in some way, the installation of malware or similar problems, and accidental alteration could arise from the car being serviced and the garage mechanic somehow messing up the system. I would like some clarification about where the liability lies in such circumstances. The Minister kindly honoured his promise on Second Reading to write to me.
Andy McDonald
I wonder whether the answer to the scenario that the hon. Gentleman has described—the realms of uninsurance—is that the Motor Insurers Bureau’s uninsured scheme would come into play. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, it would be the same insurer who stepped in to resolve the damage suffered by third parties.
Iain Stewart
The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say, because the Minister kindly honoured his promise to write to me and gave me the clarification I needed. He said that although future regulations may be made, the current system will apply and ultimately the courts will decide where the liability lies if there was an external intervention. The Motor Insurers Bureau happily resides in my constituency and I visited it a couple a weeks ago, and we discussed that very point. I want to put on the record that the concerns I expressed on Second Reading have been addressed, and I am perfectly content with the clause as it is currently drafted.
Rob Marris
I have six fairly brief points. I know that the Minister is a great proponent of using language properly, so at the beginning of line 18 of clause 4(2), may I ask him to remove the first word “But”, which is a conjunction? It adds nothing to the Bill and is a grammatical monstrosity.
Rob Marris
What a Minister! Given that he has been so generous to me, I will be generous to him.
On a more serious point, may I draw the Minister’s attention to the beginning of line 23 of clause 4, which states
“knows he or she is required”?
I think that should state “knows or should have known that he or she is required”, because otherwise the person can plead ignorance and there is no “should have known” about it, which is a common construction in law, as my hon. Friend for Middlesbrough will know. Similarly, in line 33, “that an insured person knew or should have known that he was required under the policy” would be legally clearer and help all of us, including insurers. Line 41, subsection 5(b), reads
“which, at the time the person knew he or she was required”.
It ought to be “at the time the person knew or should have known he or she was required”. Having put that forward, I know the Minister will consider it in his usual generous spirit.
More importantly and substantively, there should be a provision in clause 4 on the cost of software updates. I appreciate that clause 4 is principally about insurers and so on, but it is about software updates. If in terms of safety—not the legalities—there is a safety-critical update that the manufacturer decides is going to cost £1,000 to whack in and the insured decides not to do that, that would void his or her insurance policy, but it would also put the rest of us at risk.
That is not a figure plucked out of the air. I might have said in an earlier session that the software to install a sat-nav in my car—just for the software; none of the hardware—costs £600. To update the software for sat-navs in many cars can be £300 or £400. That is just for the software update for a poxy sat-nav, let alone for an automated vehicle.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman is seeking now to regulate the contract between an individual and the car company they buy from in relation to servicing. There are many different updates that are required for a car in terms of safety-critical features, which happen every now and again, such as changing tyres. [Interruption.] Or buying a new set of brakes, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire says. Each different manufacturer has a different price list. If someone wants to buy a Rolls Royce, they can be pretty sure that the price of the items will be very high. I chose not to—there were several reasons for that, not least that child seats do not fit very well. Rather more fundamentally, I chose to buy a cheaper car for the simple reason that I realised that if I was going to be asked to service the damn thing, I wanted it to be affordable. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West is effectively seeking to govern the servicing arrangements.
Rob Marris
Without straying too far, the Labour party was in favour of looking at a regulatory regime to cap energy prices; so now is the Conservative party. There is a role for the state when there is market failure. We are talking about potential market failure for very important safety items, not whether it is going to cost £100 or £200 to service a car and someone decides whether they buy a Rolls Royce, or whatever presumably less expensive car the hon. Gentleman bought—I cannot think that he would have bought a more expensive one. I understand the role of the market for that.
I am not looking to cap service charges, but there is an argument for the state putting a cap on the price of software updates, on safety grounds. The hon. Member for Wycombe referred earlier to parachutes. He can correct me on this, but I do not think that many people are killed in this country from someone’s parachute failing, besides that individual. What we are talking about here potentially is an individual whose parachute fails and who then lands on someone else and kills them. It is not just the owner of the vehicle; it is the rest of us.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman talks about safety-critical software. Brake pads are pretty safety-critical. If someone does not maintain their vehicle to a reasonable standard with proper brake pads, the vehicle is uninsurable. The same would be true in this case. If the manufacturer overprices the update, people will not buy the car. If people do not update the software, the car will be uninsurable and therefore undrivable.
Rob Marris
The hon. Gentleman has a much more touching faith in the market than I do to resolve these things—that is why he is on those Benches and I am on these. That is fine, but in terms of the safety of all of us—he drives on the road, so do I; his family goes on the road, so does mine—I want a cap on safety software upgrade prices. The Minister should consider that, and it would go in clause 4.
Mr Hayes
I am going to be brief. I was in favour of a prices and incomes policy when even the Labour party had abandoned that. [Interruption.] I hear comments from behind me. I have been a protectionist all my life, and now it is coming back into fashion. The semantic points that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West made are good ones. As I said, we will take out the word “But”—as there are no ifs or buts with me, as yet. We will take a look at the other semantic points; there are bound to be those linguistic changes to a Bill.
The hon. Gentleman’s fundamental point was about the cost of software. If there was a catastrophic market failure—we are speaking about something down the line, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, for we do not know what the market looks like yet, but if we follow the hon. Gentleman’s advice we are already dooming it to failure—of course we would consider becoming involved. Were that to compromise the wellbeing of a large number of people who purchased automated vehicles, with all the consequences that might have, at some point the Government would need to take some kind of stand, but, if I may use an appropriate phrase, frankly I think we are at risk, Madam Deputy Speaker, of travelling roads as yet uncharted, let alone those we can reasonably foresee how we might journey down.
Mr Baker
It was a wonderfully eloquent summary and I agree with a proportion of the Minister’s remarks, although not all of them. If we do end up in a position where safety-critical software updates to cars are both frequent and expensive, there will be a catastrophic market failure, and we will be banning automated cars and sending engineers back to college.
The Chair
I thank the Minister for promoting me to the dizzy heights of Deputy Speaker.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Rob Marris
Will the Minister explain why the Bill is confined to Great Britain and does not include Northern Ireland? There may well be a simple explanation.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman’s assiduity does him great credit. It is perhaps worth saying that the clause defines a series of terms and concepts vital to the functions of the proceedings in the Bill. The only reason it does not apply to Northern Ireland is that this is a devolved matter: motor insurance is devolved in Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Definitions
Mr Baker
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 8, page 6, line 5, leave out “electrical”.
This amendment would allow the Bill to cover hydrogen fuel used to power internal combustion engines.
I would not dream of pressing the amendment to a vote, but I would like to probe the Government on their position. Currently, the definition of “hydrogen refuelling point” is
“a device intended for refuelling a vehicle that is capable of being propelled by electrical power derived from hydrogen”.
My amendment would leave out “electrical”. The reason for that is the evidence we heard from witnesses in oral evidence.
I put it to a witness that we could have a dual-fuel vehicle, or indeed a vehicle propelled entirely by hydrogen, just as we could have liquefied petroleum gas vehicles and keep the internal combustion engine. I know it is not very fashionable at the moment—I know we are mostly looking at battery power, possibly with an option on fuel cells—but it is important that we ought not to unnecessarily constrain the use of hydrogen.
Kit Malthouse
I want to speak in support of the amendment, not least because of something we have to bear in mind during the passage of the Bill, which is the pace of change of technology. It is likely that the move to electrical vehicles, whether battery or hydrogen, will be very fast over the next two or three decades. We will be left with the legacy of an enormous number of internal combustion engine vehicles—millions and millions of them.
The ability to convert a petrol-powered car to hydrogen internal combustion is quite easy—it is not that hard to do—and in fact dual fuel is possible with two tanks, one of hydrogen and one of petrol, which would allow someone to compensate for the sparsity of hydrogen refuelling facilities. Having that ability for non-electrically driven cars to refuel would mean that instead of having millions of cars that people need to recycle or dump, and whose value will suddenly fall off a cliff as the new technologies come through, they can opt to convert them to internal combustion driven by hydrogen.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, we would therefore be able to preserve some of those historic vehicles and, frankly, to extend the life of existing petrol vehicles, which would be more environmentally friendly than simply dumping them.
Mr Hayes
The essence of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, which reflects the exchanges that we enjoyed in the evidence sessions, in which a number of Members played their part, is to query whether the Bill is insufficient in respect of fuel types such as hydrogen. At this juncture, I perhaps ought to make it absolutely clear that the Bill is technology neutral. We recognise that a number of technologies are emerging. Given the scale and nature of the change we are enjoying, it is not yet clear which will become pre-eminent, but it is certainly true that there is investment in hydrogen. That was pointed out by a number of my hon. Friends during the evidence sessions. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has taken a keen interest in such matters for a considerable time.
Raising the issue of extending the definition of a hydrogen refuelling station is important. The proposed redefinition away from
“a device intended for refuelling a vehicle that is capable of being propelled by electrical power derived from hydrogen”
to one that includes hydrogen-fuelled internal combustion engines, however, is more challenging. I will explain why. I recognise that there are all kinds of ways of propelling vehicles. As I have said, a number of those would have a beneficial effect on emissions, in essence producing zero tailpipe emissions, just as electric cars do. I also note what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said about the adaptations that could be made to an internal combustion engine. I did wonder what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire would think of that, but he made no move or sign. There was no change of expression on his face, but I could not help wondering—
Sir Greg Knight
Is my right hon. Friend aware that converting a petrol engine to run on hydrogen is not that easy if the engine involved has a carburettor and is not fuel injection? That is the case for most historic vehicles.
Mr Hayes
Whether I was aware of that or not, I am now. It is certainly the case that the adaptation of an internal combustion engine to allow it to use hydrogen varies according to the character of the vehicle. That is partly dependent on the vehicle’s age. In many cases, it produces only a limited advantage in respect of emissions. It is not true that adapted hydrogen vehicles always produce as efficient a result as vehicles that are designed to run on hydrogen fuel cells. At least that is what I am advised, but I can tell that I may be about to obtain different advice from my hon. Friends.
Kit Malthouse
I am hesitant to give the Minister a chemistry lesson, but the combustion of hydrogen does not produce anything like as much CO2—no carbon is involved, necessarily, in the combustion of that—and it produces significantly less NOx emissions, so there is a huge advantage in the internal combustion of hydrogen over that of a carbon-based fuel, such as petrol or kerosene.
Mr Baker
Of course when we burn hydrogen the result is water. However, when we took evidence on this subject, we were cut lamentably short for entirely understandable reasons. The witness was really talking about dual-fuel vehicles, which run on both petrol and hydrogen. We were not able to explore fully what it would mean if vehicles were to run with internal combustion engines entirely on hydrogen. The reason behind dual-fuel vehicles is that there is a limited supply of liquefied petroleum gas around the country, so vehicles still need to run on petrol. However, if there was hydrogen everywhere, one might potentially dispense entirely with petrol in such engines. Vehicles could then run entirely on hydrogen and they would never burn a carbon-based fuel.
Mr Hayes
Despite the overtures from my hon. Friend, the witnesses were singularly unenthusiastic about hydrogen, particularly Mr Willson. He said:
“I believe hydrogen is too far away yet to get consumers interested in or excited about it.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 18, Q31.]
However, it is clearly not too far away to excite my hon. Friends the Member for North West Hampshire and for Wycombe, but they are at the apex of excitement at all times.
Mr Hayes
I will make a little progress and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I want to be clear that, in seeking the powers, the Government are mindful of the need to strike a balance between encouraging the development of the refuelling infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cells and electric vehicles while ensuring that any impacts on the market are managed properly. I want to emphasise that we are by no means unresponsive or unimpressed by the argument for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. I will personally ensure that the comments that have been made here and elsewhere—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is an enthusiast for this too, will add to them in a moment—are taken fully into account as we take further steps to improve the infrastructure that the Bill is designed to reinforce.
Richard Burden
I think that one of the problems with the way the discussion was going a moment ago was about whether or not hydrogen conversions of petrol engines are the way to go. Surely the point about the amendment, which I think has merits, and this part of the Bill is the question of whether or not the Government should have the capacity to introduce regulations that would cover this area, or whether that capacity should be restricted to the kinds of propulsion systems currently set out in the Bill. From what the Minister said, can I take it that he is receptive to the argument that the Government should not be hemmed in by the technology and that perhaps between now and Report some form of words could be considered that would expand matters a little further?
Mr Hayes
As I enjoyed a very light and healthy lunch in between the two sittings of this Committee today, I was able to have a very brief informal conversation with Members of the Committee on exactly that subject. We discussed the risk of being “hemmed in”, as the hon. Gentleman put it, which is certainly not the Government’s intention.
I want to focus on ultra low emission and zero-emission mobility, of course, because that is very much in accord with the Government’s policy and strategy, but it is right that we do not close off technological options that have merit. With all technological change in its early stages—at its cusp, as it were—it is important to retain an open mind. I could give many examples from the technological changes that have occurred in my own lifetime of decisions that, if we took them now, would be rather different, because we were not sufficiently open-minded about the kinds of developments that the hon. Gentleman has described, so I am certainly open-minded. I do not want to close down options, but I am heavily focused on low and zero-emissions mobility. That is the formula that we will adopt.
On that basis, and with what I thought was a rather more enthusiastic welcome for my hon. Friend’s predilections and, may I say, prejudices—without meaning to sound in any way pejorative—I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Rob Marris
I thank the Minister for his indulgence. This has been an interesting debate; I have to say that I think it has been a diversion, almost completely irrelevant to this Bill. The long title of this Bill says it is a Bill to:
“Make provision about automated vehicles, electric vehicles, vehicle testing and civil aviation”.
Then it has some stuff about lasers, and so on. If—
The Chair
Order. I should let the hon. Member know that it is a matter for me what is relevant.
Rob Marris
I understand that, Ms Ryan, which is why I was thanking the Minister and made no comment on the selection by you and Mr Gray. It is just surprising that we have had such a long debate on something that is without the long title of the Bill.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Ms Ryan, I seek your guidance as to whether you will allow a brief stand part debate on clause 8. If you will, I shall wait till then.
Alan Brown
With your indulgence, Ms Ryan, I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West said, because I wondered whether this was the right place to make an amendment, given that the actual title of part 2 is “Electric Vehicles: Charging”. This clause is all about the charging of electric vehicles; it is not actually about internal combustion engines, so I would suggest that perhaps it is not the correct place to make this amendment.
Also, the Government Members of the Committee are some of the greatest free marketeers. If we move to this position where hydrogen internal combustion engines are the future, hopefully the free market will help to drive that as well, because we have all these petrol filling stations that can no longer sell petrol and they may have an opportunity to convert their petrol tanks to hydrogen tanks. There is still a future, but I think we are a wee bit way off it yet.
Mr Baker
I am extremely grateful for the range and scale of this debate. I started by saying that I would not dream of pushing this amendment to a Division, so I beg to ask the Committee’s leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Selous
I seek a brief clarification of the definition of “charge point” in subsection (1)(a). My understanding is that there are currently about 11,000 charge points in the UK, of which only about 800 are fast charge points. I cannot see any distinction between normal and fast charge points anywhere in the Bill. Hon. Members will remember that in the Committee’s evidence session on Tuesday fast charge points were described as the “game changer” that we will need to propel ultra low emission electric vehicles forward in the way that we seek. I would be grateful if the Minister told us whether the Government will use their powers under the Bill to ensure that there are sufficient fast charge points around the UK.
Mr Hayes
We had some debate about this in the evidence session. Clause 8 provides several definitions relating to the charging of electric vehicles. It gives a precise definition not only of “charge point”, as my hon. Friend said, but of “hydrogen refuelling point”, and it specifies what qualifies as a “public charging point”. This is so that the effect of the powers matches their intent and so that their intent is made clear to the public. Any other necessary definitions will be set out in secondary legislation, but we wanted to be clear about the framework. To answer his perfectly fair question, the definition of “charge point” covers both rapid and normal charge points.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Public charging points: access and connection
Richard Burden
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 9, page 6, line 33, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must consult charge point operators and vehicle manufacturers on the prescribed requirements for connecting components (before regulations under subsection 9(1b) are made).”
This amendment requires consultation with charge point operators and vehicle manufacturers on the requirements for connecting components for the charging of electric vehicles.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I have a few words to say about the policy scoping notes that we have received. Most Committee members saw them for the first time today because they were circulated last night. They are helpful, particularly in relation to part 2, from clause 9 onward, and they address some of the issues that our amendments probe. It is reassuring to know that Ministers are thinking about those things, but I have to say that producing those notes last night, so that we saw them today for the first time as we were going into the first sitting of line-by-line scrutiny, was really not the right way to do things.
The Government’s sequencing and timing for this part of the Bill were wrong. They should have started with a consultation on the infrastructure issues that they were trying to address in order to create the infrastructure for the zero-emissions future that we all want. After that consultation, they should have scoped out the policy options that would lead to that outcome. Having reached consensus on those, they should have published a Bill with adequate safeguards in it, especially if a large part of that Bill involved powers to make secondary legislation down the track.
That is how it should have been done. Sadly, the Government have done it another way. They certainly started with a good consultation on what they described at the time as “Modern Transport”, but they then went from that consultation to a Bill that leaves a large number of questions unanswered, particularly in part 2. Then, in the middle of our discussion of that Bill, we see what should have been the second stage: the policy notes scoping out the policy options. The recurring theme of these notes—it is particularly relevant to this amendment and clause 9—is that Ministers are, perfectly reasonably, not sure what regulations they will need to introduce to achieve the objectives of the clause. The Government say in the policy notes that they will produce those regulations in draft before the Bill reaches the Lords, by summer.
Ministers have not made it easy for us to get the clarity that we need at Committee stage, so the theme of the amendments to this part of the Bill that we have tabled and will pursue is to press the Government, first, on the definition of the issues that the Bill is trying to address; secondly, on what criteria they will use in addressing them; thirdly, for clarity on whom they intend to consult on those issues; and fourthly, on how far they are prepared to review in the light of experience how the Bill’s provisions, when enacted, will operate in our rapidly changing environment. I hope that the Minister will be responsive as we pursue amendments on that theme.
On amendment 12, I am sure that we all agree that the market presents a significant opportunity for the UK to lead globally in encouraging uptake of electric vehicles. Making the most of that opportunity will require action in a number of areas; one is availability and interoperability of charging points. As we heard in the evidence sessions on Tuesday, there is some concern about differing design standards for charging points. The Government’s response to their “Modern Transport” consultation recorded that concern from several quarters, and those Committee members who own plug-in vehicles or have constituents who do will know how irritating the absence of common or universal standards is in the charging infrastructure and the specifications of different electric or plug-in vehicles.
In the response to the “Modern Transport” consultation, the Government advised us that the relevant measures will be covered by a European Union directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, which should mandate a minimum common charging connection and socket outlet for relevant recharge points while allowing charge point manufacturers to include other connector types. Common European standards will still need to be implemented, and their delivery will rest heavily on manufacturers. That is what the Government are getting at in the regulations on connecting components in clause 9. We are not opposed in principle to the regulations or the use of secondary legislation to introduce them. The purpose of the amendment is to probe a little deeper to ensure that the Government consult properly and widely on the final form and implementation of those connecting components, specifically consulting recharge point operators and vehicle manufacturers.
My first question to the Minister is this: what discussions have taken place so far between Government, vehicle manufacturers and charge point operators? Secondly, what pan-European working groups are the Government engaging with to ensure that the solution there is shaped sooner rather than later? It is important to avoid a situation in which vehicles have a wide range of different connecting components, because they will have to be reflected on forecourts. A wide range of different connecting components will be impractical and create confusion on forecourts. It seems to me that the Government must also ensure, particularly with Brexit coming down the tracks, that regulatory divergence regarding those connecting components does not develop between the UK and the EU, and that consistency with the EU regulations and standards that are being and will be developed will be maintained. How will that be done?
That is all essential if the UK is to be the vehicle manufacturers’ location of choice for the development, testing and deployment of electric vehicles. It is important that the Government get the details right on the specification and harmonisation of connecting components. The other point to reflect on in relation to the amendment is what will happen to existing electric vehicles that do not yet have those common connectors that we hope will be on future vehicles. Do the Government intend that charge point operators should provide adapters for those vehicles as well?
The amendment and the others we have tabled are designed to find out a bit more about the criteria on which Ministers will make those kinds of decisions, how they will consult before making them and with whom. I hope the Minister will be able to address some of those issues and concerns.
Mr Hayes
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s first contribution to the Committee. He and I have worked together in similar circumstances in the past to produce, I hope, effective legislation.
Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks about the order in which the Government have gone about our business. He is right to draw attention to our consultation. I think the document is available to all members of the Committee, but I draw their attention to it once again. This is our response to the consultation, which is available from my Department and which deals with a number of issues that he raised. He is also right that after consulting we moved to legislate, but not without considerable dialogue with the industry. The communication that he requests is regular; I meet the industry on an extremely regular basis. I was with representatives of the industry yesterday evening, and I held a roundtable meeting with them on Tuesday before our witness session to discuss these and other issues, but we focused on the Bill.
Of course, automated vehicles’ electric charging infrastructure is a matter of real concern to manufacturers, because the absence of good infrastructure is a barrier to entry for many consumers; it is not the only challenge they face, but it is one of them. So our determination to put into place effective infrastructure is shared by manufacturers. It is an important means by which they will encourage more people to buy the electric cars they make. We also engage regularly—I would go so far as to say routinely—with the providers of charge points. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need to move to common standards. It is really important that we establish the certainty that comes from good standards.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to draw attention to the directive—I will start in a moment to deal with notes I have in front of me, rather than sharing my own views. That is the trouble, Ms Ryan—I am just one of those Ministers who says what he really believes. He is right to draw attention to that directive, and we are looking closely at how we should deal with it. We are working to consult on the transposition of the directive and the Bill measures in parallel. He sensibly points out that not to do so might imply a contradiction, so it is really significant that we ensure they are synergous. We will work on that final transposition of the directive as soon as possible. I commit now to informing Committee members as the Bill makes progress of our thinking on that synergy.
Andrew Selous
As someone who is proud to represent a constituency that consists of three market towns and 14 villages, I offer the Minister my wholehearted support on this point. We want this technology across the whole of the United Kingdom, and not just in big urban centres. It should be for everyone.
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend is a great friend, was an outstanding Minister and is a valued colleague. I welcome his remarks.
I completely agree that we must consult a wide range of stakeholders with a view to making regulations. I said—the shadow Minister was enthusiastic about this—that as well as standardisation of connection, I would like there to be some standardisation of design. I think it is important that charge points are instantly recognisable. As people drive about, particularly in places they do not know, they should know what a charge point looks like. I am inclined to run a design competition to elicit something of beauty and efficacy. We will do that as a result of the conversations we have been having formally and informally.
I do not think it is right to specify which organisations should be consulted—this is where there may be a point of detailed difference between us. As we develop the regulations under the clause, there needs to be a wide consultation, but I would not want to be too specific about with whom and when. It is ongoing, and it needs to be wide-ranging. On that basis, I have a difference with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield about the specifics of the amendment, but I absolutely assure him that the spirit of all he said is entirely consistent with my view on these matters. On that basis, I hope he will withdraw the amendment.
Richard Burden
As I said at the outset, the purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government’s intentions. I am grateful that the Minister acknowledged that the compatibility of charge points’ connections will be the making or the breaking of whether they incentivise the switch to plug-in vehicles. I am also pleased that he recognised that there is a European dimension here. Whatever happens on Brexit, we must not get a range of specifications for charge points, be they in motorway services areas or anywhere else in this country, that simply do not work on the continent of Europe, and vice versa. Those two things must be done in parallel.
Although the Minister did not specifically address this in his response—I am sure he will—I hope he will also take on board the point about the current specifications of connectors, before the kind of commonality that we all want has been achieved. We must ensure that public charge points are able to provide adapters or some other means to enable early adopters of electric and other plug-in vehicles to charge their vehicles, even when we have got to a much better situation of harmonised and compatible charging points.
Richard Burden
The Minister is nodding, and I am grateful to him for that. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Large fuel retailers etc: provision of public charging points
Richard Burden
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 10, page 7, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide exemptions for retailers and operators in instances where adhering to such regulations would—
(a) require an expansion of land, or
(b) result in any other disproportionate costs for retailers and operators.”
This amendment ensures that there are exemptions for operators with limited forecourt space who are unable to accommodate public charging points without an expansion of land and that retailers and operators do not incur disproportionate costs for complying with regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, in clause 10, page 7, line 4, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must publish, in draft, the criteria and definition of “large fuel retailers” and “service area operators” at least six months before regulations under subsection 10(3) are made.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on and publish criteria to be used for the definitions of “large fuel retailers” and “service area operators”. This will make clear to the industry which kinds of companies are covered by these regulations.
Richard Burden
I will focus first on amendment 13. As it stands, the Bill allows the Government to impose requirements on what are described as “large fuel retailers” and “service area operators”; the problem is that Ministers have yet to define or outline the definitional criteria for what those actually are. It is a bit “Alice in Wonderland”—the requirements will apply to large fuel retailers and service area operators, and the definition of those is what the Government say they are.
The policy scoping notes say that “evolution of the market” and other factors mean that the Government are not yet in a position to apply the powers that they are taking in the Bill, and they may not even be in a position to start doing so for a year or two after Royal Assent. Paragraph 3.10 of the scoping notes says:
“It would not be appropriate to develop draft regulations before it had been decided to regulate”,
but on page 2, the notes say that Ministers will “produce draft regulations” relating to part 2 of the Bill before it reaches the Lords in the summer. There appears to be something of a contradiction in the Government’s logic. I know that this is a changing and emerging scene, but we need more clarity from the Government on when they will be in a position to produce draft regulations relating to this part of the Bill, who they will apply to and who they will consult. This relates to when they will actually apply the powers given to them by the regulations that they will bring in.
Amendment 13 goes some way towards trying to address that. It requires the Government to publish in draft the criteria for and definition of large fuel retailers and service area operators that they intend to use. In light of the policy scoping notes, arguably the amendment does not go far enough in asking for that clarity and those definitions. Will the Minister table amendments on Report to provide greater clarity on the sequencing of draft regulations, the application of powers and consultation, and on the timing of what the Government envisage?
In the meantime, it is worth pausing to consider some definitional points, as amendment 13 tries to do. What is a large fuel retailer? Going by the Government’s impact assessment, how large a fuel retailer is seems to be based on market share. That makes sense in a way, but I am not sure whether Ministers have missed a trick. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West said on Tuesday, there could be a case for removing the word “fuel” altogether from the definition of a large retailer, so that the Bill could apply the mandating of the availability of charge points to a much larger operator.
We know from some of the evidence we heard on Tuesday that mandating charging infrastructure requirements on motorway services areas and the like is only one part of what needs to happen. Indeed, in the evidence sessions, one of the things that came over clearly to me is that getting the right incentives in place for home charging is just as important as anything that happens in motorway services areas. I therefore question whether the cuts that Ministers have made to the plug-in car grant and other consumer incentives are consistent with that objective.
It is also just as important to address how charging infrastructure can be expanded in supermarkets, shopping parks and workplaces. In the evidence session, Quentin Willson urged us to focus on how the UK can get ahead of the game in getting connectivity for wireless on-street charging in place. He also urged us to look at how street lamps can be converted into charging points. All those things seem to go well beyond the kind of charging infrastructure that the Bill envisages and covers.
When the Minister replies on this group of amendments, I hope he will give us some reassurance that the Government are looking at those kinds of initiatives, even if they are not covered by the Bill. If they are not to be covered by the Bill, who will be responsible for making those kinds of initiatives happen and come into being? Who will be charged with looking at whether we can have charging points up and down the country on lamp posts? When and how will they be charged with doing that? The Bill does not address those kinds of issues. Between now and Report, will the Minister reflect on whether something can be done? Perhaps something can be put into the Bill to at least start addressing some of the broader issues before it completes its passage.
In the meantime, it is worth putting on record that companies are concerned about what the Government taking the kind of powers conferred by the Bill will mean for them. These are much more immediate practical issues, but the Government’s impact assessment lays out the potentially significant cost to the operators affected by this part of the Bill, which could run into many millions of pounds.
That brings me on to amendment 11. As we heard on Tuesday, fuel retailers, particularly those with limited forecourt space, are worried that they simply will not be able to meet the requirements of the regulations that the Government bring in, particularly if—returning to the previous debate—they have to accommodate a variety of different charging and connecting points. Inevitably, some fuel retailers will not have the space to implement those changes without expanding the land they have available. The amendment would provide an exemption in such instances, when meeting the regulations would result in disproportionate costs to the retailer.
Alan Brown
With amendment 13, I agree that it makes sense to ask the Government to provide that absolute clarity, but how is “disproportionate costs” defined in amendment 11? One thing that struck me was that the people giving evidence were very reticent to install the charging points anyway. There is a risk that people would hide behind a definition of “disproportionate costs”. Is there any way that that could be firmed up?
Richard Burden
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I will be clear: amendment 11 is worded to probe the Government’s intentions and to ask the Minister to provide greater clarity on these issues so that the operators of motorway and other service areas know a bit more about who is likely to be affected, what will be required of them and how much it will cost. The hon. Gentleman is right; what might be disproportionate to one operator will certainly not be to another.
Iain Stewart
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield for raising this important matter for clarification. If I may, I will add one additional concern that was reported to me in a discussion with Western Power Distribution in my constituency a week or two ago. There is a potential additional cost if the proposed retailer currently requires only minimal distribution network facilities. If there were to be many charging points located at that retailer because of the regulations, there might be significant additional costs to the grid and distribution networks to ensure the relevant level of supply. The concern that some of those costs might be disproportionate was flagged up. I seek an assurance from the Minister that they will be taken into consideration when he is drawing up the regulations.
Mr Hayes
Edmund Burke said,
“Early and provident fear is the mother of safety.”
Although I would not describe any of the comments as indicative of fear, it is certainly true that what I might describe as dutiful doubt and honest hesitation can be a helpful thing to Government when we are trying to navigate as yet uncharted waters, as one is bound to do in respect of this kind of legislation, given that it is about rapidly changing technology. So I am grateful for the tone that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield set in allowing us to explore these matters with that kind of dutiful and honest hesitation. We should hesitate, think and consider, and then act.
This is a very important debate. I have made clear and have been very open about my own determination to make sure that we have a spread of charge points, because we want electric vehicles to be as easy as possible to refuel as a petrol or diesel vehicle is now. That will require a wide spread of infrastructure to support many thousands more electric vehicles—indeed, ultimately tens of hundreds of thousands more. Similarly, we understand that regulation will not always be the right approach. Sometimes, a carrot is more important than a stick.
I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South, and indeed the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, said about cost. There is an argument for Government support. I have nothing to announce today, but I hear what is said and I think that there is an argument for it, in particular to get the spread that I want—small village post offices, village shops and those sorts of places spring to mind.
Similarly, it is important that the larger petrol retailers that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield described are properly defined. I hear what he said and we will need to clarify that, too, during the passage of the Bill. He made a fair point, and I will do that. The Bill sets out the principle, but it seems to me that he is right that further definition is required. We are looking at that closely, as he will have assumed, and we are in discussion with the industry.
We are considering regulations to take account of a whole range of issues: the commercial viability of fuel retailers and their forecourts and service areas; the effect that mandatory electrical refuelling infrastructure would have; the space available, given total land taken by existing facilities; the capacity of the local electricity grid in the case of charge points—we spoke a little about that in the evidence session—and the existing or future proximity of electrical vehicle infrastructure within the proximity of the fuel retailer or service area. There may well be other factors as well, because the area is complex, so we are working closely with fuel retailers, service area operators and infrastructure providers to bring forward those necessary regulations.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that clause 15(3) specifically commits the Secretary of State to consult with appropriate persons before making regulations under this part of the Bill. He asked for greater clarity about the timetable. I think that is fair. We could set out at least an indicative timetable. In this letter I am going to send to the Committee, which is growing ever more exciting and detailed, perhaps I will suggest how we might do that. Committee members will be waiting by their post boxes with eager anticipation.
Given that the powers to mandate provision of charge points and hydrogen are bold and ambitious, concentration would need to be thorough and wide-ranging. To some degree—again there is a slightly point of difference between us on this—that is why I do not want to be too particular about whom we consult. I am certainly happy to talk about the categories of people whom we might consult, but I do not want to narrow the discussion—if anything, rather the opposite. I want to have as wide-ranging a consultation as we can, for some of the reasons that I have already offered.
Following such consultation, regulations could come into force much earlier than the six months suggested in amendment 13. We can be more ambitious than that. For that reason, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that amendment, because we can do more and do it more quickly.
Richard Burden
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. I do not think that I have ever been accused of dutiful doubts and honest hesitation. Given that he reckoned that they were probably good qualities to have in relation to the Bill, I accept the description.
The amendments are trying to deal with two sets of concerns. The first is about the kind of operators that the Bill will mandate to provide charging infrastructure down the line through regulation. A range of practical issues relating to the definition of operators, such as forecourt capacity, cost and other things, need to be addressed. I am pleased that the Minister has committed to consult and introduce draft regulations on the matter as soon as possible. I assume, therefore, that he does not believe the policy scoping notes’ description in paragraph 3.10 that it will be difficult to do anything on that until towards the end of this decade necessarily needs to be the case. Perhaps it could be done a lot earlier. I am grateful for that ambition on the part of the Minister.
The second thing that the amendments are perhaps more implicitly trying to get at is those areas of infrastructure that the Bill does not address. What about home charging, lamp posts, on-street charging and wireless charging? Is there any ambition and framework by which we can try to ensure that the UK is ahead of the game in providing such infrastructure, just as much as ensuring whether WH Smith or the motorway service area on the M42 near where I live provide the necessary infrastructure?
Mr Hayes
Let me explore that a little, because it is another important point. I suppose it is yet another balance, and there are several aspects to the balance that we attempt to strike in the Bill. The balance in this respect is about how much we mandate, how much we encourage and how much we provide incentive in the end. I am looking at all those matters. Of course I have met the providers of on-street charge points. Some of this involves relations with other Government Departments because of planning issues, and some of it involves the competition on design that I mentioned. Yes, I do accept that certain matters are not in the Bill, but do not assume for a moment that they do not matter to us and that we are not doing something about them.
Richard Burden
I am pleased that the Minister is seized of those issues. On Report, will the Bill at least give a nod to the need to do something on those infrastructure matters?
Andrew Selous
I have listened carefully to the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Would he also consider adding to his useful list new housing and what regulations might be required in terms of charging points, as well as existing local authority car parks and other car parks, where there is great potential to expand the number of charging points?
Richard Burden
The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point, and it underlines that we are in an entirely different game. Until now, we have had a very narrow view of what the refuelling of a vehicle entails; it means going to a place called a service station, which might be down the road or on the motorway, where there are fuel pumps, and that is about it. What is proposed under the Bill is a complete change to that practice. Certainly, those conventional filling stations will still need to be there, but if we are truly to incentivise the big switch to zero-emission vehicles that we need to achieve, convenience of charging must be the watchword. Yes, that means the filling stations, but it also means the supermarket and the car park, and homes. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire is right that it also means looking at the planning requirements for new homes and the availability, or provision if necessary, of charge points is an important consideration.
I do not expect the Minister to be able to provide in the Bill every bit of detail on how that will be done, although I am sure that he would love to be able to do that. That will not be possible and the Bill will inevitably concentrate fairly narrowly on the idea of the filling station, but I hope that it will at least acknowledge that there is a broader agenda. As the Bill progresses, I hope that the Government will make it clear that although it may not cover those broader issues, they intend to do so. I hope that they will provide the timetable for doing so, outline how they will ensure liaison between the different Government Departments involved and identify the outside bodies that they intend to talk to. If that is the outcome, we could be dealing with something very exciting.
On the basis of the reassurances and commitments that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rob Marris
Some of what I intended to say has been foreshadowed and I will not repeat it all, you and the Committee will be relieved to hear, Ms Ryan. When we heard from Robert Evans, who is the chief executive of a specialist research and technology organisation and represented the UK Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Association, he addressed the issue of train stations, airports and so on. More pertinently, we also heard on Tuesday afternoon from Teresa Sayers, the chief executive of the Downstream Fuel Association, who said:
“We represent the non-refining companies and major supermarkets.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 37, Q65.]
When I questioned her about the wording of clause 10, she said:
“Our apprehension about the wording is all about the location of the EV charging point on a forecourt, for the reasons we have discussed.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 41, Q71.]
I said to her:
“The word “fuel” in “large fuel retailers” is causing you to scratch your head a bit?”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 41, Q73.]
She replied, “Yes, absolutely”, and agreed that “large retailers” would be better.
I look forward to the Minister’s design competition, which he announced today and which is wonderful. I suggest that, for the design that is ultimately decided upon, rather like we have Belisha beacons, we could have “Hayes hook-ups” or something similar. As the hon. Member for Bedford said, we need to think more broadly about planning permission and building those into planning requirements for new buildings, and possibly about a requirement for three-phase electricity and that sort of thing for more rapid charging.
We need to look at the regulations for the franchise specifications for motorway service station operators. They have a franchise that, I would guess for most of them, requires them to open for 24 hours a day. We do that as a public good. For motorway service station operators, providing coffee at three in the morning is a public good, but it is probably not profitable; however, providing coffee over 24 hours is profitable. As a society we say we want that, because we want motorists to drink coffee and stay awake on the motorways. Electric charging points could be part of a motorway service area franchise, because—surprise, surprise—we get on to clause 10 and the Government are quite willing to intervene in a market that hardly exists now. Good; they are coming over to the socialist side. There is a role for Government in making markets that, honourably and commendably, the Government, as represented by the Minister today, are seeking to fulfil.
In terms of making markets, I suggest to him that clause 10 does not need, and should not include, the words “large fuel retailers”; I did not table an amendment to that affect because I came to that view only after I heard the evidence on Tuesday. We do not, and should not have, the word “fuel”; in fact, if regulations are made, as the clause provides for, that will provide definitions, we do not actually need the word “large” either. Ministers never want excess wording in Bills; I understand that.
We understand from the Bill’s wording, which could be usefully removed, the Government’s idea that little corner shops would not be subject to the regulations. Corner shops are retailers and almost all of them have a little parking area, even in rural areas. I think we understand that the concept of large fuel retailers would not cover, for example, my local BP station, which is a one-minute walk from my house and has five parking spaces; some cars parked for a quick, 30-minute charge will clog things up there. We went through the evidence on that on Tuesday. We ought to be looking at retailers and at supermarkets in particular, because very broadly most people go there, park their car, go off and do their shopping for half an hour or 45 minutes and come back. Their car could be charged during that time.
Now is the perfect time to do this because the business rates revaluation is still going through the House in the Local Government Finance Bill. Many supermarkets—not all—are winners under the business rates revaluation, so they will be paying lower business rates, which is a bit of a windfall for them. The Government could taketh away through the Bill by saying, “Well, you’ve had your windfall on business rates, but you have got to invest that for the benefit of our society by providing electric charging points. You are large retailers, not fuel retailers or service area operators. But, for the public benefit, as a Government our public policy to drive the market is that supermarkets or such operations that have a lot of parking should be providing public charging points, as clause 10 seeks to do for large fuel retailers.”
When I had a discussion with the Minister about that outside the Committee, he was positive and said that he would think about it. That is all I ask of him today. I hope he will feel able to stand up—if he catches your eye, Ms Ryan—and say that he will consider the point of broadening out the clause by removing “fuel” as a concept, because that gets us from forecourts and so on—many areas with limited parking spaces—and more into the scenario of supermarkets, train stations, airports and so on, which is much better, more amenable and would provide a better service to those we seek to represent.
Mr Hayes
I will be brief. We have had a good, detailed debate on this aspect of the Bill. I hope that my determination to broaden the number of points at which people can charge vehicles is clear from my earlier remarks. Equally, my parallel determination is to ensure that while we mandate the provision, we do not do so in a way that is not reasonable or affordable.
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and I will return to it in a second. I suppose the reason why “fuel” is there is that it is not unreasonable that the people who are likely to benefit should make some contribution. If we think of motorway service areas—by the way, they are already taking this on—there are charge points at most of them now, and in some cases they are trialling hydrogen refuelling points, too. Given that they are likely to benefit and they are already investing, it does not seem unreasonable to pursue that avenue.
Andrew Selous
Will my right hon. Friend enlighten us about the economics of charging points? I confess that I am ignorant as to the average payback for the capital cost of putting in a charging point. We are talking about mandating, but it may be that they are profitable goldmines for the businesses concerned, who will be eager to put in as many as possible.
Mr Hayes
A rapid charge point currently costs about £50,000 and a hydrogen refuelling installation is perhaps a little more. It is expected that hydrogen refuelling will be introduced more gradually, given that higher cost and the state of market development. However, as I think I said earlier, because of my even-handedness on this, I would not want to preclude that roll-out. The answer to the question about how those who have already installed them see the analysis of income is that I do not know what the cost-benefit analysis is, but if I can get more detail on that I will happily make it available to my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee. It is an interesting point that will inform our discussions.
I was very open earlier about the other kinds of provision. Although we do not want to mandate smaller businesses, those that are more remote and those that would find such a cost far too onerous, neither do we want to deprive them of the opportunity that having these facilities might provide. We want to ensure an even spread of charge point, so there is a good case for finding a mechanism that is not legislative to encourage and incentivise other kinds of place that could put in a recharging point. I see this as only a first step.
The compromise I can strike with the hon. Gentleman and others is to say that we are establishing a framework, and we are doing so because these are the places where people typically go now to fuel their vehicles. However, it is not an exclusive framework. As this policy area develops, we will look at means of encouraging and supporting the roll-out that he and I both want, including considerations of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire raised. We are already in discussion with the Department for Communities and Local Government about this; as I said, there is a planning and housing issue, and on-street facilities will continue to be critical. Of course, many people will charge at home—they do now, and they will continue to do so—but it is important that we also have a really robust policy in place to increase considerably the number of places where people can charge their vehicles, and we will certainly do so. I assure hon. Members who contributed to this short debate that I am mindful of the desire to create what I described earlier as breadth as well as depth.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Information about public charging points
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Richard Burden
Although we have tabled no amendments to clause 11, it is worth putting it on record that it is potentially one of the most important clauses in part 2 of the Bill. If we are to give more people the confidence they need to switch to plug-in vehicles, it is vital that they have an easy way, without having to work at it, of knowing not only where they can charge their vehicle but how much it will cost and how that compares with other charge points in the area. If they have a Nissan LEAF rather than a Tesla, they need to know that the charge point will charge it. Ensuring proper interoperability and transparency, particularly of pricing, is really important. Unusually, I do not think that we can add to what the Government have put in the clause, but I emphasise that it is really important.
Mr Hayes
I was driven in a Nissan LEAF yesterday, so I really do live the policy. The hon. Gentleman is right: as well as putting in place the broad infrastructure that I described, we need to provide information, and part 2 of the Bill will do precisely that. It will allow the Government to improve the provision of information on charge points for electric vehicles by requiring network operators to provide the information necessary to make locating and charging an electric car easy and hassle-free.
The way in which people obtain information has changed and will continue to change. In-car information is likely to be a feature of future developments. It is important that we set out the requirements now, so that motorists know, as a minimum, where charge points are located and can plan their journeys accordingly. As the hon. Gentleman said, the provision of information is probably as important as issues that we have spent longer discussing. The fact that he has not tabled any amendments implies that he agrees with us that the data on location, price and availability need to be accessible and open. That will also allow service operators to develop their products by giving motorists a complete picture, allowing them to plan their journeys with greater confidence. The market is moving in the right direction, and we are trying to support that in the Bill.
Rob Marris
If someone wanted to make a public telephone call 30, 40 or 50 years ago, one of the ways in which they got information about where to make it from was visual—a red telephone box was a visual source of information. I suggest that the Minister should interpret broadly the phrase
“in what form the information is to be made available”
in clause 11(3)(a), including within it the design of Hayes hook-ups, so that, like red telephone boxes, they give a visual clue—visual information—and people can see from their design where the available charging point is.
Mr Hayes
What a wonderful image the hon. Gentleman conjures; I will certainly take his point to heart. I will ask my friend and adviser, the distinguished architect Quinlan Terry, to suggest further developments of the kind that the hon. Gentleman set out.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind all persons present in the room to ensure that their electronic devices are in silent mode. Today’s selection list is available in the room. I remind the Committee that we will consider the clauses and schedules in the order set out in the programme motion, which was agreed on Tuesday and is at the back of the amendment paper.
Schedule 4
Further amendments: enhanced partnership plans and schemes
Amendment made: 18, in schedule 4, page 88, line 12, leave out “123A(4)(b) to (f)” and insert “123A(4)”.—(Andrew Jones.)
See explanatory statement for amendment 17.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Power to require provision of information about English bus services
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 18, page 74, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert—
“which have one or more stopping places in their areas”.
This amendment will allow regulations under new section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 to require local transport authorities to provide information about all relevant local services which have stopping places in their areas. As currently drafted the power is available only where there are franchising arrangements.
Andrew Jones
An important element of the Bill is the availability of journey planning information about bus services. The clause will facilitate the provision to passengers of information about timetables, fares, routes and tickets, and live information about bus arrival times. This is one of the most exciting parts of the Bill.
Amendment 12 will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring all local transport authorities, rather than just those that are franchising authorities, to provide prescribed information about local bus services. Our overall policy intention is still for operators to be responsible for providing route, timetable, fares, tickets and real-time information. However, during the development and drafting of the Bill, our discussions with operators and local authority representatives highlighted that current practices in the industry mean that local authorities rather than operators often hold the relevant information. That is particularly the case in respect of real-time information.
Historically, local authorities invested in real-time information systems, including the equipment fitted to the vehicles. In those cases, it will be important to require local authorities rather than operators to provide the relevant information. Without the amendment, there is a risk that the amount of real-time information available to passengers reduces in future because operators cannot provide the information held by the authority. To ensure that there is no degradation in the level of service available to passengers, we will amend the clause so that real-time information may be required from the local authority if it owns the real-time system. The intention is for that to be a short-term measure while appropriate processes and procedures are put in place to enable the obligation to be passed to operators.
Stakeholders have stressed the importance of two existing datasets currently maintained by local authorities, which accurately and uniquely describe and locate all bus stops in a common format. Those datasets are fundamental to the production of meaningful journey planning information for passengers. However, they are currently maintained by local authorities on a voluntary basis. Should it become necessary to put the ongoing maintenance of the datasets on to a statutory footing, amendments 13 and 14, in conjunction with amendment 12, will ensure that regulations could be made requiring information about stopping places to be provided and maintained by local transport authorities or operators.
The Secretary of State must consult with local authority operators and passenger representatives before making such regulations, and any impacts of new requirements will be assessed before implementation. The regulations are also subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will be able to debate the detail of the final regulations.
The amendments are necessary to ensure that the level of information currently available to passengers is not reduced in the transition to the new open data arrangements, and to secure the maintenance of the datasets that are fundamental to all open data requirements. We are seeking to make information available from which app developers can produce products that offer a service outside London that will be comparable to that which is available inside London. We are not thinking of developing such a measure within the Department, but thinking of making it available so that entrepreneurs can pick it up, run with it and create exciting products.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is important that products are equally as accessible to small providers and large providers. Will that be the case?
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I share the Minister’s excitement on the clause. It is a huge opportunity. We have absolutely no objections to it, we are enthusiastic and support it. I reflect in passing on the amazing work that has gone on in London through Transport for London, and would have had across the rest of the country if we had had a similar system for the past 30 years.
Andrew Jones
I suspect we are going to have a further outburst of Tuesday’s agreeing with each other. Helping passengers with information on how bus services in their areas can meet their transport needs will put more passengers on to buses. That is fundamental to what the Bill is about and why the clause is central to the Bill.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in clause 18, page 74, line 22, after “routes,” insert “stopping places,”.
This amendment and amendment 14 ensure that information about stopping places is included in the types of information that can be required by regulations under new section 141A of the Transport Act 2000.
Amendment 14, in clause 18, page 74, line 23, at end insert “stopping places,”.—(Andrew Jones.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 13.
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Variation or cancellation of registration: service information
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 19, page 76, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.
This amendment would specify that regulations will require, rather than may require, operators to provide prescribed information.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 32, in clause 19, page 76, line 13, leave out from “application” to end of line 14.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 31.
Lilian Greenwood
It is a pleasure to be back in the Bill Committee and serving under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I hope the Minister will accept the amendments as being helpful and seeking to improve the Bill.
I will begin by explaining the background. The Competition Commission completed an investigation into bus markets in 2011 and recommended that the Government give local transport authorities powers to obtain revenue and patronage information for de-registered services and the right to disclose that information to potential bidders for subsequent tenders. It also recommended a 14-day pre-notification period preceding formal service registrations, variations and withdrawals, which I think was partly aimed at curbing undesirable operator behaviour—bus wars—but was also relevant to its recommendation regarding supported services, specifically in relation to the provision of revenue and patronage information. However, it was not specific in its report about whether those data should be provided by default, or whether the onus should be on local transport authorities to request it. I contend that providing those data should be the default, rather than it having to be requested every time.
Fundamentally, the amendment is about efficiency—the efficient operation of the tendered bus services market and the efficient administration of that market, both of which have clear implications for public funds. It would not be a significant burden on operators to provide the data by default because a competent operator would already have the data to hand, as they would have been vital in informing their decision to withdraw or vary the service.
Nowadays, data are available in electronic form, so it would be fairly straightforward for the local transport authority to agree with operators a standard format for the provision of data. Many have already done so for financially supported services. Service changes where the provision of data is not necessary—for instance, normal frequency increases or minor time changes—can be specified in the regulations, making it clear what data the local transport authority is entitled to.
On the contrary, it would be an administrative burden, both for local transport authorities and operators, for the data to be requested and provided on an ad hoc basis. If the data were provided at the start of the pre-notification period, the local transport authority could make initial preparations for whether and how to replace most effectively the commercial service and, if appropriate, challenge the operator’s intention. That could result in either the operator continuing to provide the service commercially or amending the variation, so that less public sector service support was required.
Provision of the data to all potential bidders would encourage more and better-informed bids, which would result in more competitive prices, a lower risk of successful bidders being unable to sustain the service and, therefore, a lower risk of the need to retender the service, with associated administration costs and potential disruption to passengers. It would, of course, reduce the ability of operators to game the system by withdrawing or reducing a profitable service in the expectation of regaining the service when it was put out to tender.
In summary, having information available as quickly as possible is essential for supporting efficient passenger services and minimising disruption. The amendment seeks to address concerns raised by the Competition Commission and to implement its recommendations most effectively. Making provision of information the default and automatic removes unnecessary bureaucracy. Any draft regulations should align with the provision, making it clear that when an operator applies to vary or cancel a service registered under section 6, the operator should automatically disclose the information to the authority.
Andrew Jones
I will speak to amendments 31 and 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham South. They would require operators to provide the prescribed information automatically, without the local authority having to request it. The purpose of clause 19 is to improve competition in the supported services market by putting all bidders on an even footing, which is clearly positive.
Where an operator chooses to reduce or withdraw a service, the clause should help prevent incumbent operators from having an unfair advantage when preparing a bid, if the local authority decides to tender for a replacement service.
Not all local authorities will want to provide a subsidised service. If the requirement to provide information were automatic, it could present an unnecessary burden on both the operator and the council when there is no intention to proceed. They would simply be required to provide information to the local authority, even if no one intends to make use of it.
There is nothing in the provisions to prevent a local authority whose default position is always to consider tendering for replacement service from reaching an agreement with operators in their area for the information to be provided automatically, but compelling such activities regardless of need seems unnecessary and a bit excessive.
I hope that explanation and the reassurances are helpful to the Committee and that the hon. Lady feels able to—
Graham Stringer
I am grateful to the Minister. He makes the fair point that there may not be a substitute subsidised service. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South made the case that many bus companies, to get round the competition and to game the system, withdraw profitable services in order to get an extra subsidy. What will the Minister do to stop that happening? He has not addressed that point at all.
Andrew Jones
It is addressed by the fact that the local authority can request, at its instigation, data from the bus operator to prevent that from happening. It will have transparency on that. I am aware of such things happening in theory—the case was made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South—but the system is there to prevent that from happening. The question is whether the information is given at the request of the local authority or automatically, regardless of need.
Lilian Greenwood
Does the Minister not think that it could reduce bureaucracy if operators knew that they would always have to provide that information, rather than the local authority having a limited period to request the information and the operator then having to go away and find it? If it is readily available, as it must be if the operator has considered withdrawing or amending a service, surely it would be simpler if operators always provided that information.
Andrew Jones
The information will clearly be available, because the operator will be making a commercial decision, based on information. However, if the authority has no intention of taking it forward, do we need to go ahead with this proposal, or is it excessive? If sufficient interest in doing so is expressed in the current consultation, I am happy to consider adding a mechanism in the draft regulations under the clause to allow a local authority to notify operators if it wishes always to receive such information, but otherwise I think that it is excessive.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the Minister for that assurance. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Andrew Jones
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 19, page 76, line 36, at end insert—
‘( ) In this section “local transport authority” has the meaning given in section 108(4) of the Transport Act 2000.”’
This amendment adds a definition of a term, “local transport authority”, which appears in the clause.
Clause 19 provides powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations that enable local transport authorities to request information on the revenue and patronage of commercial bus services that are being withdrawn or reduced, and to disclose that information to bidders for subsequent tenders. Amendment 15 is a little dry and technical. It basically adds a definition to the term “local transport authority” to clarify that it has the same meaning as in section 108(4) of the Transport Act 2000. It is necessary because otherwise there would be no clarity about the definition of a local transport authority in proposed new section 6C of the Transport Act 1985.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England
“(1) A relevant authority may not, in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service.
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether the relevant authority is acting alone or with any other person.
(3) In this section—
“company” has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the Companies Act 2006);
“form a company” is to be construed in accordance with section 7 of the Companies Act 2006;
“local service” has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1985 (see section 2 of that Act);
“Passenger Transport Executive”, in relation to an integrated transport area in England or a combined authority area, means the body which is the Executive in relation to that area for the purposes of Part 2 of the Transport Act 1968;
“relevant authority” means—
(a) a county council in England;
(b) a district council in England;
(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;
(d) an Integrated Transport Authority for an integrated transport area in England;
(e) a Passenger Transport Executive for—
(i) an integrated transport area in England, or
(ii) a combined authority area.”—(Andrew Jones.)
This amendment prohibits county and district councils in England, combined and integrated authorities in England and passenger transport executives in England from setting up companies to provide local services.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would mandate that the Secretary of State for Transport must issue a national strategy for local bus services, setting out the objectives, targets and funding provisions for buses over the next 10 years. Subsection (2) would mandate that the national funding strategy must include consideration of a reduced concessionary fare scheme for young people aged 16 to 19.
We believe that the new clause is necessary and long overdue. The Government have published national investment strategies for road and rail, as well as a draft investment strategy for cycling and walking—the latter is proceeding at a snail’s pace, but I am sure it will be welcome when it arrives—so why not a strategy for buses? The way buses are funded in this country is not simple, as we have discovered during our discussions; it is a complicated mix that has developed over time with piecemeal changes. We might describe it as a very British approach; it sort of works—not well enough, in our view—but almost no one knows how.
What we do know is that almost half of bus industry funding comes from the public purse. Total public support for buses accounted for 41% of overall industry funding in 2014-15, and in 2010-11 that figure was even higher at 46.3%. We know that money goes towards funding socially necessary supported services on routes not served commercially by private operators through central Government’s general grant to local authorities and the reimbursement of bus operators for trips made by concessionary pass-holders, including the statutory older persons’ and disabled passengers’ scheme.
I spent some time during the early years of the concessionary fares scheme introduced by the Labour Government trying to find out how the funding flows worked, not least because many district authorities suddenly found themselves substantially out of pocket at that time. I would like to be able to say that the many hours I devoted to it were well spent, but I have to confess that, despite much help from officials, I never really got to the bottom of how reimbursement rates were calculated and, in some cases, negotiated. I suspect that the number of people in the country who fully understand it could comfortably fit in a small room—some of them may be in this one today.
Large amounts of public money are spent on concessionary fares and the scheme is so popular that subsequent Governments have been reluctant to touch it, yet there is no overall mechanism for assessing the impact on the bus sector. As I have remarked previously, there is not a lot of point in having a bus pass if there is no bus. Other questions are raised, often in areas where buses have disappeared, such as why community transport should not be available through the bus pass scheme.
On top of that complexity, we have the bus service operators grant—BSOG, to those of us who take part in the discussions—which was introduced back in 1965 as the fuel duty rebate. It is a rebate paid directly to operators and dates from a time when it was mainly an accounting transaction within the public sector. Of course, the world has changed considerably over that half-century —at times BSOG has changed with it. I suspect we will revisit that point later in our debate. I am informed by the Community Transport Association that in 2013, 21% of community transport schemes were completely reliant on BSOG, and 75% relied on it to some extent. There is a not insignificant amount of public money being spent.
The Government have argued, as I am sure they will this morning, that since the bus industry is a private one, a national investment strategy is inappropriate and unnecessary. However, where such large amounts of public money are being spent, even if the services are being delivered by private operators, we think it only right that there should be a proper planning strategy for how and why it is spent, as well as plans and objectives for future spending. Indeed, the Government themselves have said:
“Requiring operators to use their assets to provide a free service for a proportion of the population is a major market intervention”.
That is precisely why we need a proper strategy to be set out with clear objectives.
It is pretty clear—this is relevant to our earlier discussions on franchising—that there is scope to get better bang for the public buck. As my hon. Friends have several times said, the largest bus operators report significant profit margins. According to their annual reports, in 2014-15 Stagecoach’s operating profit margin on its regional bus routes was 13.5% and Go-Ahead’s was 13%. Yet those profits are not being shared with the public, despite the fact that large sums of public money are being invested in bus services.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Surely the point is that profits are being shared with the public, through shareholder dividends.
Daniel Zeichner
Shareholder dividends may be shared with some members of the public, but not many of my constituents find such money coming into their pockets. I think they would rather have it more directly, in lower bus fares.
Rather than getting money from dividends, bus passengers pay the price for those substantial profits, because bus fares have been rising. According to the Department for Transport’s local bus fares index, fares in England, outside London, rose by more than 156% between 1995 and 2016, while the retail prices index rose by 77%. That shows that bus fares—and I think that this is virtually everyone’s personal experience—have risen much faster.
Equally, bus companies sometimes tell us that the rising fares are due to rising fuel prices, but a number of us have noticed that when fuel prices go down, fares rarely fall; they tend to remain static. We believe that there is a strong case for a bus investment strategy, and we hope that the Minister will reconsider his objections.
Subsection (2) of the new clause relates to the consideration of a reduced fares scheme for young people. It would simply require the Government to look at and consult on funding options to help young people with the cost of travel. Many young people have to take the bus to school or college, but the number of councils financially able to provide a discretionary young person’s pass has dropped from 29 to just 16 since 2010. With fares shooting up faster than inflation, the Government should look properly at introducing a statutory concessionary fare scheme for young people.
I appreciate that that would be a substantial commitment, but we ask the Government only to consider it and to do the preparatory work. I remember that, when I and others first suggested the older people’s concessionary fares scheme to a Labour Transport Secretary who later became Chancellor, his immediate response was less than encouraging, but popular measures have a habit of making their way into manifestos—and the rest is history.
We all know that for many young people, the cost of getting to college and job interviews, and just of getting out to have a life, is a key determinant of what lies ahead of them. That is why the Opposition thought that the education maintenance allowance was so precious and that it was a mistake to remove it. Agreeing to the new clause would be a first tentative step in repairing the damage to the prospects of many young people and families who might even be described as “just about managing”.
There is not a word about funding in the Bill, yet cuts to local authority budgets have meant that thousands of routes and services have had to be withdrawn since 2010. Young persons’ concessionary fare schemes have been cut, while large operators have experienced generous profit margins. The way buses are funded is not working well enough. We need a proper Government strategy to address the illogicalities of funding, and to bring buses into line with other modes of transport. The new clause would help to achieve that objective, and would send a strong message to young people that the Government understand what life is like for them.
Andrew Jones
New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish a national bus strategy. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there is nothing in the Bill about funding. That is right; it is not a Bill about funding. It is about providing authorities with new tools to enable them to improve their local services in the way that best suits their areas.
Central Government have a valuable role to play in providing funding and setting the wider agenda through policy initiatives such as the low-emission bus scheme and our Total Transport pilots, but a centrally determined strategy for local bus services would not help local authorities to address issues relevant to them and their area. I am slightly reminded of a saying from my 25 years in business: “I’m from head office and I’m here to help.” Rarely is that the truth.
Daniel Zeichner
I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response, although obviously not entirely surprised. For bus passengers in areas where bus services are being withdrawn, the question whether the funding is coming from the Department for Transport or through local authorities from other Departments is a touch immaterial—the bus has gone. We have seen the figures for this right across the country. Across whole swathes of the country, buses have gone because the funding to support them is not there. From the passengers’ point of view, that is all that matters. I am therefore disappointed that the Minister does not think that funding is worth addressing.
Graham Stringer
Did my hon. Friend notice, as I did, that when the Minister was relaying his experience of working in the private sector, he said that head office was rarely there to help? This is precisely the justification he has given for the mountains of regulations imposed centrally on transport authorities—he has said on a number of occasions in this Committee that the Department is there to help. When it comes to writing out a strategy, he will not do it, but when it comes to interfering in the detail, he will. Does he recognise that that is a huge contradiction?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that those who are carrying the 168 pages of guidance around under their arms will notice that head office is indeed there to offer a little assistance on occasion. We are returning to the theme running through the debate of the relationship between the centre and localities.
To return to the points about funding, just yesterday we saw newspapers in Stockton talking about the three women who describe themselves as “the three busketeers”. They have found that their bus route has been axed and it costs them £6 to get a taxi to go and buy a pint of milk. That is the reality on the ground that people face, so funding is crucial, which is why we think the new clause is important.
The debate about opportunities for young people will no doubt be rehearsed over the next two or three years, and it will be a political decision in the end. I will not press the Minister on this, because I am sure he does not have the figures on the number of people benefiting from the 16 to 19 bursary, but I get no sense from my FE college and others that that has been a successful of way of addressing that problem. The Opposition will come forward with what I hope will be a much more attractive offer to young people at the next general election. On that basis, I will press the motion to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Ability to make adjustments for disabled passengers.
“Insert new section 6AA into the Transport Act 1985—
“(1) A condition for registration of a local bus service in England is that the operator has policies in place to ensure that it is able to conform to its duty under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 to make adjustments for any disabled passenger on the bus.
(2) This condition will be enforced by the Traffic Commissioner.”.”.
This new clause would make it a condition for registration of bus services in England that bus operators have in place policies to ensure that they are able to make adjustments for any disabled passenger on the bus. This comes following the Supreme Court decision First Group v Paulley.
New clause 7—Priority wheelchair spaces.
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for the purpose of facilitating travel by wheelchair users on local services.
(2) The regulations may in particular require operators of local services to put in place and enforce a policy for priority wheelchair spaces.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) a policy for priority wheelchair spaces is one under which—
(a) a wheelchair user has priority use of any wheelchair space on a public service vehicle unless it is not reasonable for other passengers to vacate the space;
(b) other passengers are required to vacate the space for the wheelchair user if it is reasonable for them to do so; and
(c) a passenger who unreasonably refuses to vacate the space may, if necessary, be required to leave the vehicle.
(4) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify—
(a) an Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act; or
(b) an instrument made under an Act before the regulations come into force.
(5) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provision) 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.”.”.
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to require bus operators to put in place and enforce policies for priority wheelchair spaces.
New clause 9—Accessibility policies for bus passengers.
“(1) After section 181 of the Equality Act 2010 insert—
“Chapter 2A
Bus Services
181E Accessibility policies for bus passengers
(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of facilitating travel by disabled persons, make regulations requiring operators of local services to put in place and publish policies for making their services accessible.
(2) The regulations may make provision about—
(a) what is to be included in the policies;
(b) how and where the policies are to be published.
(3) The regulations may, in particular, require an operator of a local service to make provision in the policy about—
(a) passenger information;
(b) fares, tickets and reservations;
(c) facilities and assistance on the vehicle;
(d) priority seating and wheelchair and scooter space;
(e) connections to local services and transport interchange;
(f) diversions, disruptions and alternative accessible transport;
(g) contact details, feedback and complaints;
(h) staff training.
(4) The regulations may, in particular—
(a) specify ways of making the policies available, including different media and alternative formats;
(b) specify standards and guidelines relevant to the policies or means of publication;
(c) specify requirements for reviewing the policies.
(5) Regulations under this section may make different provision—
(a) as respects different descriptions of vehicle;
(b) as respects the same description of vehicle in different circumstances.
(6) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Welsh Ministers;
(b) the Scottish Ministers.
181F Exemptions etc
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for securing that the provisions of regulations under section 181E do not apply or apply subject to such modifications or exceptions as the regulations may specify to—
(a) public service vehicles of a prescribed description;
(b) operators of a prescribed description;
(c) local services of a prescribed description.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may, in particular, make provision by reference to an operator’s size.
(3) Regulations under this section may also make provision for securing that the provisions of regulations under section 181E do not apply or apply subject to such modifications or exceptions as the regulations may specify to—
(a) a prescribed public service vehicle;
(b) public service vehicles of a prescribed operator;
(c) a prescribed local service.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) or (3) may make the provision subject to such restrictions and conditions as are specified in the regulations.
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) or (3) may specify the period for which provisions of those regulations are to have effect.
(6) Regulations under subsection (1) may make different provision for different areas.
(7) Section 207(2) does not require regulations under this section that apply only to—
(a) a prescribed public service vehicle,
(b) public service vehicles of a prescribed operator, or
(c) a prescribed local service,
to be made by statutory instrument; but such regulations are as capable of being amended or revoked as regulations made by statutory instrument.
(8) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Welsh Ministers;
(b) the Scottish Ministers.
181G Guidance
(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the duties imposed on operators of local services by regulations under section 181E.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must review the guidance issued under subsection (1), at intervals not exceeding five years, and
(b) may revise it.
(3) Before issuing the guidance or revising it in a way which would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, result in a substantial change to it, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Welsh Ministers,
(b) the Scottish Ministers,
(c) the Passengers’ Council,
(d) such organisations representing disabled persons, including the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the committee established under section 72 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, as the Secretary of State thinks fit,
(e) such organisations representing operators of local services as the Secretary of State thinks fit, and
(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued or revised under this section to be published in a way the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
181H Interpretation
(1) In this Chapter—
“local service” has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1985;
“public service vehicle” means a vehicle that is a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981;
“stopping place” has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1985.
(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, a local service (“service A”) is a connecting local service in relation to another local service (“service B”) if service A has a stopping place at, or in the vicinity of, a stopping place of service B.
(3) References in this Chapter to the operator of a passenger transport service of any description are to be construed in accordance with section 137(7) of the Transport Act 1985.”
(2) In section 207 of that Act (exercise of power to make orders and regulations), in subsection (5), after “174(4)” insert “, 181E(5), 181F(6)”.
(3) In section 208 of that Act (procedure for orders and regulations), in subsection (5) (statutory instruments subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (f) insert—
“(fa) regulations under section 181E or 181F (accessibility policies for bus passengers);”
(4) In section 26 of the Transport Act 1985 (conditions attached to PSV operators’ licence), in subsection (1), after paragraph (bb) insert—
“(bc) the operator has failed to comply with a requirement of regulations made under section 181E of the Equality Act 2010;”
(5) In section 155 of the Transport Act 2000 (sanctions), after subsection (1ZD) (inserted by Schedule 4), insert—
“(1ZE) Where a traffic commissioner is satisfied that the operator of a local service has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a requirement of regulations made under section 181E of the Equality Act 2010, the traffic commissioner may make one or more orders under subsection (1A)(a) or (d).”
(6) In section 39 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 (penalties), in subsection (1)—
(a) omit the “or” following paragraph (b);
(b) after paragraph (c) insert “; or
“(d) failed to comply with a requirement of regulations made under section 181E of the Equality Act 2010,”.”.”.
This new clause inserts new sections into the Equality Act 2010 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring bus operators to publish accessibility policies for disabled passengers, and to give the Traffic Commissioners powers to enforce them. It reflects similar requirements on train companies.
Daniel Zeichner
New clause 3 would require all bus drivers, as well as staff at bus terminals, to complete approved disability, equality and awareness training. That training should include mental and physical disabilities, including hidden disabilities, and make particular mention of those on the autistic spectrum.
An EU regulation on the rights of bus and coach passengers came into force in March 2013, and its chapter 3 relates to disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility. We are aware that the UK legislated to provide certain exemptions to the regulation’s requirements, including from the article 16(1) requirement for disability awareness training for personnel of carriers and terminal-managing bodies. In 2014, the then Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), said:
“This exemption was applied in line with Government policy on adopting any EU legislation, to make full use of any derogation that would reduce costs to business. This policy ensures that UK businesses are not put at a competitive disadvantage compared with their European counterparts.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 173WH.]
Put as bluntly as that, it rather sounds as though the Government’s view is: “Stuff passengers, stuff safety; all that counts is cost to business.” I am sure the Minister will be able to set me right on that.
The UK’s five-year exemption from the EU directive requiring bus drivers and terminal staff to go undergo disability awareness training runs out in 2018. Given that the future status of such protections and exemptions is uncertain, we think it would be helpful to introduce clarity around mandatory disability, equality and awareness training. We understand from the guidance that the Government intend to do that, but given that the exemption is likely to still be running when the so-called great repeal Bill is brought forward, we believe it should be put in the Bill to ensure that it actually goes forward.
In 2014, the Government reviewed the exemption under article 16(2) to see whether drivers were receiving adequate disability training. The published responses showed, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the bus industry thought it was doing enough overall, while disabled people thought that it was not. My colleagues in the other place submitted an amendment but withdrew it following assurances from the Government Benches that
“there will be means other than this Bill to address any need to ensure that these requirements continue to apply to bus operators in the UK once we leave the European Union…We recognise the importance of driver disability training and are developing guidance to help implement it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2016; Vol. 774, c. 665.]
I see no reason why the Bill should not be the means to address mandatory disability awareness training for bus workers—after all, it is a Bill about buses. We hope for a positive response.
The Government’s amendment on audio-visual systems, which I will return to, is linked to buses in a similar away. It seems fitting that an amendment on disability awareness training could be included in the Bill to put our minds at rest. The draft regulations say that the Government are developing best practice in delivering disability awareness training, but to me that sounds like the training would still be optional and not nationally mandated. Particularly concerning is the comment that:
“Britain will in due course be leaving the EU. Until we do so we will meet our legal obligations.”
That sounds like a minimalist approach, and the Opposition believe that we need to do better.
As I mentioned earlier, we are keen that disability awareness training also covers hidden disabilities such as neurological conditions. The Government funded national training for bus drivers as part of the Think Autism strategy, but we would like to see that go further in its scope and for the Secretary of State to ensure that training meets the needs of passengers with all forms of hidden disabilities.
In December 2015, when the then Secretary of State for Transport was asked if he would consider encouraging bus companies to give their staff more disability awareness training, he said:
“I will certainly give encouragement—not that they should need it—to the bus companies to make sure that facilities for disabled people are available and that their staff know the right way of making those facilities available to them. That is incumbent on all bus companies.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 1136.]
However, in 2014, the Government estimated that only about three quarters of all bus and coach drivers had completed some form of disability awareness training.
Lilian Greenwood
I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend welcomed the Government’s change of heart on the provision of audio-visual indicators. However, many examples show why that is not sufficient and why we need the wider disability awareness training. I saw a piece by Patrick Robert, who travels with his guide dog. He said:
“I have had…some bad experience with bus drivers not stopping at the bus stop but a few metres away. Obviously if a bus driver does not stop in front of me, it makes it impossible for me to discuss with them and check the bus number.”
Does that not precisely show the mismatch? If bus drivers do not have sufficient disability awareness training, even if there is an audio-visual system on the bus, they might not even stop to allow a person with a visual impairment to get on.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend for that example, which clarifies the point. I doubt whether there is any disagreement on wanting better standards among drivers and on ensuring that they are properly trained to spot all these issues. In the end, the way to drive up standards is not to rely on voluntarism. We all know from our own experiences that many good employers will do that, but some will not. A level playing field where good employers are not disadvantaged is all we seek. This is a chance to offer the good employers a helping hand.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Further to the point about the difficulties there can be in understanding where disability exists, I met locally with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and with Guide Dogs to hear about the difficulties people who are blind or partially sighted can face in hailing buses. Even knowing when the bus is likely to arrive can present a difficulty. If bus drivers were given greater training so that they knew to look out for people who may find it difficult to hail buses, I am sure we would all welcome that. Bus drivers do a good job, but it is difficult day to day. That bit of greater understanding would make a real difference to people who find it quite difficult to access public transport.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I doubt whether there will be much disagreement with the Minister about wanting to improve standards. The question is how we do it. I suspect all Members have constituents bringing similar examples to them.
New clause 4 would insert a new section 6AA into the Transport Act 1985 and make it a condition for registration of all buses in England that the operator has policies in place to ensure that it is able in every circumstance to conform to its duty to make adjustments for any disabled passenger on the bus. The condition would be enforced by the traffic commissioner, who already has responsibility for bus registration. The new clause comes following the Supreme Court decision in FirstGroup v. Paulley.
Lilian Greenwood
I rise to support new clauses 3 and 4 and to speak to new clauses 7 and 9. Let me begin with new clause 7. My hon. Friend mentioned the Supreme Court decision in the case of FirstGroup Plc v. Paulley, which attracted a great deal of interest and led to the need for further clarification, which new clause 7 seeks to provide. Perhaps it would be helpful to remind the Committee of the Paulley case, which gave rise to the need for a change.
What happened to Mr Paulley was typical of the experience of many wheelchair users who attempt to board buses. He was told that he could not get on a bus because the women whose pushchair was occupying the wheelchair space refused to move. Mr Paulley was successful in winning his case through the Supreme Court, which held that FirstGroup’s policy did not go far enough, and that the driver should have done more to assist in securing the space for Mr Paulley. FirstGroup was not under an obligation to have a priority policy for wheelchair users requiring that someone who unreasonably refused to vacate the wheelchair space had to leave the bus. Effectively, that means that a priority policy for wheelchair users lacks the teeth of enforcement. That is despite the fact that, under conduct regulations, someone who is eating smelly food or otherwise causing a nuisance and refuses to stop can be asked to leave the vehicle. That seems out of kilter.
The new clause addresses the issue of an enforceable priority for wheelchair users by enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations so that priority for wheelchair users means just that: if a person unreasonably refuses to vacate space, they may be required to leave the vehicle. They would be required to vacate the space only if it was reasonable. If, for example, they had a disability—for example, if they had a guide dog or a walking frame—and therefore required the wheelchair space, they would not be acting unreasonably by refusing to vacate the space. As a last resort, the new clause provides the power to require an individual who unreasonably refuses to leave the space to leave the vehicle. Other options could be considered before such action is taken, such as stopping the bus, which might be done when people refuse to make payment.
In considering that, Lady Hale, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, recognised that the duty to make reasonable adjustment is a duty owed only to disabled people. She said that
“service providers owe positive duties towards disabled people, including wheelchair users, which they do not owe to other members of the travelling public, including parents travelling with small children in baby buggies or other people travelling with bulky luggage...Disabled people are, for very good reasons, a special case.”
That does not mean that I do not recognise the sensitivities and complexities of the issue.
Despite the public awareness brought about by the Paulley case, many disabled passengers still struggle to use the bus regularly because of conflict over the space being occupied by a pram, buggy or bulky luggage. Transport for All has been incredibly effective in advocating change and in highlighting the impact that the lack of clarity has on its members as they try to go about their daily lives.
For example, Jeff Harvey of Camden says:
“I have missed trains, missed events, been late to work meetings and classes when I was a student, and had 3 buses in a row refuse to allow me to board because the space was occupied…Every time I try to board a bus, I feel stressed because I have to be ready for an argument with the driver and/or other passengers, ready to try to raise my voice enough to be heard from the pavement”.
Someone wanting to use a bus simply should not have to feel that way just because they happen to have a disability.
Mark Wilson, a power chair user, says:
“I have been left at bus stops many, many times because there was a parent with a child’s buggy using the wheelchair space and they would not move, and the driver felt unable to ask them, let alone compel them, to move. On average I cannot board a bus due to this buggy effect on one in nine journeys, which is a big number if you consider I might use the bus for four journeys in one day”.
That shows some of the issues that disabled people face.
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend raises some important points. We would all hope that common sense would come into those cases. Speaking as a parent who has ridden on buses with a pushchair, I would always give priority to someone using a wheelchair or who had a disability. Given that conflicts can arise and can be stressful for disabled passengers, greater clarity would make things easier for everyone using buses, and enable them to understand what is required of them.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is right. The amendment is not intended to put drivers into impossible situations. I recognise that they often try to deal with such matters helpfully. I would not want confrontations to arise between drivers and passengers who might be unwilling to move. However, the provision would arm drivers with legal backing, making it easier for them to pave the way for wheelchair users to get access to the space.
I recognise that many drivers in the industry receive disability awareness training and do all they can to help passengers with a range of disabilities to get on the bus, but that should happen everywhere, at all times, and the drivers should have the backing of the law in making sure that wheelchair users’ rights are protected. If guidance came from the Department, that would not be all. The issue is about raising public awareness, and about people understanding the impact. I hope such conflicts would then arise less often.
Bus operators could address the matter through their choice of vehicle design. There is a good argument for two spaces—one for a wheelchair user and a separate one for buggies and luggage. I have seen some buses with a large number of tip-up seats that could be used on routes where it is known that problems tend to arise. Nevertheless, back-up for drivers in dealing with situations could be important.
Under subsection (3) of the new clause, priority wheelchair spaces would mean that a wheelchair user has priority over a space unless it is not reasonable for passengers to move. Passengers must give up the space for the wheelchair user if it is reasonable to do so, and—this gives it the teeth of being required by regulation —a passenger who unreasonably refuses may, if necessary, be required to get off the bus. That has hopefully dealt with new clause 7.
New clause 9 would require operators to publish their accessibility policies. Essentially, it supports the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge requiring bus operators to have accessibility policies. It seems entirely right that, if they have them, they should also be required to publish them. Buses are a particularly important form of travel for disabled people, but standards of accessibility vary greatly among bus companies—some are really excellent and others leave something to be desired. Disabled people using public transport need to know in advance what provision is made, and should not face a postcode lottery.
The Government say they want an integrated transport policy. I am sure we would all agree with that, but we need consistency for that to happen. Without it, disabled people may not have the confidence to travel, especially when they have to cross different local authority areas or use different modes of transport. I have seen the experience of Claire Lindsey from Greenwich, who has talked about travelling on the tube as an autistic person. She says that she needs to have a fixed daily routine and know what is going to happen:
“This routine means always needing to travel the same way to and from places. When there are diversions, journey restrictions or cancellations, it doesn’t just irritate me, it can feel like the end of the world and it can cause an ‘autistic meltdown’—an extreme panic attack which causes me to pass out.”
For someone like Claire, using different modes of transport with different levels of protection and accessibility would be hugely problematic.
The proposal is not unreasonable—precisely the same requirements are made of rail operators. When the Bill was in the Lords, an amendment was tabled to introduce a system requiring bus companies to operate policies like the disabled people’s protection policy, which is used across train operators, and it seems reasonable to apply the same to bus operators. I have already mentioned audio-visual indicators. It is welcome that the Government acted on that, and in many ways this measure would simply extend it to all disabled people and the whole range of different disabilities. That should not be onerous, because it is good business and what any employer should be doing under the Equality Act 2010 in any event. Given that we have DPPPs for train companies, there is no reason why something similar could not be developed for bus companies.
The fact that bus companies are not responsible for bus stations and bus stops should not be a reason for not explaining what their policies are and what they are doing to make bus travel accessible. Government guidance for local authorities will help to bridge the gap and complement the requirements on companies. Finally, I hope the Minister is minded to accept my hon. Friend’s new clause requiring bus companies to put in place policies for making their services accessible. It seems entirely reasonable that where they have such policies, they should also publish them.
Andrew Jones
We have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill, both here and in the other place, that bus services must work for the people they serve. We have heard examples from colleagues this morning about how important buses are for people with disabilities. We know that is the case, and that buses and taxis are the two main modes of transport for people with disabilities.
New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge, seeks to require bus drivers and other staff to complete disability awareness training. I am sure the Committee will be pleased to hear that there is much in the new clause that I agree with—I too have met campaigners and charities. Disability awareness training can help transport staff to provide the assistance that disabled people require, and I agree that we should all expect bus drivers to complete it. That is why we fully support the implementation of article 16 of EU regulation 181/2011, which from 1 March next year—a full year before the hon. Gentleman’s proposal would take effect—will require drivers to do so.
Lilian Greenwood
I want to press the Minister a little further on that. I appreciate that there is already a requirement for bus operators to make reasonable adjustments but, frankly, the Paulley case would not have gone all the way to the Supreme Court if there was not a need for further clarity. If the Minister agrees that the wheelchair space should provide priority to the wheelchair user, rather than others who might wish to use that space, surely such legal clarity would be helpful to drivers who seek to ensure that that right is there for the disabled person. I am not sure I understand why the Minister is reluctant to provide that.
Andrew Jones
I will come straight to new clause 7, which the hon. Lady tabled. That new clause seeks to provide the means by which wheelchair users must be given priority use of the wheelchair space on buses. I fully recognise the comments that have been made about how difficult this is for bus drivers. That is clearly a fair and accurate comment. I recognise the challenges that wheelchair users face in accessing bus services. That was set out very clearly and powerfully in the written evidence to the Committee from Mr Paulley.
I have highlighted the work that we are doing to understand the implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the provision of reasonable adjustments on buses and to identify what interventions might be required as a consequence. It is my intention that we should hear the advice of disabled people, wider passenger groups and communities, and bus operators themselves before we reach a conclusion on the best course of action.
I can see practical difficulties, as I think did the Supreme Court. We have to recognise that wheelchair users will not be the only passengers with a genuine need to use that space. Interventions should also protect the interests of parents with disabled children, those with walking frames and the owners of assistance dogs. This is a complicated issue and we have to take care to find the most appropriate solution.
We have already contacted people to ask them to join the group that we are pulling together. I recognise that there is a timeliness to this work. I assure the Committee that we will respond proactively to the Supreme Court’s judgment, where a need for Government intervention is identified. Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of our stakeholder discussions, I doubt that any new regulatory powers will be required. A range of existing powers, such as the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990, are available to us, should we need them.
Given that, and with my assurance that this is live work that I will continue to treat with great importance, I hope the hon. Member for Nottingham South will recognise that the new clause is a little premature. We need to work through all the implications, but the good will is clearly there to find a practical way forward for the industry.
Lilian Greenwood
I certainly welcome the assurances the Minister has given. I would not wish to prevent that work with stakeholders from being undertaken, but will he give us the likely timescale for that work? I recognise that he is being very helpful, but I think that there will be concern among the wider community, particularly those with disabilities, that this matter has been discussed for some time. Although I am mindful of what he has said, I would like some assurance about when the work will be completed.
Andrew Jones
It is right to raise the issue of timing. I think that it took five years for Mr Paulley’s case to go through our legal system. We have already started by making contact with the groups who would like to be involved in that work and we intend it to run during the course of the summer. I entirely recognise the timeliness of this and hope that that provides reassurance.
Finally, new clause 9, which also appears in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham South, would require bus operators to publish policies similar to the DPPPs produced by train and station operators, in order to protect the interests of disabled passengers. My colleague in the other place, Lord Ahmad, looked into this issue in some detail. I, too, have considerable sympathy with the underlying aims of the proposal. I have met campaigners on the issue, including Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. I know that for many disabled people, a lack of information on the accessibility of bus services may well prevent them from travelling at all.
Confidence among disabled people was highlighted in our debate this morning, and I entirely agree with that point. Lack of information may ultimately mean that they are prevented from accessing work or excluded from their local communities. We have, therefore, committed to recommend in the guidance that authorities ensure that information on the accessibility of bus services is made available to passengers. That might be in a form provided by the authority itself or individual operators, but we hope it will be of significant help to disabled passengers in making more informed travel choices.
We have been working on the issue with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which has developed a template that we could use. I am keen to publish that as part of the guidance and to encourage all bus companies to use it. That will keep it simple and bring the information together in a presentable way. I thank DPTAC for that work.
The hon. Member for Nottingham South talked about the difference between guidance and mandation. We are seeing significant progress in our bus industry. More than 94% of buses in England now meet the accessibility standards. We want to make it 100%, but that is good progress. Mandatory disability awareness training will be introduced next year. Our work so far with the industry suggests that the vast majority of drivers have already had or are going through that training.
A requirement for all buses to be talking buses is in the pipeline, as we have just discussed, and there is a clear commitment to advise authorities of our view that disabled people must have the information they require. I believe that our bus sector is making significant progress in meeting the needs of all who wish to use its services.
There is a slight concern that a proposal of the kind made by the hon. Lady could lead to a cumbersome approach, although I recognise that was not her intention, as she made clear. I want companies to be focused on delivering for all passengers the services that they need. I am aware that DPPPs are in play in the rail sector. However, there are only 30 companies in our rail sector and more than 1,000 in our bus sector, so the read-across is a little difficult.
Given that and my clear and unambiguous commitment to make buses, and public transport in general, increasingly accessible for all passengers, including disabled passengers, I hope that the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Nottingham South will be minded not to press their new clauses.
Daniel Zeichner
There was much in what the Minister said that I strongly welcome. I very much welcome his assurances on driver training. We will obviously hold the Government to that in future but, on that basis, I will withdraw the new clause.
I had hoped that we would make more progress on the Paulley issue. The Supreme Court has basically passed the matter back to us to make some decisions. I heard what the Minister said about how difficult it is; it clearly is a very difficult issue and no one is pretending it is easy. However, every bus driver in the country faces this on a daily basis. Without leadership from us, they will still face this problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South put the case very well for moving towards some kind of decision. I worry, having listened to the Minister’s account of the kinds of consultations that lie ahead, that this could go on for years and years. At some point, a decision has to be made.
Andrew Jones
I was not talking about consultations in this area; I was talking about getting together a small working group of people who are directly involved in delivering services—big and small companies—and, importantly, people who use those services. We have already started this work and we intend it to take place this summer—I am not looking years ahead. I fully recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points about how the industry will benefit from clarity. This is really quite a complicated point, as I tried to get across in my remarks, but I recognise the timeliness that he has mentioned.
Daniel Zeichner
I appreciate the Minister’s point, but we can probably already predict the kinds of difficulties that will be raised. In the end, there are different interests and someone, at some point, has to make a decision. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South was absolutely right to say, “Can the Minister put a timeframe on this?” I do not think I have heard him respond to that yet. Therefore, my hon. Friend may well want to pursue her new clauses, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Bus safety
“(1) An operator of a local service may not participate in any scheme under sections 1, 4, 7 or 9 of this Act, and an authority or authorities may not approve the participation of an operator as party of any such scheme, unless the operator has given a written undertaking to the applicable authority or authorities that—
(a) it has subscribed to a confidential safety reporting system that—
(i) is suitable for bus operations staff;
(ii) can demonstrate it is adequately experienced, resourced and staffed; and
(iii) is entirely independent of any bus operator’s control;
(b) it has used its best endeavours to ensure that all staff of the operator have been made aware of their right to use this confidential safety reporting system to enable bus operators’ staff to report incidents, unsafe acts, concerns and safety-related issues that they do not feel able to report through normal channels, or where normal reporting channels have not resolved the issue;
(c) it will collect and monitor bus casualty data in a manner to be prescribed by the applicable authority or authorities from time to time, and
(d) it will make its bus casualty data available to the applicable authority or authorities by way of a report on at least a monthly basis.
(2) The authority or authorities must publish on their own website, every quarter, the bus casualty data that they have collected from operators.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)
This new clause would require bus operators taking part in any scheme to subscribe to a confidential safety reporting system, to make bus casualty data available to local authorities, and for local authorities to publish that data quarterly.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause was tabled following a discussion on Report in the other place about bus safety and casualty reporting. The new clause would require bus operators to subscribe to a confidential incident reporting scheme to report bus casualty data to the local authority, and require local authorities to publish that information regularly. I am aware that the Government said that an amendment on this issue was tabled too late during the Bill’s passage through the other place for it to be considered, but that they would look at the issue again in the Commons. I would welcome the Minister’s comments.
I do not think that it is too prescriptive to argue that bus operators entering into any form of scheme, whether franchising, an enhanced partnership or an advanced quality partnership, should be required to subscribe to a confidential incident reporting scheme and report bus casualty data to the local authority. Nor is it too prescriptive to require local authorities regularly to publish those data so that they are available to the public. Such a system works well in the rail industry. The cost of membership of one confidential incident reporting system—the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System—is based on turnover, and in our view fees would be unlikely to represent a serious obstacle. The Government said in the other place that they were
“keen to explore further the issues raised”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2016; Vol. 776, c. 1978.]
A confidential reporting system has proven effective in London. Statistics suggest that prior to the first year of operation of the CIRAS system in 2016, 64% of London bus workers said that the outcome of their having reported issues internally was “inadequate”, with a further 23% saying that the outcome was “adequate, but not implemented” and 13% reporting that there had been no response. There is clearly a need for this.
It is important that we consider bus safety. Although many people would say that, overall, the safety record is good, 64 buses and coaches were involved in fatal accidents last year and 5,381 were involved in an accident. Although those absolute numbers may seem small compared with the number of all road fatalities, the rates are fairly high. In fact, 24 buses and coaches were involved in fatal accidents per billion vehicle miles, which is much higher than the rates of 7.2 per billion vehicle miles for cars, 3.6 for vans and 19 for heavy goods vehicles. About 4% of all road fatalities last year were caused by accidents involving buses and coaches. There were 68 deaths and 7,571 casualties.
We all know that having the data helps us to improve our systems. We believe that the new clause would make buses safer.
Andrew Jones
The hon. Gentleman proposes a new clause that would require bus operators to subscribe to a confidential reporting system in order to participate in any bus scheme provided under the Bill. The new clause would also require operators to collect and monitor bus casualty data and make those data available to the relevant authorities for publication.
Let me start by emphasising that road safety is a critical issue and a matter of national importance. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency plays an important role, along with the traffic commissioners, in seeking to ensure that drivers and vehicles are licensed and safe. My Department already collects and publishes data on reported road accidents, including details about the type of vehicles involved and recorded casualties. I am encouraged, though not in any way complacent, that we have a very good record of road safety in our country. I am aware that that has come about through the good work of many of my predecessors, and I am keen to build on that work.
Members will be aware of what we have been doing, including most recently the significant change to the mobile phone penalty points for hand-held use. It is encouraging to see numbers decline. In this case, the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in an incident involving a bus or coach outside London fell by 33% between 2005 and 2015.
I agree with the sentiment of the proposed new clause. However, I do not believe it is appropriate to mandate an independent confidential reporting system in primary legislation. I am aware of the TfL work, and that TfL mandates the confidential reporting system, CIRAS, as part of its franchising agreements with operators. TfL introduced that system in January of last year but I am not aware yet of any robust evidence of the benefits it has brought. It is probably difficult to say with any certainty or to what degree reports from systems such as CIRAS have prevented road accidents from occurring.
I understand that TfL pays the subscription cost for CIRAS on behalf of its operators, and that is its choice. A bus operator that has a well established and efficient confidential reporting system in place that is already working effectively might take a different view. I do not want to impose the burdens that the new clause would bring on local transport authorities or operators, some of which could be very small community transport organisations, without clear evidence of the added benefits to be achieved.
Although I cannot support the proposed new clause, I have asked my officials to explore how the issue could be addressed through guidance, to encourage operators and local transport authorities to consider the benefits of an independent confidential reporting system when establishing a franchising or partnership scheme. Just as local authorities take other decisions relating to road safety, they can decide on this, too. That is exactly what has happened in London. I hope the hon. Gentleman has found that explanation reassuring and will, therefore, seek to withdraw his new clause.
Daniel Zeichner
I am not reassured, though I will withdraw the new clause. I heard what the Minister said but I do not see why we could not have taken this modest step in favour of improving bus safety. The amounts are relatively minor and the potential benefits considerable. We will pursue that in future when we come back to him with the evidence. I hope the guidance can be strengthened. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Priority wheelchair spaces
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for the purpose of facilitating travel by wheelchair users on local services.
(2) The regulations may in particular require operators of local services to put in place and enforce a policy for priority wheelchair spaces.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) a policy for priority wheelchair spaces is one under which—
(a) a wheelchair user has priority use of any wheelchair space on a public service vehicle unless it is not reasonable for other passengers to vacate the space;
(b) other passengers are required to vacate the space for the wheelchair user if it is reasonable for them to do so; and
(c) a passenger who unreasonably refuses to vacate the space may, if necessary, be required to leave the vehicle.
(4) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify—
(a) an Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act; or
(b) an instrument made under an Act before the regulations come into force.
(5) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provision) 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.”—(Lilian Greenwood.)
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to require bus operators to put in place and enforce policies for priority wheelchair spaces.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Lilian Greenwood
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be fairly brief. As the Committee will be aware, bus service operators grant is currently paid as a rebate to bus companies. It is calculated based on the amount of fuel they use. It is therefore a direct disincentive to economising fuel consumption and/or moving to low-emission vehicles. The Department itself acknowledged that under the coalition Government in its “Green Light for Better Buses” document of 2012, which states:
“we were…concerned that a system which pays subsidy according to how much fuel a company uses cannot be right for the twenty-first century.”
They were right about that. Back in 2012, they began to devolve funding in some areas, which were known as better bus areas. The results were encouraging.
The new clause simply seeks to build on that work by terminating the payment of the bus service operators grant directly to bus companies, instead passing the money to local authorities, not least to promote the development of better partnership working, which is part of the thrust of the Bill. Where local authorities set up advanced quality partnerships or enhanced partnerships, it would be incredibly helpful if they could incentivise operators to meet the commitments they make under those partnerships. We could call that the carrot. Conversely, the stick would be to penalise poor compliance by limiting the payment of BSOG to operators, thereby helping them to adhere to the partnership work that had been set up. I am sure we would all recognise that sometimes we agree to do something and really do mean to do it, but we need a bit of a prod to remind us. Giving local authorities control over the bus service operators grant would enable them to do just that. It would be very helpful in enabling partnerships to operate effectively.
In 2012, the coalition Government considered further devolution of BSOG. There was a concern that it might lead to a loss of funding for bus services. That is why, in drafting the new clause, I was very clear that, as the funding passed to local authorities, it would be ring-fenced to be spent on local transport. BSOG needs to be used in such a way that passengers see a maintained or even improved local transport service. We would also like to encourage the bus to be greener and more efficient in the long run.
I hope the Minister will consider this a helpful new clause that follows on from other work he has done.
Andrew Jones
Each year nearly £180 million of bus service operators grant is paid to commercial bus operators that run local bus services. A further £40 million is paid to local authorities to subsidise socially necessary local bus services that are not commercially viable. In addition, a further £20 million a year is provided in incentives to bus operators, for example to encourage them to install smart ticketing machines or to use low-emission vehicles.
The new clause would abolish the bus service operators grant that is paid to commercial bus services. The funding would be transferred to be spent on local transport services. I simply do not think that would work effectively in practice. Commercial services often run across local government boundaries. If this approach were implemented, decisions taken by one local authority about funding buses could easily have adverse impacts on adjacent areas. Many of the passengers affected would have no way of making their views known at the local ballot box.
There would be no guarantee under the terms of the new clause that the funding would be used for bus services. It could be used on other means of supporting local transport. Nor does the proposal guarantee additional local authority funding for transport. An authority could simply substitute this funding for existing transport funding and divert that resource elsewhere. The proposal could therefore remove support for local transport entirely.
We are undertaking a review of how BSOG is spent in England and hope to publish details of our proposals later this year. We have already committed to devolve BSOG where franchising is implemented. Overall, I believe that it is right that the grant should generally continue to be paid to commercial bus service operators in a revised form. I hope the hon. Lady feels able to withdraw the new clause.
Lilian Greenwood
I have listened carefully to the Minister. I welcome news of the work that he intends to do further to consider how the money could be used more effectively to support the development of local services. Clearly, franchising devolution is welcome, and I hope he considers how devolved BSOG could better support advanced quality partnerships and enhanced partnerships. That said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
To help the Committee, there is an open-ended sitting this morning—we do not have a cut-off point at 1 o’clock. Both Front Benchers have agreed that we will continue with the remaining business rather than reconvene at 2 o’clock.
Clauses 22 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
On a point of order, Mr Owen. May I confirm what happened to new clause 9? Did we withdraw it or vote on it? I do not recall a vote. What happened to new clause 9?
The Chair
The clause was not pushed to a vote by the hon. Member for Nottingham South.
Clause 26
Short title
Andrew Jones
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 26, page 79, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
I beg to move that clause 26 stands part of the Bill, not out of zeal to move to a conclusion—I wanted to double-check that we have everything done. We have had a fantastic couple of days focusing on the bus sector. Before begging to move clause 26, may I thank you, Mr Owen, and Mr Nuttall—
The Chair
Order. We will finish with the amendment and the clause first. There will then be an opportunity for you to thank the officials under a point of order—I know you are keen to thank the officials. You can either move the amendment formally or speak to it. We can get the business done then move to the final bit.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Andrew Jones
On a point of order, Mr Owen. As we conclude our Committee work on the Bill, I thank everybody for a very constructive and positive debate. It is clear that we have much passion for buses. It is a sector of our transport mix that does not always achieve much attention, but we have clearly shown that it has support. The Bill will go to the House for further consideration with measures to improve bus patronage, and to improve facilities for disabled passengers. I thank everybody involved in the Committee for the positive way we have approached the Bill. I also thank the Clerks and you, Mr Owen, and Mr Nuttall, as co-Chairs.
Daniel Zeichner
Further to that point of order, Mr Owen. I thank the Minister and all members of the Committee for a cordial, constructive and positive discussion. I also thank the officials. We heard at one point about the decline in headcount at the Department. There are fewer people doing more work, and with Brexit, I am sure the pressures are many. Those of us who have ploughed through the guidance will know how much work has been done by officials. I thank you, Mr Owen, for your splendid chairing, and Mr Nuttall. I finally thank my colleague Juliet Eales, who has been working with me and will finish at the conclusion of the Bill, which I am sure will come as much relief to officials, who will no longer be bombarded by her incessant and endless good questions.
The Chair
Those are bogus points of order, but because they flatter people, we allow them. I add my thanks to the Clerks and Hansard, and to all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and on Front and Back Benches, for how they have conducted themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Third sitting)
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I welcome the Committee to line-by-line consideration of the Bill; I hope we have a pleasant and uncontroversial time. Perhaps I can lay down a few rules straightaway. I tend to the conservative—with a small c, of course—side on such matters, so I will apply the same rules of dress and conduct as we have in the Chamber. In particular, if anybody’s phone goes off, they will be banished from the room with no further ado, so please ensure that they are turned off.
We have one or two new Members with us, so if the Committee does not mind, I shall give a short seminar on how we will conduct our business. You have the list of amendments in front of you; it will be available in the room in all events. You will see that amendments of a similar nature and subject are grouped together. Any Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in the group may speak to move it. I hope that is reasonably clear. After that, other Members can catch my eye and speak in favour of or against an amendment. Any Member may speak to an amendment more than once. For the sake of time, that might not be encouraged, but Members are perfectly entitled to speak more than once if they so wish.
At the end of a debate on a particular group, I will call the Member who moved the amendment to speak again. Before they sit down, they have to tell me whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or press it to a Division. If any other Member wants to press other amendments or new clauses in a group, they should let me know informally—by passing me a note or telling me—and I will make that possible. I shall work on the presumption that the Minister wishes to move all the Government amendments.
For those who are new to Committee work, it is important to remember that the amendments are not voted on in the order in which they appear on the selection list or are debated, but in the order in which they appear in the Bill. An amendment may well be grouped with a later clause, so it will be voted on when we get to that clause during the ordinary process of the Bill.
We will probably not have many stand part debates—the debate that happens on a particular clause—as the preference is to debate the clause with the amendments instead. Occasionally, if we have not had that opportunity, I may suggest that we have a stand part debate, but such debates often take up time. I hope that is all reasonably clear.
Clause 1
Listing of automated vehicles by the Secretary of State
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must consult on and publish the criteria that they will use to determine whether, in their opinion, a motor vehicle is designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves without having to be monitored by an individual.
(1B) The Secretary of State may not change the criteria until further consultation has taken place with vehicle manufacturers, insurers and other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This amendment requires the Government to consult on and publish criteria for the definition of “automated vehicles” that will be used by the Secretary of State.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this Committee, Mr Gray—although, we were together at the evidence session on Tuesday. I am delighted to speak to the Bill generally, as well as to my amendment, because we are now entering the age of automation, which has the incredible and immense potential to liberate many people who are excluded by dint of age, skill, capacity or ability. It heralds a new era of inclusivity for personal transport and can address geographical, social and economic isolation.
The economic dividends of the transformation in our personal transport arrangements, in terms of air quality and climate change, could be immense, as could the industrial and technological advances. I am thinking particularly of the potential road safety benefits, the impact on our national health service and the health dividends, and the reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads.
This is an exciting era, and the idea of us entering into a discussion about automated vehicles is terribly exciting, until we realise that part 1 of the Bill is about insurance. To some degree, we seem to be coming at the issue from the wrong end of the telescope, but we will have to put all the exciting stuff to one side for now and concentrate on the framework. [Interruption.] Yes, insurance is riveting, and it is right that the Government have sought to set out a framework to enable the sector to develop. On that logic, it is the right thing to do.
I thank the Minister at the outset for his approach to the Bill. As you rightly say, Mr Gray, we find ourselves in largely uncontested territory—not exclusively, but very largely—and a great deal is to be welcomed. I thank the Minister for his approach, his co-operation and his assistance in preparing for the sitting.
There are times when we have to be detached from our technology, as you rightly said, Mr Gray, and there are times in our daily lives when we want to be removed from it, so I was a little disappointed that an email was sent to me at 9.02 pm last night with the policy scoping notes, which I did not look at until this morning. They are enormously helpful and they speak to the amendment, but I rather wish we had them a little earlier. I just make that gentle point.
The amendment would require the Government to consult on and publish the criteria for the definition of automated vehicles that are to be used by the Secretary of State. That goes right to the heart of what an automated vehicle is. We are asking for that consultation and publication of criteria because it is crucial for manufacturers, vehicle owners and insurers to know whether they are making, buying, loaning on or insuring on an automated vehicle, and whether the scope of the legislation applies to their vehicle.
In Tuesday’s evidence session we heard that the insurance industry welcomed the Government taking on the responsibility to say what an automated vehicle is, so providing clarity, but we have concerns that the Bill as drafted leaves the Secretary of State with total discretion as to what qualifies as an automated vehicle. We have therefore tabled the amendment to provide greater clarity and to ensure that relevant persons and organisations—stakeholders, as we sometimes call them—would be sufficiently involved, allowing that to inform the Secretary of State’s list of automated vehicles.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that, on reflection, his amendment is otiose? Surely it beggars belief that the Secretary of State would not consult. Any good Secretary of State must consult in such circumstances.
Andy McDonald
It is also about the publication of criteria; we have to arrive there and there has to be a journey to get to the establishment of the criteria, and we could explore how we might share some consensus around that. I do not suggest for one minute that Secretaries of State will rush off and include on their list of vehicles devices that are wholly and utterly outwith the contemplated legislation, but it is useful to consult on and establish the criteria against which we judge automated vehicles. I hope that will become clear from the rest of my contribution, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
The significant production of automated vehicles is still some years away. We are preparing the ground for an environment that we know will come but does not yet exist. However, there has already been an increase in assistance systems and partial automation introduced over the years to support drivers. The Bill assumes a clear distinction between advanced driver-assistance systems and fully automated driving technology in UK policy and legislation. As such, there is a need for collaboration between the Government, manufacturers, insurers and consumers to develop a viable and practical system of classification to identify when a vehicle is deemed to be automated or autonomous.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to
“prepare, and keep up to date, a list of all motor vehicles that…are or might be used on roads or in other public places in Great Britain, and…are in the Secretary of State’s opinion designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves without having to be monitored by an individual.”
By introducing a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on the criteria used to reach that opinion, the amendment would ensure that all automated vehicles were covered by those criteria. The requirement for the criteria to be published would provide greater clarity for all concerned.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware—the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire might be, because he is sometimes referred to, perhaps unfairly, as a petrolhead—of whether the current homologation criteria for vehicles on the road are published?
Andy McDonald
If I knew what “homologation” meant, I might have a chance. My goodness, we get an education here.
Because we are entering new territory, we need to agree what we mean by automated vehicles. We have it fixed in our minds that the definition covers only end-to-end journeys, but there are also journeys of which parts are under the direct control of the vehicle and not of the person who occupies it. We already have autonomous braking systems—the Committee explored those on Tuesday—and our shared view is probably that they fall outside the definition of an automated vehicle, because they do not cover every function; the person occupying the vehicle is still required to intervene. There are also devices to ensure that drivers do not stray into another lane. Those are all welcome assistance measures, but they do not fall within the definition of an automated vehicle as I understand it. I do not think that it is asking too much to suggest that we go through the process of establishing the criteria.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman draws my attention to the word “monitored” in clause 1(1)(b). It is an interesting word to use in relation to whether a vehicle is autonomous. I can monitor myself driving but not be in control. Is not the essential point whether the individual controls the vehicle? I wonder whether he has any observations about the word “monitored”.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. That is indeed the word used, but I find it a little difficult to reconcile with the rest of the Bill, because it might suggest some engagement and involvement. He is right to point that out, and I am sure that the Minister will want to pick up on his well-made observation.
The Opposition believe that the additional clarity provided by the amendment would help to create a more reassuring environment that encouraged the development and uptake of automated vehicles. The amendment would also prevent the Secretary of State from changing the criteria without further consultation. It has been pointed out that such consultation would happen in any event, as a matter of course, but I suggest that it would be helpful for that to be made abundantly clear in the Bill. The amendment would ensure that the criteria used remain up to date and as practical as possible in a fast-moving world, and that they provide a device to allow all interested parties to engage fully.
Finally, let me refer to our helpful scoping notes, for which I am grateful. We are told that in practice the Secretary of State would need to have regard to whether the vehicles or types of vehicles have met international or domestic standards on the safe functioning of automated vehicles. That is very useful, but I suggest that it is merely a part of the criteria that could be established. We need to think about the whole range of functionality that automated vehicles can deliver. Although that information is helpful, it is not the complete picture, which is why my amendment suggests a consultation and the establishment of criteria.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I look forward to our consideration of the Bill in Committee being electrifying, but never too highly charged. The shadow Secretary of State made some important initial comments about why the Bill matters, and with your indulgence, Mr Gray, I will speak to that before moving to the specifics of his amendment.
The shadow Secretary of State is right that the changes the Bill envisages—in some ways, I hope it facilitates change and allows it to continue—are significant. I was delighted that he highlighted the effect that those changes might have on the wellbeing of all kinds of people who in future could travel, but who cannot travel now. He made a profound point about the effect those changes will have on their lives. It is true that many infirm, elderly and disabled people will have the ability to travel in a way that they do not have now, with all the opportunities that brings. In a way, for me that is perhaps the most exciting part of the journey that we are all travelling on as a Committee; on the Government side, we are travelling as a Government; and as Parliament, we are travelling as the representatives of those people. I am delighted that he chose to highlight that point in particular in his introductory remarks.
Most men—by “men”, I am using the inclusive generic term—know that they cannot dictate the future, but some think that they can define it. Can we prepare for an unknown future? What we certainly can do is lay the ground to ensure that we can embrace what we think will be efficacious and resist that which might not be. That is our responsibility. The tightrope we have walked—the balance we have tried to strike in the Bill—is doing sufficient so as to continue to support developments in this technology while simultaneously not constraining those developments and not trying to determine or dictate what that future might look like. As the shadow Secretary of State said, it is far too early to say exactly how this technology will develop, or indeed at what pace.
We have consulted widely on these matters, as the Committee knows, and I continue to discuss them regularly with those involved in the motor industry. The discussions we have had suggest that changes might happen sooner than many people expect. The shadow Secretary of State was also right to say that they might take the form of a series of incremental changes, rather than a single step. In a way, that is what we have enjoyed over the past few decades. Cars have become increasingly likely to assist us in the way we drive. We have already talked about parking assistance, which is a common feature of most of the cars we buy. A combination of the technological changes that assist drivers in that way, and the data that are now available—through things such as real-time data, sat-nav and other technology—has changed the driver’s experience in a way that would have been unimaginable only a few decades ago. The essence of the changes that the Bill envisages are altogether different in their effect.
I will turn to the amendment, which will allow me to explore some of the other points that the hon. Gentleman made—sorry, the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Hayes
He is honourable, certainly, and in my estimation, deserving of so much more.
Clause 1 compels the Secretary of State to create a list of automated vehicles. That is to provide clarity to industry and the public on which vehicles will be captured by the provisions—we need to define what kinds of vehicles are affected by the Bill. The Secretary of State will do that by applying the definition in subsection 1(a), to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and subsection 1(b). In those provisions we see the means by which the Secretary of State will create that list.
It is important to define the difference between driver assistance and automation, as the hon. Gentleman asked us to do. We are defining automated vehicles—the hon. Gentleman asked for this clarification—as those vehicles that have the capability to drive themselves without human oversight or intervention, for some or all of the journey. An automated vehicle might not be automated for the whole of the journey, but for at least part of it, and perhaps for the whole, it will not require the person driving it to intervene.
Rob Marris
On that point, the Minister will be aware—I think he referred to it—that for a number of years there have been cars that will park themselves. Under the definition he has just given, those cars would be counted as automated vehicles. That may be what the Minister intends, but to many people a vehicle that simply parks itself would not really be an automated vehicle. Is he saying that self-parkers will be on the list?
Mr Hayes
No, they would not be on the list because, although it is true that the cars we typically buy now might well have assistance with parking—I mentioned them a moment ago—the oversight of that remains with the driver. Automation is the transfer of that oversight or responsibility.
It is important to point out that the driver retains responsibility for the performance of the vehicle, but will not have oversight of the functions that are automated. I suppose that in the world we are now imagining, it would be possible for a driver to be doing something else while the car was being driven.
The best parallel here, and one with which we are all pretty familiar, is aeroplanes. When we fly on a jet, as some of us no doubt have and will again, for some of the journey the plane will be switched to automatic pilot, although it is true that the responsibility remains with pilots and co-pilots. We are quite familiar with that; the plane will essentially be flying itself. As I said, that means that the capability moves from the pilot to the plane, and in the case of a car, from the driver to the vehicle. So the vehicle will become capable of driving itself in an automated way.
Andy McDonald
Can I just take the Minister back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bedford about the word “monitored”? I am trying to think through what is required of a driver when a vehicle is going through its process of self-parking. If we are saying that that individual has to be on notice and ready to intervene should something occur, I am not sure that the word “monitored” properly addresses that concern. If the word “intervention” was used, I could see how things would stack up. It really comes back to the criteria that I am talking about, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I am not in any way suggesting that there should be control over the list itself; it is the criteria by which vehicles are adjudged to be automated. I hope that is helpful.
Mr Hayes
I think that is helpful in this sense: it is certainly true that there will need to be some accessible, comprehensible and consistent means by which we define “automation”. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that, if my analysis is accepted, these things will change iteratively and that there will be a series of further technological developments that we cannot predict with accuracy.
Of course it is true that the Secretary of State, in drawing up this list, would need, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire said, to continue to listen, consult and be involved in how that definition of “automated” might evolve. It is hard to know quite what an “automated” vehicle might look like in decades to come, and it is right that we should be sufficiently flexible to take account of technological changes.
Nevertheless, for the insurance purposes, which, as the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks, is where we start with this matter, it is really important that we are clear about the core definition of what automation looks like, and it is this matter of capability—the capability of the vehicle to drive without the intervention of a driver or other human being.
Richard Fuller
I just want to get absolute clarity. The example that my right hon. Friend the Minister provided of the automatic pilot would be an example where oversight would not be required but might be provided by the pilot. Therefore, is that an example of something that would fall within or without scope of being “automated”?
Mr Hayes
Inasmuch as any vehicle had the capability of being piloted—driven—without human intervention, yes. I do not want to go too far with this metaphor, but in the circumstance that I set out, the responsibility for the vehicle—the plane or car—remains with the pilot or driver. There is a balance to be found between the function of the vehicle and the responsibility for the vehicle, which I think is a parallel with the example I gave. That was the hare I set running and my hon. Friend is now encouraging it to run faster.
Richard Fuller
Will the Minister therefore accept that including in this definition the principle of oversight and not restricting it to control provides a much wider ambit for what this list will be required to provide? Indeed, we would find situations where self-parking vehicles would be included in the list, because it is so hard to prove that someone at the time would not have a duty of oversight.
Mr Hayes
The critical thing is that the definition we are trying to draw now, which is very much in line with our consultation with the insurers and the manufacturers, provides sufficient clarity to allow us to move forward and enable developments to continue, sure in the knowledge that the insurance framework will be much as it is now in terms of the protection it offers, which is what this part of the Bill deals with. The clarity that the Bill will bring does not for a moment obviate or try to anticipate technological changes of the kind that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough was flirting with in his intervention, but it provides enough of a baseline and a solid level of assurance for the technology to continue to develop.
Moving on to what the hon. Gentleman said, the only scope the Secretary of State will have to list a vehicle is whether or not it meets the definition that I set out—in other words, whether the vehicle has the capability of driving itself without human oversight or intervention for some or all of the journey. That is unlike driver assistance systems, however advanced, because automated vehicles do not require the driver to be involved in the driving process at all times. If a car does not meet that definition, it will not be included on the list.
That enables us to be very clear about the reason vehicles need to be on the list—namely, that the types of vehicle that are defined will not be covered by our current insurance framework and therefore need a new type of insurance product. We heard in the evidence sessions that the insurance industry is working on those products and is confident that they will be developed and will provide the guarantees of safety and security that we want for all drivers, but they will not be exactly like the insurance products that are out there now. They will deliver the same kind of safety, but they will not be the same products.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I am not sure that it is really quite as clear as the Minister says. The Bill states that the vehicle has to be capable, at least in some circumstances or situations, of safely driving itself without having to be monitored by an individual. If the insurance industry, the Minister and everybody else agrees that automated parking and autonomous emergency braking do not fall into that category, there is no problem, but people may disagree because the fact is that in those two modes the vehicle is capable of driving itself and does not require an intervention of any kind or monitoring by the individual. It is the same for lane control. We tabled the amendment because the criteria that need to be applied to the definition will probably change over time as the technology develops, so there will need to be ongoing dialogue about what should or should not be included in the definition. Does it not make sense to say that there should be ongoing consultation not on the list but on the criteria?
Mr Hayes
I think there is an implicit need to continue the dialogue that the hon. Gentleman seeks. It is absolutely right that the spirit in which, as the shadow Minister recognised and welcomed, we have gone about our business so far continues to inform these developments. Bluntly, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire is right that any responsible Government and Secretary of State would want to work on that basis. It is important we are clear at the moment about the definition so that we do not inhibit the development of further insurance products and thereby the further development of the technology. It is true that at some future point we may need to return to those matters, but the core definition we are trying to establish here is sufficient, as we heard from the insurance industry when it gave evidence, to allow it to continue its work.
We are not giving unbridled powers to the Secretary of State. Once we have established a clear definition, the Secretary of State will have no discretion to exclude a vehicle that meets the definition. The Secretary of State cannot be capricious about which vehicles are on the list and which are not; the vehicles will be defined by the criteria and by the definition. The Secretary of State will not define which vehicles are on the list, but will take responsibility for publishing the list. Conversely, if a vehicle does not come within the definition, it cannot be included. The power is merely, in that sense, an administrative power, not a discretionary power. The Secretary of State cannot, as I say, pick and mix the vehicles on the list outside the definition we are trying to set here in law. If he or she could do so, insurers simply would not have the confidence to develop the products that they need to.
Rob Marris
The Minister talks about developing products. Although the problem may be to do with that, part of the problem is the elasticity of the definition. The Minister referred earlier to some or all of a journey being self-driving, and it says in the definition and in the amendment that cites this part of the definition,
“in at least some circumstances or situations”.
I think that is the problem. He is trying to include in the definition part-time automated vehicles. Either they are fully automated and safe for me to be on the roads with those vehicles whizzing up and down, or they are not. This part-time stuff fudges it all and is a big problem.
Mr Hayes
I am not sure that that is true and a reflection of what is likely to happen. If I am right—the Opposition said this at the beginning of the debate and I acknowledged and agreed with it—and others are right, too, that the changes are likely to be incremental rather than sudden, so that the changes are likely to build on technological developments that have happened in the past, then it may well be that we move to a circumstance where vehicles are developed that can be switched to autonomous mode and then switched out of it. That is more than likely to happen—in fact, it is probably inevitable.
The issue is not whether a vehicle can be autonomous; it is about what we do when a vehicle is autonomous. From an insurance point of view, being clear about what happens when a vehicle is autonomous and making sure that the insurance policy is consistent and, as I said, provides the safety and assurance that is needed is the fundamental here.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister is making a strong point, but I have a couple of things to add. First, there is a misunderstanding about self-parking cars. I do not know how many Members have one, but I do. All self-parking cars at the moment require the driver to control both the throttle and the brake. There is no car on the market at the moment that does those things as well. All it does is control the steering.
The Minister is right about technological development. I happen to drive a car that I am able in certain circumstances to move into a semi-autonomous mode of driving, but I have to keep my hands on the steering wheel. That seems to be a requirement of the industry. There is surely an element of self-regulation. The insurance industry will make a decision about a particular technology and whether it is willing to insure it. As we heard in the evidence that was presented to us—
Kit Malthouse
As we heard in the evidence presented to us, the industry has already made a decision about automatic braking and emergency stops. We get cheaper premiums—
Mr Hayes
On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked David Williams, the chair—I call him the chairman—of the Automated Driving Insurers Group, who spoke for insurers:
“Within its scope, does this Bill do enough to position the UK as a global leader in vehicle technology? If not, what is missing? If you do not have the time to answer, maybe you can email me.”
That was very courteous of my hon. Friend, but David Williams did not need to email him, because he was able to answer very concisely:
“From an insurance perspective, yes.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 16, Q28.]
It should reassure the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West that insurers clearly think that the Bill will allow them to move forward with developing the products that I described.
I want to be as reasonable as I can, so I emphasise the point that we want to continue discussion and consultation on all these matters as we move forward. That is absolutely right; the Opposition reasonably ask for it, and it is an assurance that I am happy to give. I emphasise yet again that getting clarity at the beginning that is sufficient to satisfy the insurance industry, as clearly we have done, is really important in order not to inhibit further development. As though that were not enough, I can offer further reassurance: hon. Members know that the approval of vehicles for sale and use will ultimately be subject to the international standards of the United Nations economic commission for Europe, as well as our own domestic standards. All vehicles must be safe to sell, use and drive. There will be an underpinning set of safety standards, both domestic and international.
Rob Marris
The Minister is being generous in taking interventions. Perhaps he will correct me, but as I understand it, a vehicle has to have a homologation certificate in order to be used on the public roads in Britain. Are the criteria for homologation certificates published?
Mr Hayes
The certification process for all vehicles is common, in that they must meet proper safety standards. There is no suggestion that the safety standards for these new kinds of vehicles will fall below that level—that would be preposterous. The hon. Gentleman can have an absolute assurance that the Government will ensure that those standards are applied. I am very happy to make available the information he seeks about the standards we apply; that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Mr Hayes
I take it as read that what I write to the Committee will be available. Our standards are well established, but the international standards for automated vehicles are bound to evolve and develop. I can certainly write to the hon. Gentleman to set out what I have said here, but I would not want to anticipate what the international standards might look like in the future. He would hardly expect me to do so, and I am not sure that it would do me, or him, any favours.
Rob Marris
It is to do with publishing the criteria. May I give the Minister an example? The best-selling vehicle in the world is the Ford F-150 pick-up, which is not sold in the United Kingdom. If I wish to import one and use it on British roads, I will need a homologation certificate. I am asking the Minister for his assurance that the criteria for such a certificate, in this case for automated vehicles—what will or will not go on the list—will be published. I am not asking him to say now what those criteria will be; I quite understand that he cannot do that.
Mr Hayes
I am certainly happy to give that assurance. We will make available to the Committee the standards that are already established. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important that they are published. I will give a further commitment. As international and domestic standards evolve over time, at the point at which it is appropriate to do so, we will publish those, too. I want a consistent approach. If that is what he seeks, it is reasonable to do so. In the same spirit, we will consult and certainly publish as much information as possible for the Committee and beyond it.
To develop the argument—I do not want to go on exhaustively, but it is important to set out the core principles at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill—the hon. Gentleman will understand that the standards I describe form the basis of the type approval process that conventional vehicles currently follow, and that of course automated vehicles will follow, too. The same consequent process will happen. Based on those standards, and likely the vehicle’s registration document, we expect it to be very clear which vehicles can safely operate in automated mode. As I have said, that is important to reassure the public and others.
Sir Greg Knight
Will the Minister clarify for the Committee what powers he thinks clause 1 gives him? For example, if a vehicle was designed to be driven automatically and is marketed, but then a few months after it has been on sale it is discovered that under certain weather or driving conditions it has a catastrophic failure, would he be able to delist it?
Mr Hayes
That is a very good question, which, before I reach the absolute apex of my exciting conclusion, I will answer, with the help of inspiration that is winging its way to me. The standards established for existing vehicles will continue to be used as a matter of principle. The Secretary of State will transpose the approved vehicles into the list to ensure that our domestic insurance framework is clear about which vehicles need which kind of insurance product, bearing in mind what I said about different products developing to suit different kinds of vehicles.
The essence of my reason for not accepting the amendment with the alacrity that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough no doubt hoped for is my assertion that it is probably an unnecessary step, given the assurances I have offered about our willingness to discuss the matters further as the technology develops, and given the absolute assurance that the Secretary of State will not act in a discretionary or capricious way. It is important to understand that the definition defines the list, not the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State publishes the list and has a function to do so, which he will be obliged to carry out as a result of the Bill, should it become an Act. However, he is not in the business of picking which manufacturers he chooses to list and which he does not; the definition does that job for him. For those reasons, further amendment of this part of the Bill would be superfluous.
I am looking for further clarification—
The Chair
Order. The Minister may wish to catch my eye later if he wishes to inform the Committee of any particular matter if he does not have the information now.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged so far and for his approach in taking forward the Bill.
The Minister mentioned generic men earlier. I do not come across many generic men, or many generic women either. Part of the problem in our discussion is that there are not many generic cars or vehicles out there. There are of course classifications of different types of vehicles, which is the nub of the matter that we have been discussing this morning. I think that the amendment has merit mainly because it would allow the public to be confident about the take-up of vehicles. At the moment there are far too many unknowns, which is likely to affect consumer confidence. If we are going to take advantage of the enormous potential of the market—some £900 billion—people will have to know what they are buying, what they are getting into and how safe they will feel inside it. I agree with the Minister about opening up the potential for new users, for disabled people and people who are disadvantaged or at the margins at the moment.
I have great sympathy for the Minister’s comments—I must say that I was reassured by some of them—about the need for an open discussion on the future technology. Part of our problem with the Bill, particularly with regard to autonomous vehicles, is that we are thinking about the here and now—the current technology—but we do not know what the next level of technology will be. Will flexibility need to be built into some of the classifications? For example, we might need to take account of vehicles with no steering wheels or operator pedals, where users essentially get into a box that is guided either by a remote software application or by the remote control of another user, somewhere else, who is responsible for its movement. It would be very helpful to get an early acknowledgment of such classification issues that accepted, and indeed made the case for, flexibility in the future. There is a real opportunity to publish initial criteria for classification, which will build confidence. Our key consideration must be looking after the safety of our citizens who operate or are passengers in these vehicles.
I have many other questions, but I will raise them when we debate other clauses. I am greatly reassured by the Minister’s tone, but I ask him to take the opportunity to adopt some more clarity at an early point, primarily to give people confidence.
Richard Fuller
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to have listened to the opening speeches. I will focus on the intent of clause 1 and how it relates to the title and ambitions of the Bill. As you know, it is entitled the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, and, for those of us with an interest in technology, it is that forward-looking word that attracts us. The Bill meshes with the Government’s stated strategy of being at the forefront of welcoming technology businesses into the UK, both broadly and in the area of vehicle automation. Both the Opposition spokesman and the Minister alluded to that general principle and the context in which the Bill has been introduced. I raised a point earlier about whether the word “monitoring” is part and parcel of that broader ambition and whether it assists in it, which will certainly be an important consideration for Government Members.
The Minister kindly drew my attention to my question to the chair of the Automated Driving Insurers Group, who replied that, yes, the Bill met the insurance industry’s ambitions. I think the Minister was trying to reassure me with that, but I must gently point out that if it had been up to the satisfaction of insurers, Columbus would not have gone to America, no one would have gone to the moon and Steve Jobs would not have created Apple. The confirmation and endorsement of insurers may be a necessary condition, but it is certainly not a sufficient one to meet the ambitions that we have set ourselves.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes some good points, but the whole point of insurance is to share risk. It was that sharing of risk that allowed Columbus to go to America and allowed the exploration of the known world. In fact, it was the invention of insurance in these islands that enabled us to create an empire and trade with the world. I feel slightly that my hon. Friend is perhaps aiming at the wrong target.
Richard Fuller
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no wish whatever to demean one of the most important export earners for our country. Insurance is indeed important, but when it comes to the issue of the word “monitoring”, what my hon. Friend and other colleagues on the Committee need to work out is the implication of that word—yes, through the context and lens of the insurance industry—for the ability of this country to provide an adequate platform for innovation.
I was trying to think of the implications of the word “monitoring” versus “controlling” for when I am sitting in a vehicle. Surely one of the advantages of the vehicles that we are trying to encourage here is that it is a different type of experience. When someone gets into an autonomous vehicle, that enables different types of things than when they get into a regular vehicle. One must surely be that they have the ability to do other things, because the car is taking them from A to B. However, if the word in the definition is “monitoring”, I understand that my time doing other things is now limited, because I have essentially got to be doing what I would be doing anyway, which is monitoring the road, the vehicle, the conditions and pedestrians. I will be spending all of my time monitoring what is going on, even though I am not necessarily controlling what is going on.
Mr Hayes
Heaven forbid that I should in any way limit my hon. Friend’s remarks, as there is no one I would rather fly to the moon with, and possibly fly among the stars with, than him, but, to be absolutely clear, what I said was that we are defining automated vehicles as those vehicles that have the capability of driving themselves without human oversight or intervention for some or all of the journey—without human oversight or intervention.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful, but I fear that I have still not been fully persuaded by my right hon. Friend in this battle between the never-to-be-demeaned insurance sector—the foundation of all human endeavour—and the entrepreneurial spirit. There is a third person in this little equation, which is the driver him or herself. I worry that the perpetuation of the word “monitoring” rather than “controlling” is essentially designed for a substantial amount of risk to be shifted from those two participants and on to the driver themselves. The message may go, “You were not providing sufficient monitoring of your circumstances in this autonomous vehicle.”
In this era of innovation, clarity is not only required by insurers and innovators, it is required by those people who create the demand for the product. Therefore, if we are setting up a regulatory structure that in any way takes away from the confidence of people to spend their hard-earned money on an innovation or new type of product, we are backtracking from that commitment. I would like a little more persuasion from the Minister—perhaps not today, but as he is going to write to the Committee prior to Report. Otherwise, I would say that there is a good case for the Government to review clause 1(1)(b) and replace the word “monitored” with the word “controlled”.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My hon. Friend has made an interesting case, which I have listened to carefully, but the word “controlled” is even narrower than the word “monitored”. Putting that word in instead would imply that vehicles listed by the Secretary of State might need to be monitored but not controlled, which would defeat the case he is making, so I am a bit confused about his end purpose. I have sympathy with what he seems to be suggesting, but the solution he proposes seems to defeat his argument. Will he be clear on what it is he wants to deliver in the clause?
Richard Fuller
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, as always. We are wrestling with what is the most adequate and fair basis for defining this new set of vehicles, without trying to pick technologies or understand what might happen. The basis for that has to be what the remit is of human behaviours that will be differentiated by this new set of vehicles. There are a set of human behaviours aligned to monitoring, which will then define whether someone is in or out, and a set aligned to controlling, which will define whether someone is in or out. My argument is that a case can be made that a definition for these types of vehicles based on an expectation of control by the individual is clearer and provides a sharper allocation of responsibility between insurers and manufacturers, without passing the buck on to uncertainty about the responsibilities of individual drivers. That is what my questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister aim to understand.
The small point I wish to check with my right hon. Friend the Minister is whether he can advise how prototype vehicles will be treated? I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South talk about going around Milton Keynes in a prototype vehicle. Will the Minister advise how prototypes will be handled and insured in this era of innovation? We can anticipate that future field trials will be much more extensive. How will they be treated?
I agree with the Minister that the amendment does not really take us very far, and I do not think it is worth supporting. However, clause 1(3) says:
“The Secretary of State must publish the list when it is first prepared and each time it is revised.”
He may not know—I may be asking how long a piece of string is—but has he had some indication of what the regularity or frequency of that updating may be? Has the industry advised on its expectations?
Rob Marris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. My remarks will be more of a stand part nature; I hope that is in order, after your injunction at the start of the sitting. I anticipate that you may decide, using your discretion, not to have a stand part debate, because we have thoroughly gone around the block on these issues.
Rob Marris
I have a few points for the Minister. I have considerable sympathy with the suggestion from the hon. Member for Bedford that control is a better verb than monitor in these circumstances. We will all be aware, from our advice surgeries if nothing else, of the vagaries and multiplicities of human behaviour. I know hon. Members will laugh, but there is a risk that people may be sitting in—I am trying to be neutral—a vehicle that they think is automated but is not fully automated and it crashes and they will say, “I was just making a cup of tea and the car just ran into the car in front; I thought it was one of those self-driving thingies because it was on some separate list.” I think that is, in part, because the Minister is trying to be flexible in his definition because of what may or may not happen with the technology. Clause 1(1)(b) refers to
“at least some circumstances or situations”.
I think that is the nub of the problem. Those words are understandably repeated in amendment 17.
He also said, when reading from the scoping document,
“some or all of the journey”
when referring to what one might call part-time or partially automated vehicles.
Kit Malthouse
Presumably in those circumstances, anybody who is in an automated or autonomous vehicle will still have a duty to understand its capabilities before they get into it. If there is an incident in which they have misunderstood or have not availed themselves of the information to understand the vehicle that they are getting into, they would be negligent, in legal terms. There is no attempt in the Bill to remove the notion of somebody being negligent once they enter some kind of vehicle.
Rob Marris
Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right; we will deal with negligence later when debating clause 3. However, that is precisely why I referred to the vagaries of human behaviour. I will give him an example of language, how we use it and how it can be misunderstood. There is a well-known incident involving someone who was maintaining an aircraft. It said in the manual, when inspecting a piece of the aircraft, to remove that piece, to inspect it, and, if faulty, to replace it. That is what the individual did; they took it out, inspected it, found it was faulty and replaced it back into the aircraft. That is the language and those are the vagaries of human behaviour. In terms of the legal technicalities, the hon. Gentleman is quite right, but I am talking about human behaviour, which is sometimes different. Fortunately for me, though not the individuals involved, I made a living out of that, because I was a personal injury lawyer and people did strange things.
Mr Baker
I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman is relating a tale from his direct experience that is therefore true. I just say, as a chartered aerospace engineer, that the terminology was always very clear—taking a component out and placing it back where it had been was refitting, not replacing. Replacing was taking a component out and putting another back.
The Chair
Order. I am reasonably content to allow something of a stand part debate, but you must refer to the clause itself or amendment 17. We are drifting rather wide of the topic under discussion.
Rob Marris
I thank you for that guidance, Mr Gray. I was trying to say—perhaps not very clearly—that in both the amendment and the Bill, the wording
“in at least some circumstances or situations”
is problematic. I agree with the hon. Member for Bedford that the word “monitored” is potentially problematic, too.
More generally, does the Minister envisage a completely separate list, or will the list that is created under the powers in clause 1 simply be a subset of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database, just as the DVLA database currently has a subset dealing with hybrid vehicles and vehicles that, for London congestion charging purposes, have carbon dioxide emissions of 75 grams or less per kilometre? It is an administrative question.
My second administrative question is this. Does the Minister envisage that a vehicle on the list that is created under clause 1 will have separate registration plates? Will there be a separate method of indexing so that when I drive down the road in my non-automated vehicle, I know whether I am behind an automated vehicle? I do not suggest one way or the other whether that would be advisable, but it is an issue that needs to be looked at.
If the words
“in at least some circumstances”
are not removed, will the list that is created have two sections—one for partially automated vehicles and one for fully automated vehicles? In human terms, driving terms and insurance terms, those are two different sorts of vehicle. Partially automated vehicles are, to use the Minister’s analogy, those that one can put on automatic pilot for part of the journey but not the whole journey. Those differ from the kind of vehicle that we started out talking about, which, for example, a person with almost total visual impairment could safely be transported in alone because it is fully automated.
Will there be two separate lists for fully automated and partially automated vehicles, and will there be separate registration plates?
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I shall make a few brief remarks and, I hope, a helpful suggestion to the Minister.
I have listened carefully to the debate, particularly the discussion about cars with driver-assist technology. Essentially, we are looking at three types of vehicles. At one end there are regular vehicles that have park assist, adaptive cruise control and all those things. I am fairly clear from the discussion that those are not automated vehicles—the key phrase is “driver-assist”—so they are not covered by the clause. At the other extreme there are vehicles that will be fully automated, which probably will not have steering wheels, pedals and the like. Those vehicles are similar to the prototype vehicle that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford referred to, in which the Secretary of State for Transport and I whizzed around Milton Keynes shopping centre, somewhat to the bemusement of shoppers going about their business.
The critical vehicles are those that fall in between—those that can be driven as a regular vehicle but where, under certain circumstances, the driver is able to press a button or pull a lever that moves the vehicle fully into auto-control, where they have no part whatsoever in its operation. I envisage a scenario in which we end up with road trains on motorways, with a chain of cars—perhaps 10 or a dozen—all following one another. We do not yet know how that technology will evolve. That to me is the critical definition. Following on from the comment from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, does the Minister envisage that the list he is creating will make that distinction between wholly and partly automated vehicles? That might go some way towards clarifying the matter.
As many hon. Members have said, it is important that we get the parameters established now. They need to be flexible enough as the technology develops, because none of us knows exactly where this will lead. I am comfortable that the clause does give the Secretary of State that power, but it might be helpful to sub-divide the list in the way I have suggested.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I shall be brief, given the amount of discussion we have had so far on this point. I have listened carefully to the arguments for and against monitoring or control. I will make a suggestion to the Minister, who I know will reflect carefully on everything that has been said. After the word “without”, it might be more helpful to put the words, “the driver being responsible for driving the vehicle”. That would cover fully autonomous vehicles and semi-autonomous vehicles because of the earlier wording in paragraph (b). That might help clarify what the Minister and Secretary of State are trying to achieve.
Mr Hayes
The semantic point is an interesting one, and of course we always reflect on such technical matters; they are important and can be of the value that was described. I will deal with the last point raised and then with all the others.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West always speaks with knowledge and authority on such matters. On number plates, I have not actually given any thought to what he suggested—he rather acknowledged that he had not, either. He said that he had come to no conclusion or view of any kind about it. As he said that, I thought that nor had I. I would say that the matter has not been decided. It would have to be based on engagement with the public because we would want to take a public view, very much in the spirit of the consultation that I described earlier. It is certainly something we would want to discuss at length. As he was speaking, I could tell that he was thinking, as I am, about the pros and cons. Identification of a vehicle could be very positive, but it could also be other than that. It is an interesting point to which we will give further consideration, with the requirement for further consultation and public engagement.
To answer the question about the list, it is an administrative list. On the issue of insurance, let us be clear that this part of the Bill is about insurance. We have ranged widely, Mr Gray, and you have been generous in allowing us to do so. We have been able to explore matters beyond the amendment. That is not uncommon at the beginning of consideration of a Bill, as it helps to set the tone and establish the context. I say no more than that, apart from emphasising that this is about insurance.
Representatives of the insurance industry not only answered my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford clearly, but went on to say in the evidence session:
“I think the Bill does have the balance right. It focuses on the road user…the Bill has to focus on the safety of road users rather than insurers and manufacturers.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 15, Q27.]
Essentially, the insurance industry has concluded that the Bill as drafted provides road users with the safety they need. That will consequently allow the industry to develop a variety of appropriate products as we move forward with this technological change. There is certainly a need for further discussion and clearly an acknowledged need for further work on its part, but the industry is saying that this is a good starting point and sufficient for its needs.
Ezra Pound said:
“A man’s hope measures his civilisation”.
I hope that my civilisation will be confirmed by my hope. I still hope to provide the necessary assurance to all members of the Committee.
Drew Hendry
The Minister is making a good point about reacting to the industry’s needs and ensuring it is in a good place to do this. However, does he not feel that it is important to take into consideration the outcomes for citizens when looking at this? This is not just about how the insurance industry copes; it is about how we stimulate confidence about safety in the public.
Mr Hayes
That is a well-made point. The list’s purpose is not solely to provide the platform that insurers need to continue to develop appropriate products. It will also be available for consumers and manufacturers; in a sense, that is why it is here. It is in part to do what I said, but of course it will be a public document. People will know what vehicles are on it and they will be able to scrutinise it. It is in law not just for the practical purposes I described, but for the public purposes that the hon. Gentleman advertises. That is going to be necessary, because there will be uncertainties. We will no doubt talk about behavioural change and how people anticipate the effect of this technology, and there will be a need to provide reassurance about safety. That is why I emphasised safety so strongly this morning, and why it is underpinned by what we are doing in the Bill. I accept that there is work to be done in ensuring that the list provides the reassurance that he and I both seek.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West and I exchanged views about tests. If there is a safety issue with one of these vehicles, it will be recalled. Let us be clear that there is no suggestion that these vehicles will be subject to anything less than rigour in the way they are tested. As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, they can be removed from the list.
An interesting point was raised about prototypes. I suspect that the insurers will have a view about the policy they might offer in respect of a prototype vehicle. They do now, as right hon. and hon. Friends will know. There are particular insurance products for particular kinds of prototype vehicles—which often restrict their use, by the way. When a very new product is being introduced, it is probable that the manufacturers will designate it in that way and that the insurance industry will respond accordingly. However, it is a well-made point; I may make further inquiries about it and write to the Committee, because I think such an important area requires further clarification. I have drawn from discussions and consultations we have already had with the insurance industry, and I suspect that it is as I describe: existing policy and practice in respect of prototypes will probably be reflected in this particular area of technology.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford took us to the stars. Too many Frank Sinatra lyrics at this early stage in our consideration are probably superfluous—as I said, we could play among the stars together. He raised an interesting semantic point about clause 1(1)(b) and the question of whether a vehicle is monitored or controlled. I will ask more about it and, when I write to the Committee, I may write on that, too, with the Chair’s agreement. I was considering it as my hon. Friend was speaking—as good Ministers should, because we learn from these Committees, do we not?—and I will return to it.
I am mindful of the need not to be too narrow in what we say, but to be sufficiently clear. It is important to strike a balance between absolute clarity and a specificity that would hem us in too tightly in all of these matters. We are trying to strike that balance—to walk that tightrope, in a sense—but I hear what my hon. Friend says and I will write to the Committee on the subject.
I think that hope is an important part of the work of politicians, Governments and members of the Committee. In that spirit, I hope that the combination of absolute assurances I have given—on consultation; the willingness to listen and learn from what has been said; the need for absolute clarity, and the stated and restated determination to deliver it; and the reassurance we have had from the industry that it is comfortable with where we have got to and that it is right and sufficient for its purposes—will not merely be a matter of tone, to quote the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, but also a matter of substance. After a healthy but long debate, although not exhaustibly so, I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will withdraw his amendment.
Andy McDonald
We have had a thorough and useful discussion. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South for taking us back to the days of “Tomorrow’s World”, Raymond Baxter—a few hon. Members will remember—and James Burke by talking about motor trains on the motorway. We did not think that would happen; it has only taken more than 40 years to get to this position. He is right to draw that out.
I am grateful to the Minister. I actually thought at one point that he was speaking in support of my amendment, but I think what he actually did was give me the assurances I was seeking, and I am grateful to him for that. He has assured us that the conversations will continue and that that will be a continuous feature, and importantly, that there will be a publication and that he will write to the Committee on the criteria. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Future of Rail (Passenger Experience)
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Sixth Report from the Transport Committee of Session 2016-17, The future of rail: Improving the rail passenger experience, HC 64, and the Government Response, HC 905.
It is a pleasure, Sir Edward, to serve under your chairmanship.
Our inquiry into improving the rail passenger experience started early last year, as the second of a series of five investigations into the future of rail. We have also looked at rail technology and rail franchising; we are currently considering rail safety; and we will complete our rail inquiries by looking at rail finance and governance.
There is no doubt that the number of people travelling by train has increased dramatically, which is a real success story, but what of the passenger experience? Examining this issue means examining some pretty basic issues. How easy is it to find and purchase the best-value ticket? How crowded is the train? Are there enough seats? How clearly is information presented on websites and apps? Are staff available to assist people at the station and reassure passengers about safety? How well does the train company keep passengers informed about disruption during the journey? Most fundamentally of all, will the train be on time? Will it be on time to the station to which the individual passenger is travelling and not simply on time at its final destination? We identified many improvements that are required, and the need for some of them is very long standing.
Let us consider the first aspect—looking for and buying the best-value ticket for a journey. The sheer complexity of ticketing, with different types of tickets across the patchwork of operators, has been an issue for far too long. Ten years ago, the Transport Committee described the complexity in rail fares as an “insult to the passenger”. In 2006, the Transport Committee decried the fact that the situation had been allowed to persist for several years. Yet last year we found that this fundamental problem had barely been dealt with and that the situation had barely changed, beyond some very small improvements. Some improvements to ticket vending machines had taken place, for example, but they were small improvements in comparison with the scale of the problem. Despite in-depth research by consumer groups and numerous pronouncements by the regulator—the Office of Rail and Road—and the industry, the problem persists.
A particularly unfair phenomenon is split ticketing. It is often possible for passengers who have the knowledge and time to undertake intricate research to save considerable sums of money by buying separate tickets for different portions of the same journey. It was possible to save money through split ticketing on 33 of 50 cross-country journeys that were examined by The Times last year, when it conducted a survey on this problem. This situation is unsatisfactory and unfair. People can pay as much as £85 more than is necessary for a single train journey, for example on the service from Penzance to Birmingham. There is a differential of £85 if someone buys split tickets rather than just buying one ticket. Further examples can be found on numerous routes.
Despite the problem having been well understood for a long time, no one in the rail sector appears to have a grip on it and no one seems to be responsible for dealing with it. The Transport Committee has been told on numerous occasions by a succession of Ministers that this issue will be dealt with, but nothing has happened and nobody seems to have the power to enforce any change.
Recently the Department for Transport, together with the Rail Delivery Group and the regulator, published a plan to deal with these issues; it contained proposals in December about certain trials that were to take place. It is unclear how effective this plan will be and we still do not know the full details of what these trials will be and where they will take place. I assure the Minister that, as a Committee, we will follow this matter up. It is good to have a plan, but we need to know exactly what it is, how effective it is and—if it is effective—how it would be rolled out across the system.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Given that there are some extremely good websites out there—I have personal experience of using seat61.com and loco2.com—it is possible, quite straightforwardly, for someone to work out good rail routes, if they have access to a computer. So, given that it is possible, why does it seem so difficult for the Government and the train companies to resolve this issue, and what about those people who do not have access to a computer?
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If somebody has the time, the knowledge, the ability and the access to the appropriate technology, they can discover a lot of information, but it is not available to everyone, and I find it very surprising that Ministers and the rail sector as a whole are simply unable to take up this issue and ensure that information that is technically available is actually available to the ordinary passenger. That is where my concern lies and where the Committee’s concern lies.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which my constituents will follow with great interest. Does she agree that it is also important that passengers are able to buy any sort of ticket, particularly at unstaffed stations, and that one of the urgent priorities is to make sure that ticket machines are put in place in all those stations where no staff are present, including those on the line through Urmston and Trafford Park, many of which do not have such machines?
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend makes another excellent point. There is nothing more frustrating for a passenger than to be told that tickets are available, only to go along to their local station and find that that simply is not the case. I say again that this is a long-standing issue. It is known about, Ministers are well aware of it, but very little indeed has been done to resolve it. My hon. Friend has done a great service to her constituents in drawing attention to this issue during this debate.
Rail passengers want clear and accurate information about their journeys. They want information not only on how to go about their journey and what sorts of journeys are available but on how a journey is progressing. Too often, however, that information is simply not being provided.
When we conducted our inquiry and called for evidence, it came flooding in and we saw that passengers were largely negative, first about their experience of train operating companies’ websites. One such website was described by a passenger as being
“appalling, badly designed, inefficient, difficult to use, often to the point of being unusable”.
Some smartphone apps seem little better, as they routinely failed to provide reliable information, for example about which platform a train will depart from. Once again, that is basic information and it is galling for passengers to read reports about systems being put in place, which can all sound very good. What really matters is what happens to an individual when they make their journey. That is what really counts.
It is important that the technology is available and accessible, but it is also important that people are actually at hand in stations to give assistance and information. That help is essential for everybody—travellers want to see actual people around who can help them, and give them guidance and information—but for people who have a disability it is absolutely essential. Although the systems in place for assisting people with disabilities to travel by train sometimes work, there are also occasions when those systems break down, which is another great concern for us.
Overcrowding is another ongoing concern. It does not happen everywhere, but where it does happen it is extremely important and creates major obstacles. Many people told us that their journeys were uncomfortable. They often worried about whether they could actually get on the train. Many were concerned about the potential danger in getting on very crowded trains, and that is stressful.
Robert Flello
My hon. Friend is being generous with her time. I had an email recently from a constituent who is trained in first aid and who was concerned about a journey from Birmingham to Wolverhampton; she and others were standing and somebody fainted so she went to provide assistance. There was not space for the person to lie down, as is required when giving first aid to someone who has fainted. When the train crew got on, they said, “This happens regularly, because the train is so regularly crowded. We are used to people passing out.”
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend draws attention to a situation that is all too common. If there is sporadic overcrowding, that can perhaps be coped with, but when it happens regularly, it requires attention and the situation is not being addressed. A great deal of the publicity about overcrowding relates to commuter lines into London, and that is where most of the overcrowding takes place, but it does not solely affect London. There is overcrowding on other routes, too. In Manchester, rush-hour trains are on average 4% over capacity, with 12% of passengers regularly standing. That is a lot of people, and average figures mask a lot of difference. The top 10 overcrowded train services in England and Wales are between 61% and 129% over capacity. Eight of the 10 most overcrowded services are in the London area, with two in Manchester, but there are examples throughout the country. This issue needs attention and it must not be ignored.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Normally if a Member wishes to intervene, they arrive in time for the beginning of the debate. Please continue, Mrs Ellman.
Mrs Ellman
Thank you, Sir Edward. The Department is well aware of this long-standing problem. It must identify places where overcrowding has become a persistent serious problem, making journeys uncomfortable. The train companies, through the franchise agreements negotiated with the Department, should be required to identify where there is a serious problem and take action to alleviate overcrowding on specific services. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he is looking at the problem and is proposing action to address it.
Over the past day or two, there has been a lot of discussion about the consultation on the Southeastern franchise, which has rightly raised the big issue of overcrowding. The consultation puts forward certain proposals for dealing with the issue, but it is not a problem just for new franchises; the problem is being experienced now, and it requires the Department’s attention. It relates to the train operating companies and the provision of rolling stock.
I repeat the question that I have asked a succession of Ministers numerous times in a succession of meetings: who is responsible for the long-term planning and delivery of rolling stock? That might sound like a pretty basic, simple, fundamental question, but I have never received a straightforward answer; the nearest I have got is something about “the Department”. I then ask, “Who is it in the Department? The Minister? The Secretary of State?” Then the clarity disappears.
When we come across specific issues and problems—there was one a couple of years ago when a carriage was moved from an important service in the north to go to the then Prime Minister’s constituency—Ministers appear to be powerless. I was told by the then Secretary of State, “It will get resolved.” It did get resolved, in the end and after a great deal of fuss, but I still had no answer to the question of who was actually responsible. The Minister is very diligent about these matters, so I hope he will be able to give a clearer answer. Who is responsible for the long-term planning and delivery of rolling stock, including new rolling stock and refurbishment?
People are facing a whole range of problems in undertaking their journeys on rail. Perhaps one constant feature, which overrides other rail issues, is the constant challenge of the rail system’s fragmentation. Time and again we come back to the issue of how the sector will work together more cohesively to give the best possible service to the passenger.
The Rail Delivery Group was set up to bring the rail sector together. Yes, it has made some improvements, but it has not addressed the basic issues. How will it change the way it operates? Does it need more powers? Do franchises need to be different? Should the Department and Ministers act in a different way? How can the rail regulator be more effective in taking action? That is not clear. Does the regulator need more powers? If so, what are they? What action does the Minister propose to take to make that a reality? The most disappointing thing about the challenges that the Committee and I have identified is that most of them are not new: they are long standing. Despite the best efforts of a succession of Ministers and the Department, not a great deal has changed, and we simply cannot go on like that.
As our inquiry was under way, a major crisis was developing on Southern rail, which is part of the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise. It is run by the parent company, Govia Thameslink Railway —known as GTR—but I will refer to it as Southern, because that is the area in which the bulk of the problems have arisen and where the bulk of the difficulties are for passengers.
As we were conducting our inquiry, passengers on the route were becoming increasingly exasperated and angry that their rail service, for which many pay several thousand pounds a year, was inadequate and utterly unreliable. Whether passengers are paying several thousand pounds a year for a season ticket or simply paying their fare, they are equally entitled to have a proper service, but that was not happening. The situation remains virtually the same, with passengers suffering mass cancellations and inordinate delays. People’s jobs have been put at risk, simply because they cannot get to work on time. Some people reported that they have moved house because of the problem.
Life has been disrupted. Why? It is a sorry combination of a too-large franchise, poor management, misjudgment and disastrous industrial relations, which have conspired to create an appalling situation for passengers. The ongoing strikes have compounded a series of errors and incompetence. Passengers are right to be angry, but the Department does not seem to be doing much about the situation except to accept that there is a big problem.
It cannot be acceptable for those responsible for the problem—not just one party is responsible; responsibility must be shared by a multiplicity of organisations and individuals—to fail so comprehensively and for so long and to appear not to be acting. In 2016 alone, 58,983 train journeys were partly or wholly cancelled. That is a tremendous figure. I do not think the travelling public want to hear all the arguments about who is responsible. They just know that it is a fact that their lives are still being disrupted and that nothing much is changing, and they want something done about it.
The Department has already accepted that the franchise that was drawn up was much too large. It is the largest in the country. It is uniquely large; it contains more than a fifth of all the passenger journeys across Britain’s entire network. It is too large a franchise, and the Department has said that that was its mistake.
Add to that the situation on the ground and the complexity of major infrastructure works planned during the course of the franchise agreement, including the huge and logistically challenging Thameslink programme, and there was a recipe for calamitous passenger experience. The impact of the Thameslink programme on passenger services was substantially underestimated. The estimated number of delay minutes was forecast to be 10,000 per year; the reality has been 10,000 per week. I ask the Minister how that estimate could be so disastrously wrong. It has contributed substantially to the problem.
If we add to those things—too large a franchise and a major infrastructure challenge, the impact of which was grossly underestimated—inadequate levels of staffing, the situation becomes even worse. The industrial action on top of that has escalated the situation to an unacceptable level.
I mention one other factor; I suspect hon. Members will find it difficult to believe if they are not already aware of it. At the very beginning of the franchise, the company did not have enough drivers to operate the trains. That part has been rectified—except for the fact that we are now in a dispute about driver-only operation—but having insufficient drivers at the beginning of the franchise does not suggest great competence.
The question for the Department and the Minister to answer is: what is being done? The franchise was constructed on a management fee basis, which is currently unique, because of the anticipated risk. The revenues go directly to the Government and a fee is paid to the train operator, so there is no risk in that sense. I have described the nature of the services and the problems. The train operator receives an annual management fee of around £1 billion; probably around £3 billion has been paid out to date. Under that system, the public purse foots the bill for losses that occur from lost sales, disruption and passenger compensation.
I do not have an up-to-date figure of exactly how much has been lost and how much the public purse will have to pay out, but the latest figure I have is £38 million and rising. That was supplied by the Minister in a letter to me some time ago. Compensation schemes have been announced since then, and we do not know how they are operating or how much money is involved. The bill could be increasing substantially.
To add to the complexity and difficulty, there is the issue of force majeure, which concerns the dispute—ongoing and unresolved, as far as I am aware—between the train operating company and the Department for Transport about who is responsible for all those cancelled services. Who is responsible for those 58,983 and more train journeys that were wholly or partly cancelled? There is an unresolved dispute between the Department and the train company, with no end date in sight. That cannot be acceptable. All this is continuing—passengers are getting more and more angry, and there is no end date. I hope the Minister can tell us what is happening and when it will be resolved. The public also have a right to know what the Department’s plans are to deal with the situation.
The franchise is due to run until September 2021. I would not like to anticipate the extent or the level of anger that passengers are going to be feeling by then if nothing changes. What is the Department doing? Is it considering restructuring the franchise—perhaps dividing it up and allocating different parts to different operators? There is silence. We simply do not know what is happening. Doing nothing is simply not enough.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is highlighting well-publicised problems at Southern Rail. She will know that, in the last few weeks, a similar dispute began with Northern Rail, which serves both her constituency and mine. Does she agree that Ministers need to take action swiftly so that we do not end up in the long drawn-out and unresolved situation with Northern Rail that passengers have had to suffer at Southern Rail? Will she call on the Minister to tell us what swift action the Government are taking?
Mrs Ellman
I agree with my hon. Friend. The issue is escalating and is now not solely to do with Southern Rail. I hope the Minister is able to tell us what he and the Department are doing to deal with this unacceptable situation. However blame is apportioned, it is the passengers who are suffering.
I thank the Minister for certain steps that he has taken in relation to Southern Rail, which have an impact on the rest of the rail network. The Committee was extremely concerned to find that the Department was not making information available about its monitoring of the franchise and whether contractual benchmarks were being met. After a lot of pressure from the Committee, the Minister agreed that that information would be made publicly available as far as it could be—not simply for Southern Rail, but across the network for other franchises.
I thank the Minister for responding to our concerns so swiftly when he realised their extent, but I have to ask when that information will actually be made available, for Southern Rail and for franchises in the rest of the country. It is extremely important that the Department monitors franchises. Because of its failures, the situation in the Southern franchise has now reached dramatic proportions, but there are other issues in other parts of the rail network and the Department is equally responsible there. I would like some information on that monitoring.
I have dwelt at some length on what is happening at Southern Rail because it is such a traumatic, ongoing event, but also because some of its features can be applied in other areas. We have major infrastructure works planned for other parts of the network as well. Will the Minister ensure that the problems in miscalculations made in relation to infrastructure on Southern Rail will not be replicated in other parts of the country when major infrastructure works take place? That is a very important question.
It is important to go back to the beginning and ask how we know what passengers’ concerns are and whether we are monitoring them properly. The rail sector does have ways of monitoring passengers’ views. There is an annual rail passenger survey, and other things are done, but the Committee felt that they were not really adequate because some of the information that we picked up from passengers was not reflected in some of the official statistics that had been collected. I would ask that that whole system be looked at again.
Later in this Parliament, we will complete our “future of the rail” series of inquiries by looking at rail finance and governance, and how important changes should and can be implemented. I am in no doubt that the massive increase in the numbers of people using trains is a success story and I applaud many of the developments in our rail service. In many ways, it has been a success—but there are major problems and issues, and one is the passenger experience.
I have outlined some of the report’s findings today, and I thank all Committee members, a number of whom are here this afternoon, for their work and dedication. They looked at the issue as a whole and have drawn attention to their own individual information and experience from their role as constituency MPs. I thank them for that.
We are all working to secure one end: to bring improvements. I conclude by thanking the Minister for the attention he has already shown to some aspects of the issue. However, the Committee would like to know what else will be done so that passengers’ experience can be improved, on a growing and increasingly successful railway.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Sir Edward. I thank the Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), for comprehensively summarising our inquiry. I would like to focus on two or three things and give one or two local examples from my constituency of the failure of both the services and the ticketing arrangements.
The hon. Lady spoke of the dispute on Southern. The only comment I want to add to that and to what is in the report is how amazing I find it that we were told by the two company representatives that there were not enough drivers to operate the services from day one, due to an unexpected fall in the number during the change-over of the franchises. They said that they did not know on day one, but surely they could not have been so incompetent not to have known on day one minus 10 or 20.
It is amazing that, on day one, the company should not have enough staff to operate the services they had committed to. I do not think we managed to tease this out of the Minister at the meeting—perhaps we did and my memory is failing me—but did the Department know that on day one the company could not provide the services it had contracted for?
The hon. Lady gave many examples relating to ticketing. We were told how complex it is because there are so many different routes and tickets, but that applies to many industries. Why are the ticketing arrangements on the railways so far behind the airlines, for example? They have speeded up their process, and it is now pretty easy to check in and get a ticket. I find it amazing that, after all this time and so many promises and reports, we are not able to ensure ease of operation.
The report is about the rail passenger experience, the first part of which is getting a ticket and getting information about train times. The hon. Lady gave an example of different websites giving a ticket price difference of £80. I did a bit of research this morning on how to get from my Cleethorpes constituency to Haverfordwest. Perhaps not a great many people do that journey, but I happen to have family in Haverfordwest and I have done it on a number of occasions. Amazingly enough, it can be done with only one change in Stockport.
I went on the National Rail website. National Rail sounds important, doesn’t it? People look at it and think, “This is the Rolls-Royce of websites.” Okay, it has got the information, but it is, shall we say, variable. When I tap in, “Cleethorpes to Haverfordwest”, the website says at the top, “Buy the cheapest for £157”. That is for a single adult standard class ticket.
Buying a ticket from Cleethorpes to Stockport costs £21. There are numerous fares at different times of the day to then go from Stockport to Haverfordwest, but I chose to leave Cleethorpes at 9.26. I was told that it would be £157, and that if I went 2 hours later it would be £163.80. If I go on the 9.26, I pay £21 to get to Stockport and £44.50 to get from Stockport to Haverfordwest. That is almost a £100 difference. If a family of three or four do that, let us be honest, they are being robbed—there is no getting away from it.
Having gone to south Wales, I thought, “I wonder whether it is cheaper to get to north Wales,” and I did a similar exercise going from Cleethorpes to Bangor; I accept that perhaps not many people do that on a daily basis. Again, I found that if the journey is done in three stages, it can be done for £56.20, whereas the headline says, “Cheapest fare £81.40.”
My final example is to get from Cleethorpes to Felixstowe, which again I found can be done £15 cheaper than what is stated at the top of the webpage—mind you, four tickets are necessary to do that, so perhaps the convenience makes it worth it. In this day and age, this is not rocket science. If the railway companies cannot do it themselves, somebody else should be made to do it on their behalf, and they should have to pay to have it done.
Obviously, I travel down here from Cleethorpes every week and back again, and I am always amazed at how many times my tickets are not checked. There are no ticket barriers at Cleethorpes or where I change at Doncaster, and at least 50% of the time the barriers at King’s Cross are not operational. I have done that journey time and again—I could have saved the taxpayers no end of money if I had just taken a chance on it, but we are all honest, aren’t we?
Kate Green
I totally support the hon. Gentleman’s comments about tickets not being checked. The situation is exacerbated when there is no machine on the station platform and no staff from whom one can buy a ticket. On my local line, passengers regularly travel between Urmston and Trafford Park, for example, without paying—not because they are not willing to pay, but because there is absolutely no way they can do so.
Martin Vickers
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. Seeing you in the Chair, Sir Edward, reminds me of the journeys that can be made from Cleethorpes to Lincoln via Market Rasen. There is often an announcement on the 9.20 train from Grimsby to Lincoln saying, “This train will be overcrowded when we get to Market Rasen. Can we get the tickets sorted out quickly?”
That brings me to overcrowding. You have probably used that 9.20 train yourself, Sir Edward. It leaves Market Rasen at about 10 o’clock in the morning and delivers you to Lincoln or Newark, where you can get down to King’s Cross. The reality is that it is a single unit, and has been one for years and years, despite the fact that it is regularly overcrowded when it leaves Market Rasen.
Robert Flello
Absolutely, and the same is true on the train that runs through Stoke-on-Trent on the Crewe-Derby line. It is a single unit and overcrowded, but nothing has been done for years. Nobody seems to care.
Martin Vickers
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside said, there is even a top 10 of overcrowding. I do not know whether the Market Rasen service is on it, but it certainly ought to be. The reality is that it is a single unit. East Midlands Trains will say, as it has said to me, “There isn’t enough rolling stock available, even when it cascades down after new stock has come on,” but that has been the case for 10 years. How long does it take to produce a new diesel unit to run that service?
If trains are regularly overcrowded, notwithstanding the fact that the rail experience is not particularly desirable from the passenger’s point of view, surely the companies are falling down on the commitments they made in their franchises. If they are not falling down on their commitments, the franchise agreements need tightening up.
Finally—the Minister would not expect me not to mention this issue; we have spoken about it on many occasions—the rail experience is much better if people do not have to change trains and there are through services. British Rail ended through services from Cleethorpes to King’s Cross in 1992, and it is about time they were restored.
I know the Minister is sympathetic and that you, Sir Edward, are sympathetic, because you would like through services to go through Market Rasen and Lincoln as they used to. It is about time that the Minister made some more sympathetic noises and guided me through the system, so that in the not-too-distant future—preferably before the next general election—we have an absolute commitment to provide such a service.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on her introduction to the report and the Government response. I came on to the Committee part way through the investigation, but I feel a certain amount of ownership because in my previous life on the Select Committee I was involved in the 2006 report. I am dismayed to be back here still debating exactly the same things we raised in our report all that time ago.
Before the 1997 general election I went to an event attended by the comedian and satirist John Bird, back when rail privatisation was still in its fledgling years. He said that the rail operating companies had given up calling people “passengers” because they did not want to give them the idea that they had any intention of taking them anywhere. People served by Southern and Southeastern —my constituents are served by Southeastern—get the impression that nothing at all has changed since. Things have not moved on.
The passenger experience is at the heart of what we should be seeking to achieve in our railways. It is not satisfactory to say that the railways must be a success because so many more people are travelling on them. People travelling on Southern, for example, do so because they have no alternative but to suffer the service they are being offered. After all, there are few alternatives for getting to work other than to suffer that service.
The poor performance of Southern and Southeastern is exacerbated by the development taking place at London Bridge. I commend the railway industry for keeping London Bridge operating while such an incredible feat of engineering is taking place—to add two additional lines through so busy a station while keeping much of it operating is quite an achievement—but that does not excuse the frequency with which my constituents are inconvenienced because the infrastructure has broken down, whether it is a set of points at Charing Cross, London Bridge or Lewisham, as is frequently the case, or a train that is blocking the rail. That is too often the experience of the customer.
Recently, quite late one evening, coming back from the House, I was at Waterloo East and the trains were all delayed—I cannot remember whether it was a train or the points on that occasion. A woman standing next to me shouted across to the central platforms of the station, trying to get some information from the staff about how she could get to the station that she wanted to get to. They were holding their hands to their ears, trying to hear what she was saying, then a train trundled between them and stopped at the platform. The woman sauntered off down the platform and the train left, while the staff kept talking to each other on the other platform. The impression was that the staff were so beaten down by the quality of the service that they had given up making any attempt to assist passengers.
There is something in that about the quality of the customer interface; the interaction of staff and passengers who have been inconvenienced. That needs to be addressed and the Government should hold the train operating companies to account for it. It is not good enough to collect statistics. The companies should train their staff to react and respond to passengers, in particular when the service is disrupted, and they should be readily available to provide prompt advice. Waterloo East station has four platforms, but on that occasion four members of staff were all on the two central platforms. Why were they not deployed to help the customers who needed information? Southeastern needs a rocket under it to provide better information. I have other experiences, which I could go into.
Robert Flello
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s contribution. I wanted to make a point about some of our stations, as I shall very shortly experience the joys of Euston station, to get back to Stoke. Why is it, for example, that we are told only 15 minutes before departure which platform our train to Stoke is to leave from, even though the train has been there for ages? That sort of thing drives people crazy.
Clive Efford
My hon. Friend’s intervention is incredibly timely, because I was about to go on to describe my attempts to get to Stoke-on-Trent on Virgin Trains on 23 February. I was fortunate that I did not take the 10.30 am train as my colleagues had. It had left, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is present, only got to Stafford at 8 o’clock in the evening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) did. He texted me from there; he had been travelling for more than 10 hours. My train did not leave at all. I sat there for 45 minutes and finally it was cancelled, although that turned out to be fortunate, because I did not end up trapped half way up the country, nowhere near where I wanted to go.
I then tried to claim my ticket back. I know we are going to do an inquiry into this, but it too is part of the passenger experience. As instructed, I went on to the Virgin website to claim my ticket back, but there was no facility to say that my train had been cancelled. I was allowed to say that my train had been delayed, but I was unable to say that it had been cancelled. Every time I pressed the button, I was sent back to the beginning, so I took to Twitter and asked, “Is anyone else having this problem with Virgin rail?” I am sure because I am a Member of Parliament and on the Select Committee, I then got Rolls-Royce treatment—[Interruption.] It was absolutely Rolls-Royce, because Virgin wrote back to me saying, “Dear Joseph”, and that they were sorry about my customer experience. They also sent me half the money and we finally resolved the matter. The point, however, is that the experience should not be like that.
In the report one of the online ticketing companies, Trainline, said that people were uncertain whether they had bought the cheapest ticket, which was a barrier to some people choosing to use rail at all. Which companies make the cost of their product so opaque that it might put customers off, other than one that has a trapped market and people who have no choice but to use that service, no matter how bad it is? We really need to deal with that customer experience.
My last point is about overcrowding and capacity. I go back to Southeastern. The figures in the report show that Southeastern operates an appalling service. It is one of the worst, and it should be thankful for Southern which stops it from being bottom of the customer satisfaction rankings. When we consider that every day so many people in south-east London rely on that surface rail service to get to work, and that there is no alternative but road, we realise what an appalling service it is and what an appalling and disproportionate impact it has on the lives of people from that part of London.
Many people think that the whole of London is served by the underground, but my part of London is well outside the orbit of the underground, and buses from outer south-east London take a devil of a time to get into central London. We rely almost entirely on that commuter rail service, and it is not acceptable that it is such an appalling performer. When we do get on trains, they are overcrowded at peak times because they are not long enough and there are so few alternatives to that rail service.
We have lengthened the platforms, so let us now lengthen the trains. We need to ensure that we have the capacity on Southeastern rail services so that people can get on the trains at peak time. We need 12-car trains serving the metro services in south-east London so that constituents from north Kent and my constituency can get to work comfortably and on time every day. Thank you, Sir Edward, for allowing me to make that contribution.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Quince, I was a bit hard on you. If you wish to make a comment now, you may.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing the debate, which I have found fascinating—I must confess that I did not think I would. I am pleased to be here to sum up for the third party in the House.
The hon. Lady was encyclopaedic in her knowledge and wonderful in explaining the key issues. I will not repeat each and every one, but she talked about ticketing—as did the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), to whom I will come in a moment—and that rings all sorts of bells. We need a method across the entire rail network for getting the best deal for customers.
At this point, I should declare an interest: I frequently use the Virgin Trains West Coast, and with my senior railcard I manage to get some good discounts. However, because of the nature of how we work in this place, I cannot always book a ticket when that would be cheapest, which makes it very expensive.
I totally understand overcrowding on trains. I am fortunate in that I do not have to commute around London; even though my claustrophobia is now much better, I do not know whether I could do it. Sometimes, when I see how bad the tube is, I am able to step back and wait for 20 minutes until things calm down, but that cannot be done on a train. I feel very sorry for people who have to go through that on a daily basis.
The biggest issue seems to be how the franchises are handed out. We hear that some franchises were given to operators who did not have enough drivers—that is a complete disgrace. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside said, passengers should be entitled to a full service, but, if I picked it up correctly, 58,500 cancellations took place in a week—not in a year?
Marion Fellows
I stand corrected. However, in anyone’s book that number of cancellations is not acceptable. The management fee basis on which the Southern franchise was put out seems to be quite a drain on the public purse and something that the Government should look at as quickly as possible.
Clive Efford
Did the Scottish National party Government in Scotland learn anything from the franchising process we have undergone in England? The passenger survey shows that, since the Scottish Government privatised the service to Abellio, satisfaction in the service has declined, and the service has declined since then. I wonder whether any lessons—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. I do not think we need to start debating Scottish railways—unless you really want to, Marion Fellows—because I am not sure they are germane.
Marion Fellows
Perhaps we should. It is important that the Minister hears how we dealt with these things in Scotland so that he can take on board some of the things the Government there have done.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes gave us an interesting and humorous list of journeys from Cleethorpes to Haverfordwest. I really enjoyed that. I could introduce him to someone I know well who regularly journeys from here in London to north of Dundee. She is an expert on how to get the best deal with split ticketing. However, the whole point is that people should not have to become experts in that area. There should be a way of simply going on to a website and finding the cheapest journey as easily as possible.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred to his time on the Select Committee in a former Parliament and was disturbed to find that we are still dealing with the same issues. I know you do not want me to go on for too long, Sir Edward, so I will not do a full summing up of what everyone else said, but, for the Minister’s benefit, yes, there were issues in Scotland over the franchise given to Abellio, but after much consternation among passengers, the Scottish Government brought in an improvement plan and since then things have moved forward. The score for ScotRail on the passenger satisfaction survey was at 83%, which was lower than the previous year, but in the last month or so it has gone back up to about 90%—a number that many companies and commuters in the south-east of England would be delighted to have.
The Scottish Government have put more than £5 billion in an investment programme for the five-year period to 2019. We will open new stations and build new lines. We see that as a way to get a greener Scotland and to increase Scotland’s economic base.
I commend to the House the ten-minute rule Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—I myself have to read his constituency because it is so vast—introduced in the Chamber only this week. What we really need in Scotland is Network Rail to be devolved. The Scottish Government can take forward many programmes, but ultimately Network Rail is not devolved, which means it does not have full control over the rail network in Scotland.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. I know the hon. Lady will want to speak to the report.
Marion Fellows
Yes, I shall do—I apologise, Sir Edward. It is important for the Minister to understand that it is possible to improve things and move them forward. As part of the process of making things better on the English railways, if I can put it that way, he may also want to look at taking powers to nationalise them again, as we did in Scotland, so that Government organisations and national organisations could bid for franchises. That happened on the east coast main line, and it ran very well.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I want to come back to the hon. Lady’s point on further fragmentation of the rail network. How does she feel the passenger experience of travelling on the railways would improve if the management of the infrastructure were further fragmented by having part of it devolved to Scotland, even though many franchises operate in both Scotland and the rest of the UK?
Marion Fellows
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I could speak of a personal constituency issue: there were real difficulties with the electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh line. Transport Scotland was responsible for part of it, but some of the issues were being dealt with down here with Network Rail. That made it difficult to get real accountability. The Scottish Government wanted to be accountable for everything, but they could not be because Network Rail is not devolved. That is why we ask for it to be devolved.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time in giving way. When we consider some of the services that operate on the west coast main line and the east coast main line that cross the border, does she not accept that it would be even more difficult to operate a seamless passenger experience if those operators had to deal with both Network Rail in England and a separate network rail in Scotland?
Marion Fellows
I see where the hon. Lady is coming from, but no, I would not agree with that; at the moment it is working well. I see no reason why the Scottish Government would make life difficult for Network Rail in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with her on this occasion.
I will end there, Sir Edward; thank you for the opportunity.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the Transport Committee for its excellent report. It sets out the details very clearly and is also readable, which is great. I am grateful that it focuses on passengers. We hear so much about train operating companies, Network Rail and the Department for Transport, but the report focuses on passengers and their experiences. They are the bottom line and the end receivers of all of this.
I will briefly say something about Select Committees. In my first five years in Parliament I was a member of the Education Committee. In my experience, Select Committees work really hard and their reports are full of good analysis, hard work and excellent recommendations. Governments do not generally take up those recommendations immediately, but over a period of two or three years, they tend to drip into manifestos and legislation. I therefore give credit to the Minister; I think he has accepted all of the report’s recommendations in full or in part, which I think says something about the report’s excellence. On the recommendations that he has accepted in full, given the Department for Transport’s history, can we not have a long, protracted period of announcement after announcement and just get on with delivering on them?
The bottom line and the reason for the series of five reports, of which this is one, is that rail passengers in the United Kingdom pay some of the highest fares in Europe and receive a poor, and in some cases very poor, service in return. In January this year, rail fares again rose above the rate of inflation, at a time when many commuters face a daily struggle to and from work to get there on time or to get there at all. That is down to the poor and deteriorating performance of train operating companies—not all of them, but far too many. While we in here might debate the high-level stuff about who should run the railways—whether it should be the market, whether it should be publicly owned and so on—rail passengers I speak to do not really care about that. They want an efficient, effective, affordable and accessible railway system. That is not what they are getting at the moment.
Given that the Government accept 13 of the recommendations in full and six in part, and do not disagree with any of the Committee’s recommendations, I will focus on the areas for which the Government only partially accept the recommendations. I ask the Minister to look again at the Government’s responses to the Committee’s criticisms and the recommendations that they have not wholeheartedly accepted. As the Committee forcibly points out, passenger experience, particularly and especially on the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise, has been “woeful”. It puts that down to
“inadequate planning, weaknesses in the franchise handover process, infrastructure and rolling stock failures, mismanagement, poor industrial relations”.
The report states that the Department for Transport must “get a grip”. It actually says that, and I think anyone who has ever travelled on that franchise would agree. I recently took a journey on that franchise. I am from the north-east and do not normally travel on Southern, but I thought I should experience these things if I was to talk about them, so I did. I travelled down to Brighton and came back in the rush hour, and it was absolute hell; it beggars belief that people have to pay enormous amounts of money to endure that daily hell.
In the light of the report, the Department for Transport can no longer claim that no operator could do a better job than TSGN; in fact, it is hard to see how any operator could do a worse job. However, the whole blame does not rest solely with that train operating company. A lack of transparency over performance against contractual obligations is down to the Department for Transport. A lack of publicly available data for monitoring is down to the Department for Transport. A woefully inadequate franchise, including lack of proper information at the time of the bidding process, is down to the Department for Transport.
Even, as we have heard, the lack of drivers at the start of the franchise is down to the Department for Transport in part. Anyone who has ever run a company, public organisation or any kind of organisation knows that there will be significant staff wastage at a point of change, including in a handover period. Staff will take the opportunity to move on to other companies or jobs or to retire. Anyone who does not take account of that is quite frankly negligent. I think that is down to the Department as well as the train operating company. The failure to address that demonstrates a gross lack of knowledge or experience, insufficient due diligence or a lack of care on behalf of both the Department and the franchisee—or probably a combination of all of those factors.
Current and deteriorating industrial relations issues clearly have a part to play in this. The Committee is absolutely right to point out that those disputes can ultimately be resolved only through negotiation between Govia Thameslink Railway and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. However, given the Department for Transport’s unusually direct involvement in that franchise, it should take greater responsibility for fostering productive negotiations. The Secretary of State’s current Pontius Pilate-like handling of this is simply not good enough; this is the Government’s business and the Secretary of State has to get involved, not least to stop the dispute from spreading any further. He owes that to passengers. The dispute is not insolvable. The Government need to get the parties together and take a lead. The alternative is that it spreads across the country, as we are beginning to see now, with more and more franchises and passengers becoming involved.
We have heard a lot about Scottish rail and all its difficulties, which I accept entirely. There was a ten-minute rule Bill yesterday about handing over Network Rail to the Scottish Government; given that they have done such a cracking job of everything else that has been delegated to them, as somebody who lives on the east coast I think it would be an act of negligence for the Government to do so. However, I have to give credit where it is due, even though I dislike doing so: this dispute has been solved in Scotland. The roof did not cave in and the world did not come to an end; it was simply solved. If they can solve it in Scotland, we can solve it here. It needs some Government will and a bit of heavy lifting on all sides.
The Minister will expect me to say something on recommendation five of the report and the impact of driver-only operation on disabled people’s access—particularly in relation to “turn up and go”. The Committee asks for research to be undertaken into the potential impact of DOO on disabled passengers and for the Department to use that research to issue guidance to train operating companies to help them mitigate potential detrimental effects on disabled passengers; in other words, to make the reasonable adjustments they need to make under the law. That is reasonable and is the very least the Government could do.
Before I came to this place, I worked with disabled young people in education. I know how hard their lives are, and while I was not always able to give them everything that they wanted, I spent a great deal of time trying to give them what they needed. I know that a great deal can be done to mitigate detrimental effects with technology and through equipment, but ultimately, my experience is that it always comes down to the intervention of people. To pretend otherwise is simply disingenuous. Providing more accessible trains and buses is good. Providing audible and visual displays is good. Providing an ombudsman is good, although disabled passengers tell me that they do not want an ombudsman who will bung them a few quid a year or several months after an event. They want to be able to travel, as we all do, when they need to and with dignity, and unless the Department for Transport or the train operating companies demonstrate to them otherwise, that will mean a person other than the driver on the train or the platform to assist them.
I have always thought that the role of Government is to ensure that as we move forward no one is left behind. Frankly, if Government do not believe in that, they do not have a right to call themselves a Government; they are nothing other than a special interest group. Disabled passengers are not asking a great deal. They simply want to be able to travel when they need to, and with dignity, and that requires people.
The strength of this report is that it is not about the Department for Transport, the train operating companies or Network Rail but about the passengers, who are currently being woefully let down. I thank the Select Committee for that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), on securing the debate, and all the Committee members who have attended it as well as the other hon. Members who have participated in it.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) has, to her surprise, enjoyed the debate. Let me warn her to be careful: rail is a very seductive and addictive issue. Transport was my first Select Committee, and look what has happened to me. I put it down to the good stewardship of its Chairman that I am where I am today, so the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw should watch out for what might occur, either here or in Edinburgh—who knows?
I thank the Select Committee for its report, which is of the usual high standard. As has been suggested, I take these reports very seriously indeed. I know how much work goes into compiling them, cross-examining witnesses and drawing sensible conclusions, so I never take any report such as this lightly.
Much of the report came from an evidence session that I did on, I think, day three of being in my current role. I was a little petrified, to say the least, but the report reflects what I said, and I stand by every word of it. However, since that appearance, my knowledge has developed a bit—thank goodness—and of course the circumstances that we are addressing on the railways have changed. I want to use this opportunity to discuss some of the recommendations in the report, as well as the points made today by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass).
One important point made—by the hon. Member for North West Durham, I think—was that actions speak louder than words. We can all agree to specific points in reports and so on, but what matters is actions. Ticketing reform is a good case study for that. I remember when we looked at ticketing reform in the Select Committee—I think that was in 2012. There was a big, thick, wodgey Government document—I think it was about 200 pages in two sections—with everything that they were going to do to reform ticketing and make it all work fine on behalf of the consumer. Nothing ever happened with that. I got it out soon after my appointment as a Minister and reread it, thinking, “Maybe there are some clues in here.” And I thought, “Well, I’m not going to repeat that mistake.”
In my first week as Minister, there was a significant news story about split ticketing on the front page of The Times. I immediately sat down with my officials and said, “Right. Passenger experience has to be the key issue that we focus on,” and everyone said, “Okay, how do we define passenger experience?”, because in a sense, as we have heard today, it means everything.
Passenger experience is every single interaction between a customer who wants to travel by train and the train operators. It is quite hard to segment down, but segment we must, so when it came to my recent fares and ticketing action plan, I did not want just a list of actions that I wanted the industry to take at some future date. I wanted quite specific itemised actions, with a delivery date—because delivery dates are often quite rare in these action plans—that we could hold the industry and, indeed, the Department to account on. As the Minister, I could then start to measure whether we were achieving those goals.
Just this week, for example, I was pleased to note that the Rail Delivery Group has changed its rules on how those who leave their railcards at home are compensated. Gradually, slowly but surely, the ticketing action plan is coming into effect; that is happening as rapidly as possible. I find that all too often the greatest hurdles relate to system change—programming the computers and ensuring that each computer can speak to every other computer, so that we can then get the outcomes we want.
A large number of comments today and, indeed, the bulk of this report, focused on the issues involving GTR. I know that the Select Committee has taken a close interest in that matter, so I want to try to address it. It will come as no surprise to those gathered here today when I say that the performance of GTR is not good enough. It continues to be not good enough; I continue to be dissatisfied. I expect GTR to run a timely, reliable and predictable service for passengers, but I will only ever look at changes to that franchise arrangement if that delivers an improvement on behalf of passengers and is not merely for the sake of structural change.
The report highlighted the fact that we did not wholly accept the case that someone might do a better job. I entirely accept, philosophically, that yes, someone one day might be able to do a better job. My concern at the moment is to ensure that there is not a severe deterioration in provision because of yet another handover in franchise operator. We need to evolve this franchise into a much better place.
Paul Maynard
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I do not think that it is for me as a Minister to say that there is a specific target that must be hit. What I expect GTR to be doing on a regular basis is seeking to improve performance, and I will talk the hon. Lady through what I expect GTR to do.
The punctuality of services operated by GTR was at 73.1% over the 12 months to 4 March 2017. That compares significantly unfavourably with the London and south-east average of 85.2%. No one can pretend that it is anything other than simply unacceptable. It is despite the establishment of joint industry recovery plans. None the less, we are doing everything we can to improve the situation.
The Chairman of the Select Committee rightly raised the issue of force majeure. This has been one of my bugbears as Minister for many months now. Indeed, my enthusiasm for solving it rather overcame established procedure in terms of how we go about that. I am pleased to report to hon. Members that we have now completed assessing six full periods of GTR’s performance.
The quality of the data has significantly improved, allowing us to make swifter judgments, but because what we are discussing is a contractual obligation, GTR has the right, if it disagrees with the Department’s findings, to challenge those findings. That is what we are still stuck in at the moment. I aspire to bring that to a conclusion as rapidly as possible. I share the undoubted enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside for putting that particular aspect of GTR’s performance behind us, but sadly I am not yet in a position to do that.
None the less, I am still trying to get Network Rail and the train operators to improve their focus on industry performance outputs. They are concentrating on three key workstreams to deliver improvements across the south-east. The first is the 2018 timetable specification, which will be crucial to increasing capacity across the south-east. The second is a back-to-basics approach—ensuring that trains are on time and correct processes are being followed and, in particular, focusing on the peaks in the morning and evening. We have found time and again that when something goes wrong on this network, what is called the perturbation and the consequential delays are significant.
I remember that in my first week, we had a sinkhole at Forest Hill—it no doubt delayed the hon. Member for Eltham on his way back to his constituency. That was an example of how something that simply could not be expected caused significant delays. It is really important that both the train operator and Network Rail work much more closely together to ensure that they recover from these problems when they occur, rather than allowing them to cascade throughout the timetable.
That is why it is important that the Department as a whole works with all the industry stakeholders to find new ways to measure performance that are more closely aligned with what passengers themselves experience day to day. That is why we are looking at improving our measurement of what is called right-time departure and right-time arrival. A passenger judges whether a train is on time by whether it arrives at the time said in timetable, and not within five to 10 minutes. Right-time departure is going to be a much more important figure in years to come, rather than the old-style public performance measure. I want to bring that change in as part of control period 6.
We also want to make sure that, as the hon. Member for North West Durham mentioned, there is much greater industry transparency on train service performance levels across franchises. I am absolutely committed to a much greater degree of transparency; none the less, it is a difficult process to engineer—if only because every single franchise has a slightly different set of measurements, which are contractual obligations in respect of the individual train operating company. That work is ongoing within the Department; it cannot come soon enough, in my view. I hope to make announcements in due course—as we always say in civil service parlance—and am very eager that we keep the pace going on it.
Many Members mentioned whether the company had a full complement of drivers on day one when they took over the franchise. I was not the Minister at the time, but I understand that part of the problem was that when the deal was announced it said it did have enough drivers, but, when it came to mobilisation day, some of those drivers had left to work in the freight sector. It is entirely right and proper that we express concerns as to how that gap occurred between those two points, but we need to take a wider look at driver recruitment across the industry as a whole.
We all know that there are skills issues across the rail sector. We have an ageing workforce and a large number of workers who are about to retire. Are we doing everything we can to make sure that we are recruiting enough drivers, that driver training is an efficient process and that people have the option of going through driver training themselves—as HGV drivers do—to seek employment somewhere else? Are we making full use of all the training facilities that we now have around the country, which I am sure the Select Committee has visited? We are in close talks with the Rail Delivery Group about how we can improve driver training as a whole to improve the throughput, make sure it meets the needs in the here and now and get the numbers we need.
Many have mentioned the industrial relations problems currently on the network. I am as frustrated as everybody else at seeing yet more RMT strikes this week, but it is clear that they are now having very little impact on the network. Last Monday, 90.5% of Southern services ran. Any strike is frustrating for passengers, but I say to the RMT, “Your strikes on Southern are not having the impact you desire. It is far better that you cease industrial action and have talks with the company, rather than persisting with the strikes.”
Paul Maynard
I take the hon. Lady’s point that it is spreading, but we remain open to talking to the RMT if it calls off its industrial action. That is the blockage that stops it from having a discussion with the Government and the various train operating companies. Nobody is losing their job; nobody is losing any pay. The independent regulator has found that the system on Southern can be safe, and GTR is taking all necessary action to ensure that it is delivered safely. I welcome yesterday’s renewed agreement between ASLEF and GTR. I gather it will now go to a ballot of ASLEF members; I hope that they endorse it, and that it then ensures we can focus on delivering improved services across the Southern network.
We are working to improve the service for GTR customers and improve compensation measures. Overall, “delay repay” payments totalled £3.2 million in the last period, of which £175,000 were “delay repay 15”. We have also launched our special one-off form of compensation, the equivalent of a month’s free travel, for all Southern season ticket holders. GTR has handled almost 37,000 special claims in that regard, totalling £8.84 million in compensation. The scheme closes on 30 April 2017, and we continue to advertise it—as does GTR—in the media, on posters at all Southern stations, on electronic billboards, in customer service announcements and on Twitter.
Please be assured that I stay in touch with the situation by having regular meetings with GTR’s chief executive officer and chief operating officer to discuss all the issues. They include compensation and the implementation and progress of all the Government-funded schemes under both the £20 million that was initially given out, and the current £300 million that will go on improving the Balcombe tunnel, removing vegetation and ensuring greater reliability.
I have five minutes remaining. As ever, how can one discuss everything about rail in the time allowed? Indeed, it is even less than that because I have to give the Select Committee Chairman a chance to have her say. I will briefly deal with accessibility, which is a mutual concern for both myself and the Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for North West Durham.
It goes without saying that we want everybody to have equal access to transport. We have committed more than £400 million through Access for All funding and other means to improve accessibility, and train companies have to comply with the Equality Act 2010. However, I think the real picture is the fact that more and more disabled people are seeking to travel by train. The challenge for the train operating companies is getting harder with every passing month.
In the past year, we have seen 4% more sales of the disabled persons railcard and 7% more bookings under the passenger assist scheme. With more disabled people travelling, train operating companies have an ever decreasing margin for getting it wrong. I welcome the fact that the Rail Delivery Group is trying to merge the ticket reservation system and the passenger assist reservation system by December 2018, although I query whether that is soon enough and whether it could do more to bring that forward.
I remind all train operating companies that they must ensure that procedures are in place to enable disabled passengers and persons of reduced mobility to board a train in service that is under the sole operation of the driver. Where that occurs, I want to see a second person on board or on the platform to render help to those passengers who need it most. The key difference is that I do not believe that that person should be a safety-critical person. I do not think it is acceptable to have a situation where a train is cancelled and a disabled passenger cannot depart the station in the first place because there is not a second person on that train. It is fair to say that that is a small difference between myself and the hon. Lady.
Regardless of whether such assistance has been pre-booked, the principle of a “turn up and go” railway is important and must become more important in the future. It will include the requirement for all train operating companies to provide appropriately trained staff to meet their obligations. I see that as meaning more staff required on the railways, and more passenger-facing staff—not locked behind a door focusing on buttons—engaging with passengers on a regular basis. In addition, if a disabled passenger is unable to access a station, the operator must provide alternative transport—usually an accessible taxi. That will require much more cross-Government work to ensure that we have a greater supply of accessible taxis.
I am conscious that the Chairman of the Select Committee needs to say a few final words, so I shall leave my remarks there.
Mrs Ellman
I thank the Committee and hon. Members present for their valuable contributions. The Minister clearly has an understanding of these issues, and I like to think that he received his training when he was a member of the Transport Committee in previous years.
Mrs Ellman
The Minister spoke about the importance of having a delivery date. It is vital that we have an early delivery date for the improvement of the passenger experience, and I assure him that we will continue to pursue that aim.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Sixth Report from the Transport Committee of Session 2016-17, The future of rail: Improving the rail passenger experience, HC 64, and the Government Response, HC 905.
Jobcentre Plus Office Closures
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(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
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Jobcentre Plus office closures.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, for which there is cross-party support. With the exception of an urgent question, this is the first time that the House has managed to debate this issue since the announcement of UK-wide office closures. This is an opportunity for hon. Members to represent their constituents and to discuss the effects that the office closures will have on their constituencies. As has been indicated, there is widespread disquiet about the impact that the jobcentre closures will have. I will keep my opening remarks brief to allow hon. Members with closures in their constituencies the opportunity to inform us all of the local impacts on their constituents and communities.
The House is rightly exercised—as are many hon. Members—by the haphazard nature of the closures and the lack of evidence or rationale to support them, other than that they will save money in the short term. The lack of an adequate equality impact assessment is particularly damning. The closures have been presented by the Government as a straightforward process of rationalising the estate—that is, as sensible, considered and thought through in great detail. I would suggest otherwise, however. Far from this being a planned process to make the most of the expiry of contracts to improve services and locate them where they are needed most, it is a cost-cutting, penny-pinching cuts programme being done with poor to non-existent consideration of local conditions.
Instead of consulting appropriately with local partners and seeking to co-locate with other services to improve the effectiveness of Jobcentre Plus services, the Government have embarked upon a Google Maps, back-of-an-envelope exercise, based on achieving a targeted percentage of closures—10% overall, but 50% in Glasgow, as I am sure we will hear. Instead of enabling jobseekers to easily access other services—such as support with housing, childcare, debt management and health conditions—to help them to overcome their barriers to work, the Government have started with the basic premise of how many offices they can close and then worked backwards.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. For the record, we should remember that at least 30,000 people have lost their jobs in the civil service, and this is part of that. He spoke about the increasing workload. Citizens advice bureaus have reported that their workloads have gone up by 88%, in particular because of personal independence payment claims. Tile Hill jobcentre in my constituency is being closed, so people will have to walk miles or get buses. Importantly, a lot of them suffer from disabilities, so they will be at a disadvantage.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there have been 30,000 job losses in the civil service. As I will point out, there will be more in relation to this particular exercise, as the Government admitted in written answers to me. He is also correct about the lack of an equality impact assessment, which I will also mention.
This is a deeply flawed process, tainted by the lack of consultation with local community planning partners. In Glasgow, the Department for Work and Pensions is meant to be a key player in the process, but the closures were announced without consultation, and that is about as far from a “One Glasgow” approach as we can get. Nor to the closures do anything to support a locally agreed priority of youth employment.
Instead of respecting the terms of the Smith agreement, the UK Government announced the closures without any advance consultation with the communities that will be affected and in so doing bypassed the Scottish Government. Paragraph 58 of the Smith Commission report states:
“As the single face-to-face channel for citizens to access all benefits delivered by DWP, Jobcentre Plus will remain reserved. However, the UK and Scottish Government will identify ways to further link services through methods such as co-location wherever possible and establish more formal mechanisms to govern the Jobcentre Plus network in Scotland.”
Ministers have had to publicly admit, including in a written answer to me, that they expect at least 750 DWP staff to lose their jobs and they have refused to rule out compulsory redundancies. Jobs will disappear through this process, not only directly but indirectly. That will be less visible in cities, where jobs in call centres, delivery companies and coffee shops have replaced the thousands of admin and clerical posts that have been cut year on year for longer than I can remember. Every public sector office closure leads to money being taken out of the local economy and reduces the opportunities for young people to build a career, instead of just holding down a job. The impact on smaller cities and towns should not be underestimated. For some communities it is the equivalent of a Ravenscraig or a Linwood. Local traders are affected, small businesses fold, young people move away if they can and the local economy declines.
Finally, I want to highlight the link between the push to digital services and office closures, when it becomes much more difficult to find a person to talk to in a public office. I have spoken recently about the unfair telephone tax, where the most vulnerable are hit with call charges for contacting the DWP and other government services. The DWP is a long way from being digital by default. A vicious circle is emerging, whereby access to advice and support is being blocked to those who need it most. Every Member here can testify that our offices are now providing more and more of that support through our constituency casework. Widespread jobcentre closures will only increase the workload on other staff in the DWP, giving them less time to spend on individuals.
I will now leave it to other hon. Members to voice their concerns and no doubt vent their frustrations about this botched and flawed process.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I congratulate him on securing the debate and, like him, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity today.
Lewisham jobcentre, which is based in my constituency, is one of the jobcentres earmarked for closure. In my borough the unemployment rate is higher than average. We have 3,100 people in receipt of either jobseeker’s allowance or universal credit, who have a reason to visit the jobcentre once a fortnight. Another 15,000 people in the borough of Lewisham receive employment and support allowance or income support. Although they visit the jobcentre less frequently, it is estimated that between 100 and 200 of them use the jobcentre in Rushey Green every week.
At the moment the jobcentre is located in the heart of the borough of Lewisham, on a busy street between Lewisham and Catford. It is easily accessible on a number of different bus routes and from five different overground railway stations. The Department for Work and Pensions proposes to close that much needed, busy jobcentre in my constituency and relocate it to another office that it has in Forest Hill. That office is small, and although there is a proposal to expand into some of the space available in that building, my fear is that we will squeeze staff from the main jobcentre in Lewisham into unsuitable, smaller premises in Forest Hill that are less accessible.
I know that the DWP is exploring taking up some space in a council-owned building called Eros House. I ask the Minister to do everything he can to ensure that the local presence of the DWP is able to pursue that option. It is no good sending people down to Bromley from Lewisham or trying to run those services from a constrained site in Forest Hill. It is vital that we can have that easily accessible location at Eros House in Catford.
Let me take a minute to reflect on how we got here. The lease arrangements for the DWP have been in place for 30 years and they are coming to an end. For the last six months an agent has been looking to secure space in a central Lewisham location, but has been unable to find any. I do not know whether the process should have started sooner, so that consideration could have been given to the new developments in the borough of Lewisham to ensure that appropriate space could be found. We find ourselves in this situation partly because of the Government’s changes to permitted development rights and the planning system in the last few years. The owner of the building that the jobcentre is currently located in has decided to convert that office building to residential under permitted development rights, and there is a real problem sourcing office space in central locations, particularly in London.
I am concerned about the impact on people who rely on the jobcentre to access the help, advice and support that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West talked about. As politicians, we spend a lot of time talking about how much money is paid to individuals in benefit and less time on exactly what support is provided to help people back into work. It goes without saying that people need to be able to get to that help and support easily. I know that the consultation process and equality impact assessment might not kick in for some jobcentres in London because of the issue of being within 20 minutes to the next jobcentre, but anyone who has sat on a bus on the south circular in south London trying to get from one place to the next will realise that 20 minutes in theory is not always 20 minutes in practice.
I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman said about the move to digital services. Some of the people in my constituency who use the jobcentre frequently will want to see somebody face to face. At my own advice surgeries every fortnight I see between 25 and 40 people, which is testament to the fact that people want to speak to somebody directly.
We need to provide tailored support to individuals trying to get back into work. I was interested to read an article in the Evening Standard on 31 January by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the disability unemployment rate in London, in which he wrote:
“The gap between the number of disabled people in work compared with the employment rate of non-disabled people in London is around 28 percentage points—a figure that is frankly unacceptable in 2017.”
I agree with the Secretary of State about that, but it is a bit rich for him then to say:
“We’re building a locally-based system that works with businesses in the area and can offer people intense support”.
I think that is a bit rich, because in London the DWP is proposing to close one in three jobcentres: 22 of the capital’s 73 existing jobcentres. Of the 22 that are closing, 15 are located in boroughs with a higher than average claimant count, and, as we know, London has a higher than average claimant count than the country as a whole.
I am also concerned that the rate of unemployment among young people, the disabled and those from black and minority ethnic communities is higher in London than the national average. In fact, Office for National Statistics data from last September showed that BME unemployment in London stood at 9%. Ministers should review the criteria they use to determine the closures.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am listening with great interest to the case that my hon. Friend is making. One of the puzzling things about the closure programme is that the Government also want to increase the workload of jobcentres and want some people to go more frequently. They also want to introduce conditionality for people who are in work. It is difficult to see how those additional tasks can be managed at the same time as shutting down so many jobcentres.
Heidi Alexander
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, who has huge expertise and experience in this area. Ministers need to review the criteria that they use to determine which closures are subject to full public consultation processes. We have not yet seen an equality impact assessment of the closures, which is absolutely critical in a London context, for the reasons that I have set out.
I urge the Minister to have an eye to the future as opposed to the past. The Government might pat themselves on the back over employment rates—we could have a discussion another time about the nature of the employment that has been created in recent years—but they need to think about what might happen over the next couple of years. I detect some complacency among Ministers about Brexit and its economic consequences. In my constituency, we are heavily dependent on jobs in the financial services industry and in professional services that support industry such as cleaning, security and employment agencies. Some of my low-paid constituents work in retail and hospitality.
I am concerned about the prospects for employment should we see the movement of financial services from London to other cities in Europe. If we are likely to see an increasing caseload in jobcentres, allied to the issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has set out about how individuals’ interaction with jobcentres is changing, then the Government’s proposal is short-sighted and could have serious long-term consequences for people’s ability to get back into employment. I ask the Minister to review the closures across London and to look in detail at what provision can be made in central Lewisham for my own jobcentre.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate, not least because it is the only time that anyone from Inverclyde will be afforded the opportunity to have a say on the proposed closure of the Port Glasgow jobcentre.
As the Minister will already be aware, the decision to close one of my constituency’s two jobcentres was not put out to consultation because the distance between the Greenock and Port Glasgow jobcentres is less than three miles. By my reckoning it is 2.6 miles between the two buildings as the crow flies, and 2.84 miles if one measures the actual route that one would need to take along the road network. For the sake of an additional 250 metres it is hard to understand why the UK Government would not consult on this decision so that service users could outline how the changes affect them.
Or maybe the UK Government simply do not care what service users think, otherwise the obvious course of action would have been to undertake a consultation on all closures. By setting up the consultation criteria in the way that they have, the UK Government have manufactured the result they wanted: namely, only 30 job- centres out of the 183 affected by the changes will be subject to consultation. We all know that the reality of this situation is that the closure decision has absolutely nothing to do with providing a Government service. Rather, it is part of the UK Government’s goal of selling £4.5 billion-worth of Government land and property by 2020-21.
Over the course of the previous Parliament, the DWP estate shrunk by 17%, with the Government intent on reducing the size by a further 20%. I fully appreciate the need for any Government to spend public funds wisely, but the decision to slash the number of jobcentres will most definitely have a negative impact on my constituents. The most obvious consideration is the additional travel costs that service users will face in getting to their appointments. This will barely register as small change for a UK Government Minister or indeed an MP, but it is an unwanted additional expense for someone already struggling on a low income.
Constituents will also be burdened with increased travel times, which in turn puts them at an increased risk of being sanctioned under the DWP’s draconian and uncompromising rules. Again, the Minister may say, “It’s only three miles’ difference. What’s the big deal?”
One issue that may have been identified had a local consultation taken place is that the only main road between Greenock and Port Glasgow is liable to flooding at certain times of the year. It may block traffic once or twice a year, but one missed appointment is all it takes to be sanctioned. I want to say that I support the staff of the Port Glasgow jobcentre, who are fulfilling their support roles as best they can with the guidance handed to them from ministerial level. I am aware that they have their own reservations about the closure and how it will affect their clients. In the words of Mark Serwotka, the General Secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union:
“Jobcentres provide a lifeline for unemployed people and forcing them to travel further is not only unfair, it undermines support to get them back to work.”
A report from the Disability Benefits Consortium found that 93% of respondents to a survey of service users thought that the process for applying for PIP was stressful: 80% experienced difficulties in completing the claim form, while 82% felt that the application process had a negative impact on their health. Will Minister explain how closing one of my constituency’s two jobcentres will improve that experience for service users?
We can highlight the lack of consultation and the specific practical issues surrounding this closure. My fear, however, is that the issue highlights, once again, a more general problem—the UK Government’s complete lack of compassion or genuine concern for vulnerable people. Instead they pursue spreadsheet politics where the only thing that matters is the bottom line.
I hope that the debate will not conclude with a meaningless regurgitation of the Government’s policy. At the very least the Minister should have the intellectual honesty to come to the Chamber and admit that the experience of service users is not a consideration in the closure decision. My constituents deserve that. I support the calls for closures to be suspended until a wider consultation is conducted, so that we can properly assess the impact of the decision on all our constituents.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing today’s important debate through the Backbench Business Committee; I also thank all those who supported the application, and the Members who are participating today.
We are back again: this is the third full debate on the issue in which I have participated. I am rather disappointed that many of the questions and points raised in the first two are yet to be addressed by the Department for Work and Pensions. Parliamentary questions tabled by me and my colleagues have received poor-quality answers. At least one thing can be said of the Department: it is consistent in its handling of the matter. Right from the start, it has been a shambles. As we have heard, after the news broke in the press that half Glasgow’s jobcentres were to be axed, it took seven hours for the Department to write to the affected MPs and inform us. It did not see fit to inform us or even consult us; nor did it bother to speak with the devolved Administration in Scotland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, paragraph 58 of the Smith commission report states that
“the UK and Scottish Government will identify ways to further link services through methods such as co-location wherever possible and establish more formal mechanisms to govern the Jobcentre Plus network in Scotland.”
The report emphasised that the Scottish Government would have greater responsibility, jointly with the UK Government, in relation to Jobcentre Plus. Yet that did not happen. Not only were the Scottish Government kept in the dark; I have discovered through written parliamentary questions that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not even informed of the specific plans for the jobcentre closures in Glasgow before the information was made public. Why were neither the devolved Administration at Holyrood nor the Scotland Office made aware of DWP plans? Was it arrogance or ignorance that led the DWP to act in such a cavalier fashion, with such disregard for those alongside whom it is supposed to be working constructively? I will be kind and say it was ignorance of the needs of the people of Scotland.
The Department will have to listen to the views of those who rely on the services, and meet the needs of the people of Scotland. It needs to understand that the impact of the closures is part of an intricate local picture. I wonder whether the Minister knows, for instance, of the issues affecting Cambuslang in my constituency, where the Main Street jobcentre is due to close next year. Is the Department aware that Royal Bank of Scotland closed its doors there just months ago, that local traders have subsequently suffered a reported 30% drop in footfall, or that the two remaining banks, TSB and Clydesdale, have announced that they too are to close in the coming months? Has it considered at all the cumulative impact that those closures will have along with the closure of a major resource such as the jobcentre? I am guessing the answer to all of those questions is no. Perhaps if Ministers had bothered to consult me, they would be better informed.
The Department will have seriously to make up for its former ignorance by consulting service users, local stakeholders—such as the local Church of Scotland minister Neil Glover, who has spoken out against the jobcentre closure and described it as a moral issue— and elected representatives, and by working with the Scottish Government. Scottish Employability and Training Minister Jamie Hepburn has written to and met Ministers from the Department, not only to express grave concerns but to seek clarity on the issue. He has requested that UK Ministers meet benefit recipients and others from the communities that will be affected by the proposals.
It is vital that the UK Government should consult properly and consider all options, including co-location opportunities. The Scottish Government are proactively exploring opportunities to co-locate jobcentre services with local partners to ease the impact on individuals and communities. The Department should do likewise, and ensure that the Scottish Government are fully engaged with the process.
As I have said, this is the third debate on the subject. It is frustrating that we have to bring up the same issues again. I ask the Minister today to take seriously the points that have been raised—I shall go further, and ask for a guarantee that the jobcentre in Cambuslang will not close its doors. If he decides that it should, at the very least we need a presence in Cambuslang to ensure that claimants will not have to travel further, with increased travel costs, all the way to Rutherglen. My constituents deserve better than the approach taken by the UK Government so far.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I, too, offer thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).
When I first saw the announcement about the closure of the Eastern Avenue jobcentre in my constituency I was relatively agnostic about it. Given that there were to be no compulsory redundancies and it is a relatively short distance into town, I did not think it would be that much of a problem. If the Government could make a case that centres needed to be closed and services improved in certain areas, I was prepared to listen to it. However, having read the further announcement, followed the plan’s progress and, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, participated in several debates, I have been horrified that no justification has been given for the decisions at all. None of the work—the assessments or gathering and publication of evidence—that one would expect ahead of a decision of this kind has been done; no such work informed the pitiful consultation process that has taken place so far.
It is claimed on the Government website that the decisions are due to the claimant count reducing and the number of digital interactions increasing, and the fact that 20% of the DWP estate is underutilised. To take those one by one, it may be the case that the claimant count is falling, but I do not think that anyone could tell jobcentre staff anywhere in the UK that their workload has reduced in the past seven years and is likely to continue to reduce—not least because of the roll-out of universal credit, which is incredibly complex. As has been mentioned, universal credit will require more interactions than in the past, including face-to-face interactions. For the first time, working people will have to attend interviews at jobcentres; and from April lone parents will be obliged to see work coaches once their child reaches three years old, rather than five, which is the current threshold. It is highly unlikely that interactions and workload will fall in the coming years.
As to digital interactions, the ward in which Eastern Avenue jobcentre is to close is one of the most deprived in the country; 74% of people there are in the 10% most deprived in the country. Many of them do not use the internet at all, let alone have the capacity to apply online—there are very high levels of digital exclusion. Ironically, the council is currently doing some work on digital inclusion, commissioned by the DWP, around Eastern Avenue jobcentre; that work will have to be halted. Again, there does not seem to have been any recognition or cognisance of the impact that the cuts will have on that work.
Whether or not the estate is underutilised at Eastern Avenue—or indeed at Cavendish Court, where the Government are expecting claimants to move to—is open to question. I have been to both jobcentres and there certainly does not seem to be any underutilised space—Cavendish Court in particular is bursting at the seams—but we do not know, because the Government have not published any of the evidence and do not seem to have done any of the work behind it. I met the manager for my region, North, East Yorkshire and the Humber, after the Minister advised me that that was the best way to proceed. It was not her fault, but I am afraid the manager had absolutely nothing to add to what the Government had already published.
As other Members have said, there has clearly been no equality impact assessment. Nor has there been any assessment of how many employment and support allowance or income support claimants are currently using Eastern Avenue and will therefore now have to go to the city centre. The Government do not know how many claimants the closure is going to affect, which is basic information that we would expect to inform the consultation process. There was no information on how much the Government would save by closing Eastern Avenue. That is important, because the regional manager admitted that money would have to be spent on the city centre jobcentre to increase its capacity and accommodate all the extra claimants, so we do not know whether the closure will actually save the taxpayer a single penny.
No plans have been put in place and no work has been done on whether claimants who currently come under Woodhouse jobcentre, but are looked after by Eastern Avenue if they need group sessions or screened appointments, can be accommodated by Cavendish Court, or whether more money will have to spent to develop the space at Woodhouse to conduct those sessions. Eastern Avenue currently conducts 17 screened appointments a week. That is a considerable amount of time to dedicate to claimants, and we have absolutely no idea whether Cavendish Court can accommodate them.
There was a paltry four-week consultation, although we were lucky to get even that in Sheffield; as we have heard today, many jobcentres throughout the country did not. The Government have treated Parliament and, worse, the public with disdain by refusing to justify their decision and publish the evidential basis behind it. How can Ministers possibly ask us to support the decision if the information is not available? Now that the consultation has closed, before the Government publish their final decision I ask the Minister to publish the DWP’s people and estates programme and any of the other impact assessments that were presumably conducted internally. I really hope that the Government have not taken the approach, which they seem to have taken in the past, of just pointing to jobcentres on Google Maps and deciding, seemingly haphazardly and arbitrarily, which centres to close.
I particularly want to press the Minister on why the Government have rowed back on their original commitment not to close jobcentres in particularly deprived areas. Finally, I urge him not to rely solely on Google Maps for travel times, as he recently admitted to doing in answer to a written question from me. [Interruption.] He is looking confused, but he confirmed to me that his Department used Google Maps for travel times.
Louise Haigh
Yes. The Department’s introduction to the announcement confidently asserted that the travel time between Eastern Avenue and the city centre would be 24 minutes. That analysis was based on Google Maps. A claimant who currently goes to Eastern Avenue did a travel journal for me of his journeys from Eastern Avenue to Cavendish Court on eight separate occasions, and not one of them took 24 minutes. The average journey time between the two jobcentres is 44 minutes.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Lady is giving some fascinating facts. Does she know that the exercise with Google Maps in Glasgow used information based on bus services that are no longer operational?
Louise Haigh
That is another interesting point that shows the problems with using Google Maps without consulting the local authority or the local passenger transport executive, as any rational person would expect the Government to do. On average, the journey between Eastern Avenue and the city centre takes 44 minutes. The maximum time it took Antony was 63 minutes.
There is clear consensus today that the evidence base and the impact assessments need to be published before the final decision is made. I would really like the Minister to reflect today on the long-term impact of removing a respected community service from incredibly deprived areas—Arbourthorne and Manor Top are some of the most deprived in the country—that have relied on them for so long.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
The three Front-Bench speakers need about eight minutes each, and I want to leave two minutes for the mover of the motion to wind up.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing the debate, and all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed.
It is vital that we stand up for workers’ rights in these times of austerity. It is critical that the Government engage with unions in a meaningful way and include them in the determination and resolution of any appropriate issue such as office closures. My hon. Friends have covered the lack of interface with the Scottish Government; their points were well made and I will not repeat them. My constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill is affected by the cuts to jobcentre locations, as are the constituencies of many other Members present. I commend them for their attendance; appropriately, given the debate’s cross-party nature, we have adopted a collective response.
Coatbridge is a local DWP back office that employs about 250 people and is facing closure as a result of these cuts. I have been in contact with union representatives about the closure since the announcement was made and I recently attended the annual general meeting of the local branch of the Public and Commercial Services Union to discuss the impact of the closure on its members and on the local community. I was particularly concerned to be informed by the union that the DWP’s announcement was made without any consultation with the workers or the union at all. The DWP did not inform me of the lack of consultation when I was contacted about the closure. Although the DWP has stated that the closure will not involve any job losses, it has indicated that the jobs in question will be moved to alternate locations in central Glasgow or Motherwell, both of which are approximately half an hour’s drive away—and that is if we assume no traffic delays.
Coatbridge is a community filled with young families. Many people base decisions about who they work for on the location of their potential workplace: they choose to work in locations that allow them to drop their children at school in the morning or be near an elderly or poorly relative. There is also the issue of additional travel costs for the predominantly local staff to and from Glasgow and Motherwell—again, colleagues have covered that well, so I will not repeat the points they made. For many workers affected by the cut, the loss of that essential proximity to home, the additional travel and the associated costs may mean that they need to seek alternative employment. I can hardly see how a Government can describe themselves as pro-family when they put so many in such a precarious position.
The union members I spoke to were concerned about the dilution and inevitable reduction in the quality of services provided to service users that the cuts will cause, as was well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan). The closure will affect not only current employees and their families but local businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) articulated well. The DWP facility that faces closure is just off the main street in Coatbridge and, like many town centres throughout the country, it suffers from massive reductions in footfall, and subsequently business, for high street retailers and service providers. It seemed as if things could not get any worse for our main street retailers, but the facility’s relocation out of Coatbridge town centre will be yet another blow for the businesses in and around it and for the other businesses, such as childcare businesses, restaurants and takeaways, that support the local workforce in my constituency and the surrounding constituencies.
Unfortunately, the announced closure is only one of a decades-long series of ideologically driven cuts to services in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill from a London-centric UK Government. It gives the lie to the claim we hear from London about caring conservatism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I urge the Minister to focus on the decentralisation of services if he and his Government are truly serious about a more inclusive Britain for all. Like my colleagues, I ask the Minister to reconsider, to halt the closures and to review them after proper assessments and a proper consultation process have been carried out.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and thank him for securing this debate. I want to speak against the impending closure of Phoenix House in Barrow, which is not a jobcentre but a back-office benefits processing centre. As I will outline, the 80 people in that centre perform an important service to people throughout the United Kingdom. As I said to the Minister, who was good enough to make himself available in the days immediately after the shock announcement, closing the centre could have damaging consequences for the people whom we as a country, the state and his Department are supposed to be serving.
In contrast with some of the tone of the debate so far, I am not questioning the Minister’s integrity. Everything that I saw of him in the time before he became a Minister suggests that he is genuinely committed to the field, in which he spent a considerable amount of time before being promoted to a ministerial role. However, he is presiding over a process that is simply not acceptable, for many reasons that have been outlined in this debate. This is an important opportunity for him to listen and make amends.
I imagine that the Minister will recall our brief meeting. Having worked as an adviser in the Department where he now serves, I have some experience of how it can sometimes drive forward with a programme while treating ministerial direction—which, frankly, it sometimes seems to take as advice—as wholly unwelcome, although I do not expect him to confirm that in his remarks. I have spoken with his Department. Mentioning the conduct of civil servants is not something I do lightly, but I was genuinely taken aback when I went to see the Minister and the civil servant who was there to support him did not even know what benefit was processed in Barrow. That is lacking in and of itself when we are talking about 80 people in my constituency who are losing their jobs. As the Minister for Employment, he will have some understanding that when skilled office jobs are eliminated in a geographically remote constituency such as Barrow, they have little prospect of being replaced by something else, and people cannot realistically travel to another place two or more hours away. I expected that civil servant to know what those people did, at least.
Due to the nature of the benefit, closing Phoenix House and taking the facilities somewhere else in the country, inevitably employing new people, will do damage to the service provided. The centre processes industrial injuries disablement benefit. The team say proudly that they have more than 100 years’ experience between them of processing that benefit. Due to that build-up of expertise, the Barrow team has taken part in a process that has reduced the processing time for that benefit from 175 days to 33 days. That is an achievement and welcome in itself, but we must also take into account who receives the benefit. It goes to people who have developed terrible conditions. Many of them, such as those suffering from the likes of asbestosis, are terminally ill due to negligence in past decades. That is why they have been given compensation in the form of the benefit. The whole point of focusing on driving down the time that it takes for them to get it is that it makes the difference between them receiving it while they are still alive and receiving it after they have died.
When I made the case to the Minister, he told me that he and the Government were not in the business of reversing that progress and going back to the days when, unfortunately, many people died before they were given the benefit, which is itself inadequate compensation for having their lives taken away but is nevertheless important both financially and as recognition that they were wronged in their employment. I put it to him again that reversing progress is exactly what will happen if that function is taken away from Phoenix House and put elsewhere in the country.
The Minister will know by now, I hope, that it takes 12 to 18 months to train people in even a basic level of competence, and the people at Phoenix House have much more than that due to the experience that they have built up. I am coming to the end of my time; I am pleased that we are giving him ample time to address all the diverse issues. I hope that he can address the plight of the staff members at Phoenix House, who are campaigning hard. They have set up a petition, and I supported their march in Barrow on Saturday. They are fighting for their jobs, but they are also fighting for the service that they give to the rest of the nation, and I hope that he takes it seriously in his response.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Walker. I congratulate and thank my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this debate. After many—possibly more than 100—written questions, urgent questions, debates in Westminster Hall and points of order that are not really points of order, I salute his indefatigability in pursuing this issue.
I also thank the PCS Scotland union for the excellent job that it has done assisting Members of Parliament throughout the country, and particularly in Glasgow, where we heard the rather unwelcome news just before Christmas that the Government intend to reduce the jobcentre estate by half, from 16 jobcentres to eight, two of which—the Castlemilk and Langside jobcentres—are in my constituency.
I hate to say it, but having spoken in the two previous debates, met the Minister along with colleagues and taken part in the urgent questions, there is not much new for me to say. However, as you will know, Mr Walker, the Speaker reminds us that repetition is not a vice in this House, so I will repeat some of it. The Castlemilk jobcentre serves a community that was once more populous than the city of Perth and has some of the most deprived neighbourhoods anywhere in the United Kingdom. It sits in the Braes shopping centre in the centre of Castlemilk, and it is, I think, the only serious anchor tenant there. If the jobcentre goes, it will create big problems.
However, that should not be the only reason for it to stay. The other reason is that closure will have an impact on those who use the jobcentre. I hate to say it, but to return to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), this plan has been designed by Google Maps. Like the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), I do not want to mention civil servants on the public record, but when we met senior civil servants from the Department for Work and Pensions in Glasgow before Christmas, I jokingly asked if they had worked it out using Google Maps, expecting the answer to be, “Don’t be so ridiculous, Mr McDonald; we would never do such a thing.” However, the response I got was, “Yes, we’ve used Google Maps,” which has bus services that no longer exist and does not take into account travel times as far as traffic goes.
Langside jobcentre serves the second most densely populated council ward anywhere in Scotland, and it serves a population of people who live in private lets and who often have quite precarious working conditions, in temporary jobs, on zero-hours contracts and with relatively low pay, and whose employment is in many cases anything but secure.
I would ask the Minister why, despite several genuine and friendly invitations, he has not taken any time at all to visit any of the jobcentres in Glasgow that he wishes to close. I do not know what he thinks will happen to him if he comes, but I can assure him that either I or one of my hon. Friends from the city of Glasgow will look after him. He will be okay. Even at this late stage, I implore him to visit a jobcentre in Glasgow to hear what the staff and the users have to say.
Stephen Timms
Will any of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents face what a number of my constituents in East Ham in London will face once our local jobcentre closes, which is a doubling of their public transport fares in order to get to the replacement jobcentre?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Absolutely. With the Castlemilk jobcentre, all the people who use it will effectively have to use what the Department calls the Newlands jobcentre—it is called that, but it is actually in Pollokshaws, which is even further away than Newlands. All the people from Castlemilk who have to use that jobcentre will have an 8-mile round trip to get there and back. At the minute, no matter where someone is in Castlemilk, they can walk to the jobcentre in, at the most, maybe seven minutes, and that is for a perfectly able-bodied person.
I do not see the need to put those kinds of barriers in people’s way for trying to access a service that has been in their community for a long, long time. The Department seems to think that people can get from Castlemilk to the jobcentre in Pollokshaws in under 30 minutes—I think that is what it has said. I say, “Well, good luck with that,” because, having gone around the constituency countless times over the years I have lived in Glasgow, which is my entire adult life, I certainly have never been able to make that journey in just over 20 minutes.
However, I will come to my final point, which is on the consultation. We had to drag the Government to publish their consultation on the Glasgow jobcentres online; they had no intention of doing that. [Interruption.] The Minister can shake his head or gesticulate in any way he wants, but they had no intention of putting that on the Department for Work and Pensions website. It was welcome that they did, and it was also welcome that they extended the consultation for around two weeks. I am not sure what the Minister is so flabbergasted by, but I look forward to hearing about it none the less.
It was quite remiss of the Government not to take the time to write to every single person who would have been affected by these closures. When someone goes to the jobcentre to register, there is not a bit of information that the staff do not get from them, so the Government could have made it easy for those for whom this closure would be a big issue to take part in the consultation. Rather than just having fliers and putting up a couple of posters in jobcentres, the Government could have sent a consultation response form directly to their houses, or by email, rather than relying on Members of Parliament or members of the public—I had several people willing to do this, even though they were not exactly happy about it—standing outside jobcentres and informing people that they were going to close, which was the first time they had heard about it. In my view, it was quite wrong of Ministers not to inform MPs about this matter and for us to have to read about it in the press, but that is nothing in comparison with members of the public who use the jobcentres finding out from a stranger in the street campaigning outside a jobcentre.
The Government have handled the consultation poorly; however, I would like to hear what the responses to the consultation contain. I would also like to hear how many responses there have been and to know when the announcement on closures will be made. My understanding is that we can expect an announcement towards the end of March—that is, around about the time that article 50 is in full-blown scale, so it will perhaps be a good time to bury bad news.
Nevertheless, I ask the Minister this quite sincerely: can he commit to making an oral statement on the Floor of the House and to not sneaking this news out in a written statement, a press release, or in some fashion that avoids proper parliamentary scrutiny? If he gives me nothing else today—U-turns are quite fashionable this week, but I am not sure he will do another—I ask him to commit at the very least to making a full oral statement on the Floor of the House, so that Members can scrutinise the decision further.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I am going to call the Minister no later than 4.18 pm. If the Opposition Front Benchers want me to call him earlier than that—he has got lots of notes—that is entirely up to them.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Walker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this critical debate.
As the Member of Parliament for West Dunbartonshire, I would like to put on the record the fact that the Alexandria jobcentre in the Vale of Leven in my constituency has been proposed for closure. Colleagues from all parties have made strong cases for the reversal of the UK Government’s proposals to close a number of jobcentres in their respective constituencies. I hope the Minister will take their points on board. I feel for the Minister, because I am led to believe that there will be a closure in his own constituency, which must be going down like a lead balloon.
Although I agree with the arguments put forward by colleagues, there are special circumstances that set the Alexandria jobcentre apart. The catchment area shares similar characteristics with others earmarked for closure. There are high levels of deprivation and unemployment, which, as in other urban areas, must be taken into consideration. The Alexandria jobcentre differs, in that it serves a population that is not only urban but suburban, in the true sense, and a rural community, which results in a set of unique challenges for those living in those communities, especially given that the area includes the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park boundary.
An argument put forward by the DWP to support its proposal is that it is now easier to access jobcentre services, whether over the phone, online or in person. Let me take those in order. For citizens living in rural areas, the practical challenges are many. People whose line connections depend on weather conditions, which in my constituency are temperamental at best, do not have easy access to services by phone, as the Department argues. Given BT Openreach’s dubious record in elements of the rural sections of my constituency, there are difficulties in online connectivity.
Chris Stephens
Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the Department publicly suggests that 0845 numbers are no longer in operation, claimants can phone an 0845 number, which costs 55p a minute?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
It is an outrage. My hon. Friend highlights something that makes a mockery of the suggestion that this will save money.
Those who do not have an internet connection because their area has not yet had substantial investment in broadband connectivity—in my area we need investment in the copper wiring, never mind new fibre—cannot access the services online as easily as the Department presumes. Many urban, suburban and rural citizens simply cannot afford to sign up to an internet provider. That also holds true in relation to phone and mobile operators.
Reducing the number of jobcentres and moving those services to a central location—in my constituency, down to Dumbarton—will make it more difficult for citizens to access those so-called local services in person. It will result in longer journeys at a greater cost to those who are already struggling to pay the bills, and it may exacerbate health conditions. In certain parts of my consistency in the winter, it is not an easy journey, especially for people coming from the national park end. To suggest that those individuals can claim back any cost incurred through the longer journey misses the bigger point. They are already struggling financially, and the lack of awareness from the Government and specifically the Department is quite unnerving.
To ensure the best service for citizens, all interested parties must be involved. I welcome West Dunbartonshire Council’s proactive cross-party approach to tackling these issues in the best way for our constituents. I urge the Minister in the strongest possible terms to engage constructively with the local authority to retain those local services. In the light of that, I ask him to draw its attention to the policy, because there are different policy frameworks across the UK. For Scotland, I urge the Department to read the report by the Christie commission on the future delivery of public services, which shows how that delivery might be achieved with community planning partners. The clue is in the name: it is about partners and partnership.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) cannot be here today for personal reasons, and she asked me to raise a few points on her behalf. The Department announced that it was relocating 300 jobs out of her constituency into the city of Glasgow, with no consideration of the impact on the local economy. In addition, no consideration has been given to how existing staff will be affected and how the travel time will impact on their lives. That could be a major factor that may force some existing staff to consider taking redundancy, as any move may be impractical. Why is the DWP abandoning a purpose-built office to take on a new lease?
To sum up, I hope that the Minister and his civil servants will take on board the valid concerns expressed by all Members and be proactive in responding, in particular by recognising the opportunities for co-location and partnership working for local services in local communities. I am sure I speak on behalf of all Members in praising the staff and those from the PCS union. I have been meeting them to ensure that this is kept to the fore as a major issue for us to debate.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this debate. He spoke passionately about the haphazard nature of the closures, and described it as a Google Maps exercise done on the back of an envelope. He also spoke about the loss of jobs and the impact on the local economy. It has been a very important debate, even though we have already had several debates on this issue.
We have had some excellent contributions, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who made a measured speech about the impact on her constituents and the Government’s complacency on the economic consequences of Brexit for the financial sector, on which many of her constituents rely. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) spoke about practical problems, such as flood risk and the impact that might have on people being sanctioned. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) talked about the cumulative impact in her constituency of other closures, such as those of local banks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) represents one of the most deprived areas of the country. She asked the Minister why we should be asked to support the measure, given that we have not been given the evidence base or any impact assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) made some very good points about the remote geographical location of his constituency and the loss of expertise for Jobcentre Plus. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke about the doubling of public transport fares for people in his constituency. There were also contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell).
Many questions still need to be answered. The Government appear to believe that the current levels of employment and the introduction of universal credit mean that more than one in 10 Jobcentre Plus offices can be closed, regardless of the impact on the local community. According to House of Commons Library analysis, 33% of jobcentres in London, 18% of jobcentres in Scotland and 16% of jobcentres in the north-west will be lost at a time when communities are already under real pressure due to seven years of Tory austerity.
Jobcentre Plus faces considerable challenges in the immediate future. From this April, it will play a much greater role in directly providing employment support when new referrals to the Work programme cease. From the end of this year, the Work programme and Work Choice will be replaced by the Work and Health programme. Most people claiming JSA are currently asked to take part in the Work programme, while Work Choice provides specialist employment support for disabled people.
Margaret Ferrier
Does the shadow Minister agree that it is about not only the expertise of jobcentre staff in carrying out their role, but the rapport built up between them and the clients? That is even more important when dealing with those with mental health issues, where continuity is crucial.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank the hon. Lady for that; she makes a good point.
Eligibility for the Work and Health programme will be much more restricted than the programmes it replaces. It will be open to certain disabled people and to people who have been unemployed for two years or more. In the light of that, the Employment Related Services Association estimates that as many as 45,000 fewer disabled people will have access to specialist employment support in every remaining year of this Parliament. Employment support for almost everyone else will be provided by Jobcentre Plus, including many disabled people with specialist needs.
How does the programme of jobcentre closures square with the Government’s aim of meeting their manifesto commitment of halving the disability employment gap? The longer and more complicated journeys to jobcentres as a result of the closures will particularly affect disabled people and people with caring responsibilities. Why has the DWP not yet published an equality impact assessment to analyse the effect of the closures on claimants and the local community?
More difficult journeys also increase the risk of claimants being sanctioned by staff for being late for or missing appointments. Will DWP issue guidance that, when considering sanctions, jobcentres should take account of increased journey times due to closures? There is already a backlog of sanctions, which in some cases is leading to money being withdrawn from claimants months after non-compliance, even though claimants may in the meantime have done what they were asked to do.
The roll-out of universal credit is continuing and will also present additional challenges for Jobcentre Plus. Jobcentres are having to do a huge range of things: provide careers advice to schools; deliver the new youth obligation under universal credit, which involves much more intensive support for 18 to 21-year-olds for the first six months of their claim; assess the viability of businesses for self-employed people claiming universal credit; and extend services to the partners of jobseekers, because universal credit applies to a household, so for the first time a spouse or partner of a claimant can be asked to attend a jobcentre to discuss work, even if they themselves have not made a claim or are in work. In future, jobcentres will also have to operate in-work conditionality under universal credit. In other words, people on low incomes who are working will be required to increase their earnings or risk being sanctioned—another first.
There is growing evidence that the supposed six-week wait for payment at the start of a universal credit claim is much longer in some areas, leading to people being in arrears with their rent and building up debts. Will the Minister assure us that the DWP has fully taken into account the need to tackle existing delays in processing claims in its plans for closures? Furthermore, universal credit is being rolled out at a rate of five jobcentres per month, rising to 30 jobcentres per month from July and 50 jobcentres after September, but by the end of last year the Department was ready to announce a dramatic programme of closures at the very time it was going to speed up the roll-out of universal credit.
Universal credit is, of course, designed for claims to be made and managed online. The Minister, in his statement of 26 January, highlighted that
“99.6% of applicants for Universal Credit full service submitted their claim online.”
As has been said by many Members, however, not everyone is confident of using IT, and many people rely on access to a computer in local libraries to do so—and libraries, too, are under threat from the cuts to local authority funding, with which we are all so familiar.
Just because a claim is made online does not mean that it can then be completely managed online. When there is a problem, a claimant may have little choice but to ring the DWP helpline or to go to a jobcentre to resolve it. We know from parliamentary questions last year that many claimants are spending long periods on the phone to DWP’s universal credit helpline.
The DWP is not alone in closing offices. HMRC is also planning to close all its 170 offices nationwide by 2020, replacing them with only 13 regional centres. Employment support works best when people have a good relationship with their adviser or work coach and it is tailored to a claimant’s specific needs. I am concerned that the system is already buckling under increasing pressure and that, in closing so many jobcentres at the same time as speeding up the roll-out of universal credit, the Government are simply asking the impossible of work coaches, who are at the heart of our system of employment support.
It is vital that we have a reliable social security system that is there for any one of us should we fall on hard times. Those closures look set to erode the infrastructure in place to deliver that system without the Government’s even having made an equality impact assessment. I urge the Government to think again.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I remind him that we would like Mr Stephens to have two minutes at the end. Would the Minister mind sitting down by 4.28 pm?
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
As always, it is a great pleasure to see you chairing the debate, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing it and giving us the chance to debate these matters again. I think at one point he suggested that this was the first chance that we had had to debate—
Chris Stephens
For clarity, this is the first time we have had a chance to debate the issue since the UK-wide announcement, not just the Glasgow announcement.
Damian Hinds
I am pleased with that clarification, although we had the urgent question on 30 January, after the UK-wide announcement on 26 January, and the Westminster Hall debate in this Chamber on 20 December, as well as a number of oral and written questions—the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), suggested more than 100. I have not been counting, but I confirm that it is a substantial number. Of course, we have had the opportunity to meet one to one and with groups as well. I am grateful for this further opportunity to debate these important matters.
On 31 March next year, the DWP’s 20-year private finance initiative contract, which covers the majority of the Department’s property portfolio of more than 900 sites, will expire. The Department for Work and Pensions currently occupies about 1.5 million square metres of office space, and these days at least 20% of it is under-occupied. The falling claimant count and the increased use of our online services in recent years means that 20% of the taxpayers’ money that the Department is spending on rent is going towards space that is not being used. By paying only for the space we do need and the services required to operate from that, we anticipate saving about £180 million a year for the next 10 years.
The expiry of that contract at the end of March 2018 presents both a unique opportunity and a specific requirement to review the estate. In response to changing demands facing the Department, we have redesigned the estate in a way that delivers better value for the taxpayer. I need to be clear that this is not about reducing services; it is about taking the opportunity to stop spending taxpayers’ money on unused space so that we can target money effectively on supporting those in need. We have carefully considered the challenges that we anticipate the Department is likely to face in the future, but the jobs landscape and the way people work has changed significantly in the past 20 years.
As has been mentioned, some 90% of universal credit claims are made online and with more of our services moving online, in common with other organisations, we want to continue making the most of the opportunities that new technologies present to help best meet our claimants’ needs.
Louise Haigh
On the roll-out of universal credit, in Sheffield it has been rolled out only to lone individuals with no children. As it expands to cover other types of benefits, the rate will decrease dramatically and, as has been mentioned, the number of interactions is only going in one direction. It is therefore misleading to use that statistic.
Damian Hinds
I am certainly not trying to mislead and I do not think I am misleading. I reassure the hon. Lady that the Department for Work and Pensions, in common with others, does staff and resource planning that takes into account all the different demands that will be made on our services, and that includes the fact that, as a number of Members have mentioned, in universal credit there is the opportunity to work more closely with people, with the workload that that will involve, to encourage more people into work. Of course, that is all part of the plans and not something additional that has not been considered.
The hon. Lady mentioned work with, for example, lone mums on income support. There is also work with partners, as the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) mentioned, and then work with people in work, the self-employed and so on. I should add that some of those offers are in development, and we will adjust and evolve the operation of the offer to optimise it as time goes on. However, of course the assumptions on the amount of workload involved are reflected in the plans.
It is right that we reflect not only the impact of the digital revolution in meeting our claimants’ needs but the realities of a more flexible labour market and significant falls in unemployment since 2010. The employment rate is at a new record high: there are more people in work than ever before. We had the statistics on the unemployment rate come out just yesterday: they have hit a 12-year low. In fact, the last time the unemployment rate was lower than what was announced yesterday was in the mid-1970s. Of course, we always have to consider that things in the world will change. That is also considered in the planning assumptions made by the Department.
Chris Stephens
In terms of employment rates, does the Minister not concede that one result of that is that those who are not in work at the moment have specific circumstances and challenges to overcome? On that basis, that should result in more face-to-face, rather than online, contact.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman makes a characteristically important and insightful point. Of course, what he says is true. There is a distinction to be made between different claimants and clients in different circumstances, in receipt of different types or benefits—for example, people who are on employment and support allowance are not required to attend jobcentres fortnightly or weekly in the same way as people who are in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance.
We want to maximise the opportunities available to all those groups of people, of course. Some of that is about stuff that happens in jobcentres; some of it is not. There are some things that could be done more effectively not in jobcentres than in them, particularly with some people who are further away from the jobs market, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise.
Heidi Alexander
The claimant count in my constituency went up by 50 in the last month. Although that may be a monthly blip, I am concerned about the overall strength of the London economy moving forward. The Minister talked about the space being under-occupied by a fifth, yet in London he is proposing to close a third of jobcentres. Will he explain that for me?
Damian Hinds
I can. I was going to come on to Lewisham and some of the points that the hon. Lady raised on London, but I will address it now. Overall, the estate is 20% under-utilised, but that does not mean to say that in every individual jobcentre there is exactly 20% of unused space. In terms of the utilisation rates, there is a wide range in individual jobcentres and between cities, when we take the total estate in that city into account. There is no complacency at all about the strength of the labour market in London, Sheffield or Glasgow, or in any other place. In all of the locations that we operate from throughout the United Kingdom, jobcentre staff are focused night and day on helping people to get into work.
In the case of Lewisham, the landlord did not want to re-lease and we believe that 2.1 miles to the Forest Hill location is a reasonable distance to ask people to travel additionally. As the hon. Lady will realise, the London property market is an expensive place to have real estate and there are particular challenges with finding premises in London. We think that the estate we have across London is reasonable in terms of asking people to get around.
Heidi Alexander
The DWP is exploring the possibility of taking on space in Eros House, which is an accessible, central location. If that costs a little bit more, would the Minister commit to exploring that option, given the additional benefits it can bring?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady will understand that I am not going to stand up in Westminster Hall—nor should I—and talk about detailed proposals and plans for sites that she or others may put forward, but we are always open to talking about the range of opportunities. I am happy to follow up with her on the specific points she raises.
In every case where change is proposed, we have sought to minimise disruption and listen carefully to those who might be affected, but as a result of modernisation, the Department’s services are demanding fewer people to deliver. It is only right that we consider our options going forward. Delivering a modern and dynamic service to claimants requires modern and dynamic working environments, and that is what we are striving towards as part of our vision for DWP in 2020. Our aim is to maintain and improve the services offered across the country.
We recognise, of course, how important the DWP’s staff are to achieving that aim. They are our most valuable resource. It is as a result of their immense effort that the Department is able to provide such a high level of service to our customers. My colleagues and I have been clear that the proposals for the DWP’s redesigned estate do not mean a reduction in the number of frontline staff. In fact, we are recruiting and we expect to have more work coaches in every nation and region of the United Kingdom at the end of this process in March 2018 than we do today.
For staff across the DWP network who may be affected by the estate changes, we are currently working through options with each individual, identifying relocation opportunities in the event of closure, but most of all we are listening carefully to understand fully the impact on staff.
Damian Hinds
I am happy to give way, but I was coming to the hon Gentleman’s point.
John Woodcock
If the Minister is going to answer this, great, but does he recognise the particular issue of the unfeasibility of Barrow staff relocating, and has he had a chance to examine the proposal that I made when we met to find a cheaper lease on a smaller property in Barrow than Phoenix House?
Damian Hinds
I recognise, of course, the difficult position that staff in Barrow are in and I join the hon. Gentleman in the tribute that he paid to the immensely valuable work that they do. I fully recognise, as he does, the accumulated experience that that group of dedicated staff has. One-to-one conversations will be going on in Barrow and, indeed, in all other locations where there are affected staff. There will be some limited opportunities for staff in Barrow jobcentre, but I am not suggesting that that covers everybody.
The industrial injuries work rightly raised by the hon. Gentleman is moving to Barnsley, which is an existing centre with experience and expertise. Overall for that work, reducing volume demand is projected over the next five years, and we do not expect an impact on service to the customer.
The Department has already made a commitment to support anyone who chooses to relocate in the event of a site closure. That would include the payment of additional travel expenses for up to three years. However, the fact remains that the Department has significantly more capacity across its network than is needed to serve the needs of our customers, even allowing, of course, for a sensible margin. It is imperative that we strive towards more modern and dynamic delivery methods.
Although there is no statutory requirement for consultation on the estate changes to jobcentres, we are conducting consultation on all proposed closures of jobcentres that fall outside what are known as the ministerial criteria. It is not unreasonable to expect claimants to travel to an office that is within 3 miles, or 20 minutes by public transport, of their existing jobcentre. Where a proposed move is outside those criteria, we have chosen to consult publicly both stakeholders and claimants to ensure that the full implications of the closure are considered before we make a final decision. To enhance the profile of such consultations, we have written to local stakeholders and have distributed leaflets and put up posters at affected sites. We have undertaken public consultation where we think the proposals may have a significant effect on claimants. The objective is to ensure that the effects of our proposals are fully considered before any final decisions are made, and I welcome the engagement and responses that we have had from local stakeholders.
We have had a total of 290 responses from across the three sites in Glasgow. Those include responses from claimants, Members of Parliament, including some present here, interested third-party organisations and the wider public. Alongside taking into account the views of a range of stakeholders via consultation, I have met a number of fellow Members of Parliament to discuss how proposed changes to the estate will impact at local level. I will be considering the feedback to all the public consultations and I reiterate to hon. Members that these are genuinely proposals at this stage. When we make final decisions on the design of our estate, we will do so with all the feedback that we have had in mind. That may include considering additional options for outreach or indeed something wider—nothing is off the table at this stage.
Damian Hinds
To allow two minutes for the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, I had better not.
When a jobcentre closes, the Department has a comprehensive set of outreach and support measures in place to support claimants in accessing the services they need. We embrace closer working with local organisations and support outreach activity at community and partner facilities, including local authorities across the country. That allows work coaches and partner organisations to support the shared needs of claimants. By working with a range of partners, including local authorities, we are able to expand the range and offer of our services.
We respond to personal circumstances. For claimants who are unable to attend a jobcentre due to their vulnerability or the complexity of the transaction required with the Department, we have robust procedures in place, including home visits and maintaining a claim by post. Travel expenses are refundable under certain circumstances, including where claimants are required to attend a jobcentre more frequently than fortnightly. Claimants can also choose to attend an alternative jobcentre to the one allocated to them if the jobcentre they have been allocated is not the closest or least costly for them.
I touched briefly on Lewisham. On Sheffield, there has been a consultation. The proposal is that Sheffield would better utilise space at Cavendish Court, which is currently only 45% utilised. Eastern Avenue is 74% utilised, but the move would not work in reverse because of the different configurations and sizes of the buildings, and Cavendish Court and Bailey Court are respectively 4.4 miles and 4.7 miles away.
The Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), spoke about partnership and outreach. I entirely agree about the need for partnership and for continuing to enhance it; the West Dunbartonshire employability hub is a particularly good example of that. As I mentioned, we are always keen to do more and to discover such opportunities, and that includes close working with Skills Development Scotland and others.
The proposed changes are the result of careful analysis and planning. While I appreciate hon. Members’ concerns about the proposed closures, and again thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South West for securing this debate, the rationale for the proposals is clear. We are working towards a more modern, dynamic estate. This will ensure that we continue to have sufficient flexible capacity to deliver the best services we can to our customers. It is important to stress again that all the specific changes to the estate that have been raised in this debate are still only a set of proposals, and we are continuing the consultation process with our staff to assess how each might be affected. I want to reiterate that in the event that co-location or closures are required, we expect that to have no impact on the excellent services we continue to provide to customers across the country.
Chris Stephens
May I first apologise to you Mr Walker? So keen was I to raise this issue that I forgot to refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group. I apologise for that.
A number of issues have not yet been answered. There is the question of the review criteria. I am clear, as are many hon. Members, that all 78 sites that were earmarked for closure should have been subjected to a full public consultation. The reason why is that the equality impact issue is still outstanding; there is no equality impact assessment for disabled people or the black and minority ethnic community, among others. The economic impact will certainly be hard on many areas; the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) identified that, and made an excellent point on industrial injury benefit. There is also the workforce impact; we have a written answer that says that the DWP expects 750 staff posts to go. If it is hiring staff and letting 750 posts go, I suspect that there will be an employment tribunal at some stage.
We need to make sure that this is done with the correct information, and not wrong and inaccurate information. I ask the Minister to listen to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) about parliamentary scrutiny going forward, and to make sure that we deal with this issue on the Floor of the House. Certainly, if the Minister makes announcements, we expect that to be on the Floor of the House and not sneaked through in a written statement on a Thursday or Friday, or before a recess.
I thank you, Mr Walker, and thank all hon. Members for taking part in this important debate.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Thank you, colleagues. I hope you all have a productive Friday and weekend.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Jobcentre Plus office closures.
Written Statements
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tower Hamlets
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
On 17 December 2014, my predecessor, the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, issued specific, targeted directions to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets using his powers under Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999.
At that time a team of commissioners was appointed to exercise specific functions of the authority. Although initially progress was slow, more recently I have been pleased to return selected functions back to the council. I am now considering the overall progress of the council in anticipation of these directions ending on 31 March of this year.
In line with the council’s own expectations, I am considering withdrawing the three commissioners from the Borough and, in support of the recent progress made by the council, maintaining an oversight role through a new general direction. The new direction allows for continued oversight of electoral administration. The Government have invited expressions of interest from local authorities on piloting the use of ID in polling stations in the 2018 local elections. As part of wider steps to strengthen electoral integrity in the Borough, I would welcome Tower Hamlets’ participation.
I have received assurances from the Mayor of Tower Hamlets both in his fourth six-monthly report of 20 February, and in person on 27 February, that he is confident the council is now in a position to drive forward and deliver their own improvement agenda.
This view is endorsed by the commissioners in their report of 21 February which I have carefully considered and discussed with them on 27 February.
I am minded therefore to exercise my powers under Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 to revoke the direction of 14 December 2014, end the role of commissioners in the council and hand back executive functions to the Executive Mayor with the proviso that the council delivers all outstanding actions in their best value action plan and the setting up of a best value improvement board as outlined in the Mayor’s letter of 1 March.
I am minded also to direct the council to provide quarterly reports against their best value action plans for a further 18 months; and at the end of this period to carry out an independent review of delivery. As with all councils, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets must abide by the best value duty.
This is a significant step forward for Tower Hamlets Council—it has made considerable progress over the past few months. I am pleased that the guidance of the commissioner team has played such a material role in putting Tower Hamlets on the right road to allow it to take on its rightful functions.
I am inviting the council to make representations on these proposals, which will be considered as part of my final decision.
I am placing a copy of the documents associated with these announcements in the Library of the House and on my Department’s website.
[HCWS543]
NHS Prescriptions, Dental Treatment, and Wigs and Fabric Supports: Charges
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
As at the start of previous financial years, regulations will today be laid before Parliament to increase certain national health service charges in England from 1 April 2017.
The prescription charge will increase by 20p from £8.40 to £8.60 for each medicine or appliance dispensed. To ensure that those with the greatest need, including patients with long-term conditions, are protected we have frozen the cost of the prescription prepayment certificates (PPCs) for another year. The three-month PPC remains at £29.10 and the cost of the annual PPC will stay at £104, allowing unlimited prescriptions within a specified time period. Taken together, this means prescription charges are expected to rise broadly in line with inflation.
Existing arrangements for prescription charge exemptions will remain in place, principally covering those with certain medical conditions like cancer, epilepsy and diabetes, pregnant women and new mothers, children under 16 and anyone over 60, and those on a low income.
As part of a two-year settlement announced last year, the patient charges for NHS dental care in 2017-18 will be as follows:
a band one course of treatment and urgent treatment will increase by 90p from £19.70 to £20.60;
a band two course of treatment will increase by £2.40 from £53.90 to £56.30;
a band three course of treatment will increase by £10.60 from £233.70 to £244.30.
The maximum band three charge is for the approximately 5% of treatments that include items such as crowns or bridges.
Charges for wigs and fabric supports will rise in line with inflation.
Full details of the revised charges for 2017-18 can be found online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-03-16/HCWS539/
[HCWS539]
Disclosure and Barring Service
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
The 2015-16 annual report and accounts for the Disclosure and Barring Service (HC 451) are being laid before the House today and published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS541]
Security Industry Authority
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
The 2015-16 annual report and accounts for the Security Industry Authority [HC 1088] are being laid before the House today and published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS540]
Immigration Rules
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules [HC 1078].
The changes include a new requirement that individuals over the age of 18, who are applying for entry clearance under the tier 2 general route to work in education, health and social care sectors, must provide a criminal record certificate from any country in which they have lived for 12 months or more in the previous 10 years. This requirement will also apply to the partner of the applicant and a partner applying to join an existing tier 2 migrant in one of these work sectors.
This is the second stage in a phased implementation of the requirement. It currently applies to individuals over 18 applying for entry clearance under tier 1 to come to the UK as entrepreneurs or investors, and their adult dependents. The Home Office will continue to monitor implementation with a view to extending the requirement to other migrants in the future.
On 24 March 2016 the Government announced two phases of reforms to tier 2, following a review by the independent Migration Advisory Committee. The first phase was implemented on 24 November and the changes being laid today implement the second phase of the announced reforms. The changes also update the codes of practice relating to skilled workers, and make other minor updates to the rules for work routes.
Further changes are being made to amend or clarify other provisions in the immigration rules.
[HCWS542]
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Thursday 16th March 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons reaons (PDF, 72KB) - (13 Mar 2017)
Adult Social Care: Funding
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to produce their proposals for a longer-term solution to the funding of adult social care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, in order to meet the demographic challenges facing this country, the Government are committed to establishing a fairer and more sustainable system for funding adult social care. We will bring forward proposals in a Green Paper later this year.
Lord Warner (CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but can he confirm that the review which is ongoing will examine the lessons from Japan and Germany, where populations and politicians have recognised that, as we live longer, we have to prepare earlier for funding our long-term care? Can he also assure the House that, in securing a new funding system for social care, regard will be paid to the impact of that on the long-term sustainability of the NHS?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Lord has done much work on the sustainability of social care, including his work on the Dilnot commission. He is quite right to point out that there are lessons to be learned from other countries, and certainly we will be learning them from Japan, Germany and elsewhere. He will know that the measures announced in the Budget are specifically designed not only to help adult social care but also to help the interface between the NHS and social care to provide exactly the kind of sustainability he is talking about.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, some of us in this House are veterans of social care reviews that have led to very little change. Can the Minister therefore tell the House whether he is confident that the Green Paper will lead to urgent action? Will it consider controversial issues such as helping families prepare for care, savings products in the insurance market and perhaps even care vouchers?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right that this issue has not been dealt with properly over a long time. The Green Paper has a wide remit and therefore will look at all the issues that she has brought to the attention of the House.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, in a recent answer to a supplementary question, the Minister agreed with me that social care and health would operate properly only when they were under the same budget. Will the Green Paper go a little further and consider bringing them under the same management?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, the Green Paper has a wide remit. It is trying to provide a comprehensive solution to social care funding, which has unfortunately eluded many Governments. In doing so, it naturally needs to look particularly at the interaction between health and social care. For many people now there is no particular distinction between those as they follow their journey, as it were, through the health and care system. The important thing is that the care is joined up and is of high quality.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that he does not need to go as far as Germany and Japan to find good examples of this? Could he go up to Scotland, in particular to Ayrshire, and talk to Ian Welsh, the chair of the NHS health and social care partnership? That is a very good example of two bodies working together under a joint budget and joint administration. If the Minister were to take a few days off and go up there, I think he would find it very valuable.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I will speak to the Chief Whip about taking a few days off. I thank the noble Lord for bringing that point to my attention. As he says, there are examples in the UK—in Scotland, England and Wales, and of course Northern Ireland has a joined-up system too—so clearly there are lessons to be learned from home.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, following the push by Norman Lamb MP for this review that the Government have been talking about and putting into the long grass, the independent specialist group that he convened gave its interim report this morning. It makes it absolutely clear that we have to look at how the NHS and social care are paid for. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Green Paper will address those Treasury issues, as well as the issues of care and the relationship between the NHS and social care?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
As I have said to several noble Lords, the intention of the review is to put the adult social care system on a sustainable and long-term basis and to make sure that it is fair and transparent and that it delivers high-quality care. It will address all the issues required to do that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend acknowledge that he does not start this process with anything like a blank sheet? In particular, does he recognise that there is continuing merit in the recommendations of the Dilnot commission? I will not elaborate on that, save to say that they include the fact that it was a manifesto commitment of the Government at the last election.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank my noble friend for bringing that to the House’s attention—some might describe it as a hospital pass, if noble Lords will excuse the pun. The Government remain committed to implementing Dilnot from April 2020. My noble friend is quite right that this is not a blank sheet of paper. There have been some really important reforms over the last seven years, including the better care fund and the Care Act. In the Budget, we have more funding for the short-term sustainability of the social care system, as well as a commitment to the Green Paper.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I would like to ask a question about children’s social care, where I notice there is also a problem. For example, in the last year local authority support for palliative care services for children was cut by two-thirds, and it now provides only 1% of the expenditure on children’s social care. First, does the Minister acknowledge that there is a problem here as well and, secondly, what are the Government going to do about it?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The issue of children’s palliative care came up in the debate the other evening on palliative care. A review is taking place with the charitable sector of the distribution of funding, particularly for children’s hospices, over the next year. In terms of children’s social care—this may come as a surprise to some noble Lords; it certainly did to me—the fastest-growing part of the adult social care budget is for adults with learning disabilities. Of course, that often comes in at the point at which people leave the children’s social care system and the school system and move into the adult social care sector, so there is an important point about continuity from one to the other.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the domiciliary care of people in their homes is in deep crisis, with 400 care home businesses declared insolvent since 2010? Large providers such as Mitie have recently been selling their home care health business—it sold it off for just £2, plus a £10 million pay-off to the new outsourcing firm for business trading losses and other costs. What impact do the Government assess that the £2 billion Budget cash spread over three years will have on halting home closures and reducing the risk of industry collapse? Will the future Green Paper look at finding a new, more sustainable model for providing and funding residential and domiciliary care?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness brings up the issue of care homes closing. Inevitably, there is churn in the system. There has been a stable number of residential care home and nursing home beds, which is one metric. The other is the fact that there are many more home care agencies, with a lot more domiciliary care going on, and over 150,000 more social care jobs, so I do not think that the picture is quite as the noble Baroness described it. However, making sure that we have a sustainable system is at the heart of the Green Paper plans.
Prisoners: Voting Rights
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to introduce legislation in this Parliamentary session to give effect to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on prisoners’ voting rights.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, the Government have made it clear that there is no realistic prospect of bringing forward legislation to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 or of Parliament lifting the current ban on prisoner voting in the current Parliament. The Government continue to engage in dialogue with Strasbourg on this issue.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, until 12 years ago in the prisoners voting case, the United Kingdom had an unparalleled record of compliance with its obligations under the European convention, upholding the rule of law. Is the Minister aware that the example given by the United Kingdom in the last almost 12 years of flouting the binding judgment of the Strasbourg court has encouraged the Russian Federation, for example, to follow suit by authorising its Parliament also to flout judgments of the European court? Will she bear that in mind and enable Parliament, in exercising its sovereign powers, to pass judgment on this in an actual Bill in the lifetime of this Parliament?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that this Government have an exemplary record on human rights and he will know that this is an exceptional case. With regard to Russia, there is no comparison between the track record of the UK and that of Russia in ensuring European convention rights for citizens. In 2015, the UK committed to a period of enhanced dialogue with the Committee of Ministers secretariat to discuss how best to address the judgment given the lack of appetite in our Parliament to enfranchise prisoners. The Government have fulfilled that commitment.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have been in dialogue with Strasbourg for 12 years. Does the Minister agree that we give a very poor precedent—indeed, a welcome precedent—for Russia, Turkey and other serial defaulters, particularly when, under the margin of appreciation available and given the results of the parliamentary committee on this, several compromises are available?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Lord. A number of countries have argued that we should implement the judgment to ensure that the authority of the court and the power of the convention are upheld. However, we also know that a number of other countries—members of the Council of Europe—sympathise with our position. They recognise that, on the one hand, we want to respect the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, as we do in other cases, but, on the other, this parliamentary sovereignty is the essence of our democracy. We have no reason to suppose that our Parliament thinks any differently from when this whole issue was last debated in another place, whereby a Back-Bench Motion to enfranchise prisoners was resoundingly defeated by a margin of 234 to 22 on a free vote.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, I served on the Joint Committee on the Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill and we made our recommendations over three years ago. They included this comment in relation to parliamentary sovereignty:
“We agree with the evidence of Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is not an argument against giving effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Parliament remains sovereign, but that sovereignty resides in Parliament's power to withdraw from the Convention system; while we are part of that system we incur obligations that cannot be the subject of cherry picking”.
Will the noble Baroness kindly remind the Prime Minister of the need for this country to comply with its obligations under international law?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I think the House is showing that there is a difference of opinion on this subject. I hear what the noble and learned Lord has said, but I must also make clear that at a Committee of Ministers human rights meeting in December 2016 my right honourable friend in another place, the Minister of State for Courts and Justice, Sir Oliver Heald MP, focused on this issue of prisoner voting and said that the UK would provide further information on its planned approach in December 2017. This is a complex—I would rather call it a difficult—issue and not one that we are ignoring. We are considering it and will be there in December when the Council of Europe will review the UK’s ban on prisoners voting.
Lord Robathan
My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend the Minister can help the House. The 2010 Conservative Party manifesto included a British Bill of Rights, which would have withdrawn us from the convention. Was it similarly a Conservative Party manifesto commitment in 2015 to have a British Bill of Rights, because that would sort out the issue just mentioned by the noble and learned Lord? By the way, I do not think Putin has needed any encouragement from us to behave in the way he has.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making that point. I want to stress that the UK has a proud tradition of respect for human rights which long predates the Human Rights Act 1998, brought in by the then Government. This Government remain committed to reforming our domestic human rights framework. We will consider the Bill of Rights further once we know the arrangements for our EU exit and we will consult fully on our proposals in the knowledge of the new constitutional landscape that will have been created.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, in the light of the ECHR judgment, will the Government take account of their own welcome commitment to promote offender rehabilitation?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, that will be part of the process we are considering.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, what arrangements exist for the large number of remand prisoners who are entitled to vote, and what would be the difficulty in extending those arrangements to, for example, prisoners who are coming towards the end of their sentences whom we are seeking to rehabilitate into society?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, that point is under consideration at the moment. During the Hirst case, which brought about this situation, the Government stressed that only the most serious of crimes receive a prison sentence and therefore the removal of the vote for all prisoners is proportionate. They argued that many other people in this country who have committed crimes receive non-custodial sentences and therefore retain the vote.
Young Offenders: Sentencing Guidelines
Lord Beecham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to assess the financial and other implications for probation and other relevant services of the introduction of new sentencing guidelines for young offenders.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, sentencing guidelines are produced by the independent Sentencing Council. The resource assessment produced by the council concludes that these revised guidelines will have no or minimal impact on resources to respond to offending by children and young people as they are intended to ensure a consistent approach to sentencing, not to make significant changes to practice.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the new sentencing guidelines for young offenders, with their emphasis on rehabilitation, are welcome, as is the recognition that many young offenders come from “deprived homes” and have,
“low educational attainment … experience of abuse and/or neglect … and the misuse of drugs and/or alcohol”.
Does this not suggest that, in addition to the work of an overstretched probation service, there needs to be greater investment in local health, education and children’s services with a view to preventing offending and promoting rehabilitation?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said—and indeed I have good news on that front. First, let me say that the youth offending statistics are very encouraging. Since the creation of the youth justice system, the number of young people in that system has fallen dramatically. More attention has been paid in recent years to low-level offending by children. An example of what the Government see as an important response to the noble Lord’s question is that, as a result of Charlie Taylor’s review of the youth justice system, the Government have committed to developing two new secure schools as a pilot to accommodate young people who are currently being detained in youth offending institutions and secure training centres. There will be a strong focus on education and welfare. The schools will provide a new form of custodial provision with better outcomes for young people: in short, placing education at the heart of their detention to improve their life chances and deter reoffending.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the new guidelines recognise that particular factors arising from ethnicity, such as a history of discrimination, should be considered when sentencing young offenders. On the MoJ’s own evidence, the system currently disadvantages ethnic minority boys in particular. They are more likely to be arrested and charged, and then sent to the Crown Court to be sentenced and to receive a custodial sentence. How does the MoJ propose to address this inequality, and in particular what help with this can it offer young offending teams?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that judges, particularly when children or young people are involved, consider the individual circumstances of each case to prevent reoffending and to stop young people falling into a life of crime. This includes being aware of the factors contributing to the overrepresentation of black and minority ethnic children and young people in the youth justice system. The new guideline aims to ensure a consistent approach to sentencing and to look in far greater detail at the age, background and circumstances of the individual child. This is in order to reach the most appropriate sentence that will best achieve the principal aim of the youth justice system, which is preventing reoffending.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that keeping young people in custody is financially very costly, and very costly to them on an individual basis? Would it not be better if we could devise better ways of diverting young people from custodial sentences to prevent this downward spiral into long-term criminality?
Baroness Buscombe
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. These guidelines have been developed following extensive public consultation, very much on this point, in 2016. Research with sentencers suggested that there may be a shift from custodial to community sentences for a small number of cases where a custodial sentence is currently imposed. The important thing is that we are paying more attention to low-level offending by children. We want to keep them out of custody where possible. It is quite clear to us that we have to tackle underlying factors that lead to children and young people committing offences, thereby blighting their life chances. Since the peak in youth offending in 2006-07 there has been an incredible 71% fall in the number of young people sentenced, from around 94,600 to just under 28,000 in 2015-16. Custodial sentencing has seen a 70% fall—this is amazing progress.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, that is very encouraging, but, following on from what was just said by the noble Lord, is there not a lot to be learned from community restorative justice in Northern Ireland? Should we not be developing along those lines?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, as we continue to develop our plans for supporting young people and children—we are talking here sometimes about very young children—we look at every opportunity to consider how other countries manage, including what is happening in Northern Ireland. We are developing our framework very much in terms of what was recommended by the Charlie Taylor review because we think that that will take us in the right direction for the future of our children and young people.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister look at how the benefits system interacts with those who are released from custody, particularly young offenders but offenders more generally? I have long thought that the benefits system is far too rigid and far less generous than it should be to keep released offenders, especially young offenders, in a system that leads to a job—in their case, which trains them for a job. Otherwise, they simply fall back into their old ways, mixing with their old friends.
Baroness Buscombe
The noble Lord is right. We have debated this over many years in both Houses of this Parliament. This is one of the key recommendations which the Government have accepted and taken on board in putting the education, training and healthcare of these children and young people at the heart of developing pilot secure schools, for example, where these children will have education and training. There has also to be a focus on the benefits system to ensure that we encourage and incentivise them not to reoffend.
Lord Bird (CB)
If we have to have custodial sentences—I am sure that in many cases they are appropriate and mine was certainly one of them—would it not be good if people who go in bad came out better? Is it possible for us to review the kind of institutions that we have and probably return to the good old days of what was called the reformatory system—the approved schools system—where people were got hold of, transformed, educated and brought back into society so that they did not become recidivists?
Baroness Buscombe
The noble Lord speaks with great passion about this. I have experience of it from going into the old what we called borstals and so on, and realising that for those children—perhaps the noble Lord was one of them—the future was bleak. I am pleased to say that, for example, in 2015 only some 6% of children and young people were sentenced to immediate custody. The system has changed and is changing. We are making progress and we want to make it better because we appreciate, through vast experience, that we have not done enough to date for our children and young people.
Budget: Saving for Retirement
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Greengross
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Budget on people saving for retirement.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the Budget has supported people saving for retirement through setting a market-leading rate for the NS&I investment bond. More broadly, the Government continue to support people to save through automatic enrolment into workplace pensions. This will lead to 10 million people newly saving or saving more by 2018.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for that response but could she explain to the House how the ordinary person—we are given to understand that the Prime Minister is committed to protecting such people—can possibly plan for the future given changes such as those just announced to dividends, together with the introduction of lifetime ISAs, primarily designed to assist younger people in house purchase but which could undermine saving? How, with an ageing population and an ultra-low savings ratio, can we make sure of the vital necessity of younger generations saving for the future? What is the Government’s plan to improve savings for much longer later life, which people on the whole do not even realise that they will experience?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Baroness for that and for all she does in this important area. I think we have a clear sense of direction and a plan to restructure our finances and to invest in the future. Of course, all taxes and reliefs are kept under review through the annual Budget process. Our priority has been to increase the personal allowance, which benefits everyone. The lifetime ISA, which comes into operation very shortly, complements automatic enrolment, which will help people to save so much more. All these changes will help people. I know that the changes to automatic enrolment are expected to generate an estimated £17 billion a year more in total workplace pensions saving by 2019-20. I know noble Lords here were involved in that. It will make a lot of difference. Obviously, we have longer-term problems but the sense of direction is important.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is fiddling when, for so many people, Rome is burning. How are the just-managing meant to cope with a situation where there has not been a pay increase for the duration of this Government—a situation unparalleled since 1800? That is the crisis facing our people at present. It is therefore not surprising that unsecured household debt rose dramatically last year. No wonder the savings ratio fell last year from 2% to -0.03%. How can people save when living standards decline for the many—while, of course, lavish wage increases occur for the few, buttressed by a taxation policy that favours them?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As we have discussed before, living standards have been rising. Yesterday, it was announced that we had a record number in employment and a 40-year low in unemployment. Getting people into work makes a huge difference. We made a series of proposals in relation to both pensions—this step change with auto-enrolment—and savings products that help people to save. The most important thing is to have a plan to restore our finances—we inherited a considerable mess—for everyone in this country, and for our children and our children’s children.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, most people, in their busy lives, just want a savings scheme that is trustworthy, has a reasonable rate of return and does not eat a large amount of their savings through fees. Instead, the Government—and previous Governments—constantly come back with competition, incredibly complex rival products and switching. Will the Government finally identify someone—I would almost say anyone—whether a government Minister or regulator, to make sure that a workable product that meets most people’s needs is actually delivered, rather than this endless tinkering, which only a sophisticated financial adviser can possibly unravel?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I certainly do not take such a gloomy view of the products. The NS&I investment bond, which we started on, gives a rate of 2.2% for three years. That is significantly higher than the market average of 1.38%. Savers know that they can trust products offered by NS&I. Obviously, rates of return on savings products have come down and that has to be reflected, but the £7 billion of additional government financing will be at a cost of £295 million compared to borrowing through gilts.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, while ISAs have their place, does the Minister not agree that pension schemes are the more attractive—and, tax-wise, the more generous—vehicles for people to save for their retirement? Does she also agree that many people have perhaps been mistaken in cashing in their pensions and incurring tax liabilities, when it would have been better for them to leave them to accrue for the ultimate stage of retirement?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I agree with my noble friend. The Government are at pains to make sure that our communications draw attention to the value of pensions on automatic enrolment, because of course the employer makes a contribution as well as the employee, and this has been a very important reform. However, ISAs, which now have an allowance of £20,000 from next month, and the lifetime ISA, which is particularly helpful to younger people and the self-employed, also have a place. We want to encourage people to save and I am glad that we are doing so.
Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2017
Baroness Mobarik
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 February be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) (Amendment) Order 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 February be approved.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I understand that this Motion may have a centrifugal impact on your Lordships’ House so let us have a small pause. The draft order that we are considering today, if approved and made, will postpone the mayoral election for the Sheffield City Region, meaning that the mayor will first take office in May 2018, not May 2017; and will set the first mayoral term for a duration of four years, with the next election in May 2022.
In bringing this order before Parliament, we are responding to a request from the Sheffield City Region’s local leaders. On 11 January this year these leaders met as the combined authority and concluded that it was no longer possible to achieve a mayoral election in the Sheffield City Region in May 2017. They agreed and announced that they would now be working towards a mayoral election in May 2018. In their announcement, the local leaders explained that they had reached these decisions due to the need for the combined authority to undertake further consultation before it would be possible for an order to be made conferring the powers on to the mayor and city region, as envisaged in the devolution deal which was agreed between the Government and the city region in October 2015.
Regarding the background to the need for additional consultation, Derbyshire County Council brought a judicial review against the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, seeking that the public consultation which that authority had undertaken should be quashed on the grounds that it was misleading. On 9 and 10 November 2016, the case was considered by the court, and in December judgment was given that the consultation did not achieve its lawful purpose. While the court did not quash the consultation, as Derbyshire County Council requested, there was a need for further consultation before the statutory requirement on this was satisfied. The city region’s local leaders have decided to prepare and carry out that necessary additional consultation, with a view to starting it after the May 2017 local elections—hence the need to defer the mayoral election until May 2018, by which time all necessary consultation can be expected to have been completed and the devolved powers envisaged in the devolution deal conferred on the combined authority and mayor.
Before turning to the specific provisions in the order before us, it may be helpful if I briefly recall how devolution is to be put in place in the Sheffield City Region. On 2 October 2015, the Government and the Sheffield City Region agreed a devolution deal giving brand new powers over transport, planning and other key policy areas, along with budgets, to the combined authority. The deal also included a commitment to adopt a directly elected mayor covering the whole of the combined authority area. On 21 July 2016, the Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016 was made after having been approved by Parliament, which established the office of mayor for the Sheffield City Region. That order provided that the first elections for this mayor would take place on 4 May 2017 and that the second election would take place on 7 May 2020. Thereafter, there would be mayoral elections every four years.
The next step in implementing the devolution deal was for a further order to be made conferring the powers agreed in the deal on to the combined authority and mayor. Before such an order could be made, the city region combined authority had to undertake a public consultation on the proposed conferral of powers. The Secretary of State is required by statute to be satisfied that no further consultation is necessary before he can proceed with an order conferring the powers. The city region also wished that any order conferring the devolved powers would, in addition, expand the area of the city region to include—with their agreement—the areas of Chesterfield borough and the district of Bassetlaw. The consultation that the city region undertook therefore covered proposals for devolving powers and for this expansion of the city region area.
The consultation started on 1 July last year but before it could be completed Derbyshire County Council, in which the borough council of Chesterfield sits, brought a judicial review against the combined authority. The case brought by Derbyshire questioned the legality of the consultation in two areas: whether it could be considered a public consultation in connection with the proposals in the scheme, and the fairness of the consultation. On 21 December 2016, 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 becoming part of the combined authority.
Accordingly, what is now required before the devolution deal can be fully implemented is for the city region to undertake a further consultation and submit a summary of the consultation responses to the Secretary of State. It is then for the Secretary of State to decide, having regard to those responses, what provision to include in any further order which, subject to Parliament’s approval, would confer functions on the combined authority and mayor. It might also, if the Secretary of State considered it appropriate, provide for any expansion of the city region area which the city region leaders are seeking. Once such an order has been made it would be appropriate for there to be the first mayoral election, which is now envisaged for May 2018.
As to the detail, 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.
In conclusion, this order postpones the mayoral election until May 2018. This is in the expectation that by that date, powers and budgets envisaged in the agreed devolution deal can, if Parliament approves, 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. I commend this draft order to the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that the biggest single obstacle to the devolution deal in areas outside big cities is the requirement to have an elected mayor, which most of the authorities do not want? For example, in Norfolk and Suffolk, we have an effective LEP arrangement between authorities without an elected mayor. The proposition for a devolution deal for Norfolk and Suffolk fell because of the requirement to have an elected mayor over two counties—most of which is rural, some of which is urban; most of which is Conservative, some of which is Labour, with UKIP and Green councillors making up the mix. The result was that there could be no agreement about what would be a rurally based elected mayor in perpetuity over the two counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, where the economic drivers for those authorities are the cities: Norwich, Ipswich and so on. If the Government were to detach the elected mayor from devolution so that where authorities wish it and they have a combined agenda, a combined outlook and perhaps a combined urban authority, doing so might be perfectly fine and make very good sense. But where there are the disparities that I have suggested in largely rural areas, such devolution deals will fall if one person is asked to be responsible for an area that is 120 miles long. Will the Minister consider detaching the requirement to have a mayor where authorities do not wish it but none the less need the powers of devolution, particularly on transport connectivity, to make their areas even more economically productive?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am inspired by those words of the noble Baroness to say that she makes an extremely good point and one that would be warmly echoed in Lincolnshire where there has been a decision not to have a directly elected mayor because it is not felt suitable in such a large county and for a largely rural area. This obsession with elected mayors is frankly ridiculous. It may be appropriate in certain urban areas, although to me it is inimical to the British tradition of local government, but that is my prejudice and I readily admit it. It frankly does not sit happily in largely rural areas. For the Government to say, “You cannot have your devolution unless you have a mayor”, is a thoroughly unreasonable ultimatum.
Shortly after Mrs May became Prime Minister, I was greatly encouraged when it was noised abroad that she is not wedded to this idea. That is one divorce which I hope she will expedite because it is not a good idea in rural areas, it should not be persisted with and I hope my noble friend, while possibly rebuking the noble Baroness and me for talking about areas which are not the subject of this order, will take the message that is coming from both sides of the House and all political parties that in rural areas this is something up with which we should not need to put.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points just put by my noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I shall address the order before us in relation to the Sheffield City Region. I obviously have no objection whatever to the order that is being laid. It makes sense in the light of the decision of Derbyshire County Council to take the judicial review. In this case, with some reluctance, the combined authority has agreed to an elected mayor and Chesterfield Borough Council wished to join the city region, as did Bassetlaw. Unfortunately North East Derbyshire District Council does not appear to have taken the same decision, even though travel to work, travel to leisure and the whole synergy of economic, social and cultural life would lead to the conclusion that it might in the future. Although I understand Derbyshire County Council’s desire not to see its bailiwick confined, my concern this morning is to seek confirmation from the Minister, who I have known for a very long time, that the Government will continue providing the necessary support, encouragement and facilitation for the combined authority to be able to get on with the job, both with those aspects that have been devolved and those which would follow through from a mayoral election for the city region in 2018.
There are two reasons for this. First, it is really important that the vision strategy that was published on 17 February this year should be carried into fruition rather than languish on a shelf. Secondly, as some of us east of the Pennines have recognised, the difficulty that the Leeds City Region has been having with progression means that the north of England, Greater Manchester and to some extent Merseyside are now taking the lead on what the Government came to pronounce as the northern powerhouse.
There was a great deal going on before the northern powerhouse was “invented”, including One North and combined activity on transport and economic development. But there is a real danger that having the north-west of England as the driving force—even though it is clearly welcome and flows from very sensible bottom-up drivers, particularly from Greater Manchester—will imbalance the north of England. Yorkshire has a population slightly greater than Scotland, yet because we do not have a devolved block grant, its investment from national government is confined. It is really important that the inevitable delay spelled out in this order should not preclude government working with the city region to ensure that the driving force of not just economic change but also social change is encouraged and supported rather than being held back by the inevitable delays spelled out in the order.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as laid out in the register, particularly as a member of Sheffield City Council. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. He may not agree with everything I am about to say, but he may agree with some of it. First, I welcome the devolution deal to Sheffield, even though it does not go as far as it should do and particularly, as other noble Lords have said, even though it is predicated on a mayor—I wish it was not, and was based on another model, but we are where we are and we have to go forward with the deal that has been negotiated between the leaders in South Yorkshire and the Government. But I thank the Minister and the Government for keeping their confidence in this, and for keeping going and being patient despite the most frustrating of circumstances, which are destabilising the confidence of some in South Yorkshire about whether the deal will actually go ahead under the leadership that has been shown so far there.
I will remind your Lordships how we got here. There has been infighting and dithering—and, as one businessperson said to me, complete incompetence—among the local leaders back in South Yorkshire about this deal. First, we thought it was signed, sealed and delivered, but then the leader of Sheffield City Council decided either that she had not read it or had not understood it, and that there were things in it which she wished to change. That slowed down the process and caused disruption and, again, misunderstanding among South Yorkshire businesses about what was happening. We then had the botched consultation, which I shall return to, and more recently the four leaders fighting about whether they are going to be in a Yorkshire deal or a South Yorkshire deal. All this undermines business confidence in the deal going forward, and it must stop. It does not instil confidence in local business, and it shows a lack of clear local leadership to deliver the devolution deal.
The botched consultation was a basic mistake. It did not ask the people in the consultation whether Chesterfield Borough Council should be a member of Sheffield City Region. Why did Sheffield City Region, the combined authority or the four local leaders of the councils in South Yorkshire not see this basic mistake? The error, for which no one has apologised, taken responsibility or been held to account, has cost the South Yorkshire taxpayer dearly. I thank BBC Radio Sheffield for putting in a freedom of information request that has shown exactly how much taxpayers in South Yorkshire are paying for that mistake. The consultation cost just over £104,000. The legal costs to Sheffield City Region to defend Derbyshire County Council’s judicial review are £130,000. Furthermore, the taxpayers of Sheffield City Region have had to fund Derbyshire County Council’s costs of £161,000. That is over £430,000 of taxpayers’ money wasted on a consultation that has stopped, or at least stalled, the devolution deal that is about empowering our local area to deliver greater economic impact. The costs do not include the 500 hours of officer time at both Derbyshire County Council and Sheffield City Region, or the London fees. It is estimated that overall the deal will cost taxpayers £500,000.
I have three simple questions for the Minister. First, does he agree that local leaders in South Yorkshire, who have wasted £500,000 of taxpayers’ money on this botched consultation, should be held to account and apologise? Secondly, does the in/out dithering approach to this £1 billion deal not undermine confidence locally and should it not stop immediately? Thirdly, what message are the Government sending to local leaders back in South Yorkshire that this kind of dithering and incompetence must stop to get the deal over the line so that business and our local economy can move forward?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I would like to add a little to the sorry tale that has just been amply described by my noble friend Lord Scriven. I declare my interest as a councillor in the Yorkshire borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It seems to me that the consequence of the ad hoc approach to devolution that the Government have taken, resulting in boundaries for the new combined authority overlapping with existing local government boundaries, has created a certain amount of resentment, as we have seen and heard, at the potential loss of power and responsibility, particularly, in this case, by Derbyshire County Council. The 26th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee refers to the process of “combination creep” through the involvement in combined authorities of non-constituent councils, which is exactly what has happened in this case.
The concerns of the local councils involved—in this case, Derbyshire County Council—need to be understood and respected. The Government’s policy intention is to create a new authority based on an economic region rather than a geographical one, and the tensions that this has created have been left to localities to resolve. The balanced judgment in the Sheffield City Region is that the relatively small amount of devolved funding of £30 million a year combined with additional powers and responsibilities is sufficient to tip the scales in favour of the deal, although, as we have heard, it is not overwhelmingly supported.
What has not been resolved, however, is how one elected person, the elected mayor—the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, asked why we have to have one elected person—can gain the trust and confidence of the communities throughout this diverse city region. I can tell that it is diverse from living near it. That is the substantial flaw in the devolution agenda.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I first draw the attention of the House to my entry in the register of Members’ interests and declare that I am an elected councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
This is one of a number of statutory instruments that we have been considering over the past few weeks in your Lordships’ House. I should first say that I welcome further devolution, although I have concerns with all these deals about the level of funding provided. This order puts the election for the mayor back by one year. There is also an issue about the patchwork nature of the deals and, as many other noble Lords have said today, about the lack of any coherent framework for devolution in England. That is something that we should all be concerned about. In some areas, the devolution deal seems to have progressed well and important powers and functions have been devolved to the combined authority. In other areas, this has not been the case. In county areas in particular, a directly elected mayor perhaps does not feel right. My noble friend Lady Hollis referred to this as a particular concern. There is certainly a question over how these mayors fit in to the vision of future devolution in England. The Government have still been unable to explain their obsession with directly elected mayors—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, will do so now.
I lived and worked in the east Midlands for many years, I know Lincolnshire very well and I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It is a rural county and I just do not see how a mayor would work there at all. The Government should recognise that each area is different.
We need a coherent framework for devolution. The Government should set out what they mean by it so that there can be a proper debate and discussion in England about what it will be. Years ago we used to have things called Green Papers, which would come along and set out the Government’s thinking on where they would like to go and invite that sort of dialogue to get local government and people engaged. That is certainly something that the Government should do. I am also aware that there have been a few changes in the department in recent days. I do not know whether that will have any effect on what will happen, but certainly the Government need to think long and hard about the whole question of mayors and why we have to have mayors in an area if that area does not want one.
As I said, huge changes have taken place in recent years. We have police and crime commissioners, which were referred to, who can now take over the fire service. We have the combined authority models, with or without directly elected mayors. This is not very joined up or coherent. In my view, it is not the best way to move forward.
There is a problem here. A contradiction arises with the drawing of quite artificial boundaries in the spirit of trying to put together a combined authority when they do not necessarily mirror community identities. There has of course been the legal action from Derbyshire referred to by a number of noble Lords. Councillor Anne Western is someone I know very well. I regard her as a friend. She is a very competent leader of the county council. I have known her and worked with her for many years. There is no question that she is pro devolution and believes in the devolution of powers from Westminster to communities. Equally, I agree that the consultation was not organised very well. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I do not particularly agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven; I think that some of them were designed for the front page of the Sheffield Star. We need to look carefully at where we are going with these devolution deals.
We need a proper framework. The Government need to come forward with one now. This is not the only place where we have problems. Other parts of the country have problems with these deals. The Government need to set out what they see for the future and how they are going to get there. That would certainly help the situation we have here today.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who taken part in this debate—some of which went slightly broader than the date of the election of the mayor. I was at this Dispatch Box yesterday having a rather uncomfortable time in connection with a manifesto commitment. Now my noble friend Lord Cormack invites me to break another one. The manifesto commitment is that we will devolve a wide range of powers and budgets to major cities that choose to have an elected mayor. That is the link. I am invited by a number of noble Lords to break that link. I hope that they understand that I am unable so to do. It is entirely a matter for the local area to decide whether it wants to go down this road. This is a choice that it did not have before. It can have a devolution deal and if it wants to it can put a proposal to the Government and then we can make progress. The Government have been absolutely clear that there must be an elected mayor to ensure that there is sufficient accountability, which we believe only an elected mayor can deliver.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I think that is a little unfair. At one point he said that it is up to people in a local area to decide, but then that if they want one thing they have to have another. It is not the case that they can decide. Look at bus powers, for example. The Government are not just leaving it to the local people or a council to decide at all; they are setting conditions.
Lord Young of Cookham
With great respect, I disagree with the noble Lord. They have a choice, which they did not have before. They can either stay put, which is what used to happen, or they can have a devolution deal as offered by the Government, but with an elected mayor. That is a real choice. If they do not want to have an elected mayor, for all the reasons that we have heard, they can stay where they are—but at least they have a choice, which they did not have before.
Lord Cormack
I am deeply grateful to my noble friend—he is a friend in every sense—but does he really think that one man or woman can adequately know and relate to the sort of area to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred, or to Lincolnshire, or for that matter to this extraordinary collection of towns and cities? How can one person—an elected Gauleiter—really relate?
Lord Young of Cookham
I would put a different question to my noble friend. Given that we are going to have combined authorities—and I think that there is agreement that that is a good idea—is it better to have one elected mayor as the accountable person or what we used to have with the old metropolitan areas, where there was much less accountability than you would have with an elected mayor? As we have seen in London, an elected mayor increases accountability over and above the other alternatives that you could have in those areas.
I turn to the other specific questions that have been raised, as we are obviously not going to get agreement on that one. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will understand that, although I do not want to get involved in a dispute between two local authorities—it is always regrettable when there is such a dispute, as it costs taxpayers money—I hope that what we have seen in this case is a one-off, and we do not have similar problems in future. In its judgment, the court did not quash the consultation, and what is needed now is an additional consultation on Bassetlaw and Chesterfield becoming part of the area of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. The noble Lord asked a number of questions. It is really for local people to come to a judgment on who has let their electorate down and who has not, rather than for Ministers to pontificate from the Dispatch Box. Local leaders are accountable to local people through the ballot box and, ultimately, it will be for their electorate to judge them.
The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and other noble Lords—and I am grateful for what he said—was whether Sheffield City Region will still get its funding up front despite this hiccup in the process. The answer is yes. The combined authority is already in existence, and gain share funding, which is the name I understand has now been given to this pot of money, of £30 million a year can be paid to the combined authority once the consultation has been undertaken and it is clear that the councils are committed to the deal and an assurance framework agreed with government is in place. That can take place before the postponed elections of the mayor.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was suggesting that Derbyshire County Council should have a veto on whether Chesterfield should join. I am glad that she shakes her head, because I do not think that it would be right for a county council to prevent a constituent district from joining a combined authority if that is what was wanted.
Then we had the point which was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Cormack about whether a mayor could represent such a diverse area. I was around when the Greater London Council was started, which included bits of Middlesex and Surrey. London is very diverse, yet we have a Mayor of London. So I am not sure that I would buy the argument that it is impossible for a mayor to represent an area that has a diversity in it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Just before the Minister leaves that point, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was making the point that as we go forward it will be important to keep under review how the provision actually works out in practice. I fully support the order being laid before your Lordships’ House, and the next one, which deals with Liverpool and the Merseyside area, where there is agreement that we should have a combined mayor. But will the Minister have a dialogue in future with local councils about replication, whereby you can end up as Liverpool will with a mayor for the greater region, an elected mayor in the city and a lord mayor as well? That will cause confusion.
Lord Young of Cookham
There may be confusion, but this is what local people will have decided through their local councils. That is the system of running the area that they have chosen to have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about turnout. If one looks at the turnout for directly elected mayors, one can see that it has been roughly in line with local elections so far. I hope that she takes some encouragement from that.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that there was a patchwork. I explained at the beginning that this is basically a bottom-up approach—the Government responding to areas that want to go down this particular road. It is inevitable from that approach that there will be a patchwork. The alternative, which I am sure the noble Lord would not advocate, is for the Government to insist on this regime for the whole country. We do not want to go down that route at all—but that is why there is a patchwork.
In conclusion, this is an important order, which will allow us to progress the devolution for the Sheffield City Region, and once again I commend it to the House.
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 6 February be approved.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Well, let us see if we have less trouble over this one.
The draft orders, if approved and made, will confer important new powers on the mayors and the combined authorities for the Liverpool City Region and the Tees Valley. The Government have of course already made significant progress in delivering their manifesto commitment to devolve far-reaching powers and budgets to large cities in England which choose to have directly elected mayors. In this House, we have now debated and approved a number of orders devolving powers to places including Greater Manchester, the West of England and more recently Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. We have also considered and approved an order enabling the Tees Valley mayor to take steps necessary to establish a mayoral development corporation; that is to be complemented by the order we are considering on Tees Valley today. We are grateful to the House for the attention it has given to these matters. Following our last debates, my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has written to noble Lords, as he undertook to do. I hope that we are now drawing to the end of this first devolution journey, with possibly just a few more orders after those we are considering today.
The draft Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017 brings to life the devolution deal which the Government agreed with the Liverpool City Region constituent councils in November 2015. We are taking that deal forward with the combined authority and its six constituent councils: Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral. The deal agreed between the Government and the Liverpool City Region means that the area will receive: a devolved transport budget and transport powers to help provide a more modern, better-connected network; new planning and housing powers to manage planning across the region; and control over an investment fund of £30 million a year for 30 years.
Noble Lords will want to know that the basis of the draft order is the governance review and scheme prepared by the combined authority and the six constituent councils of the Liverpool City Region in accordance with the requirement in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The combined authority and the six constituent councils published that scheme in June 2016 and, as provided for by the 2009 Act, consulted on the proposals in the scheme. That was a public consultation entirely undertaken by the authorities concerned. They decided the approach, which was a matter for them. The consultation ran for six weeks and was undertaken through a variety of methods and media, including engagement with regional and local media, web content, social media, workshops with elected members, targeted letters to key stakeholders, as well as material available in libraries and local council town halls. As statute requires, the combined authority provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the responses to the consultation. Before laying the draft order before Parliament, the Secretary of State considered the statutory requirements in the 2009 Act, and considers that they have been met in relation to proposals to confer functions on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.
In short, having regard to the summary of consultation responses, which had been submitted to him, the Secretary of State concluded that no further consultation was needed. He considered that conferring the functions on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority would be likely to lead to an improvement in the exercise of the statutory functions across the Liverpool City Region. In this consideration, he has had regard to the impact on local government and communities. Most significantly, the combined authority and six constituent councils have consented to the making of the order—that is, the democratically elected representatives of the area have agreed to the making of the order, if Parliament approves.
As required by the 2016 Act, we have in parallel with the draft order laid a report before Parliament which sets out the details of the public authority functions that we are conferring on the Liverpool City Region through the order. Noble Lords may recall that the requirement for this report was one of the additions that this House made to the 2016 Act during its passage. If approved by Parliament, the draft order will come into effect the day after it is made, except for the functions which are to be exercised by the mayor. The mayoral provisions will take effect on 8 May this year when the first mayor takes office.
The draft order gives effect to many of the proposals in the combined authority’s June 2016 scheme, which reflects the agreed devolution deal. If approved and made, it will confer the following powers and functions on the combined authority to be exercised by the mayor: a duty to prepare a Liverpool City Region Combined Authority spatial development strategy, enabling an integrated approach to spatial planning; powers on land acquisition, disposal and housing, including a compulsory purchase power—the same powers as the Homes and Communities Agency and councils; power to call in planning applications of potential strategic importance; power to designate mayoral development areas, leading to the creation of mayoral development corporations; powers to work with the combined authority to draw up a local transport plan, leading to a joined-up approach to transport across the area, recognising that efficient transport is fundamental to securing economic, social and environmental objectives; and powers to enter into agreements with constituent authorities, to establish and manage a key route network of strategic roads in the combined authority’s area. In addition to their existing transport and economic development powers, the combined authority will exercise powers and functions of: having the final say on the mayor’s spatial development strategy and local transport plan; promoting road safety; and regulation of traffic.
These new powers will enable the Liverpool City Region to take a strategic approach to driving development and regeneration and stimulating economic growth, supporting effective use of the £900 million devolved budget. The draft order also provides for the necessary constitutional and funding arrangements to support the mayor and the combined authority.
I now turn to the draft Tees Valley Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017. This draft order will be another important step to bring to life the devolution deal that the Government agreed with the Tees Valley in October 2015. The deal agreed means that the area will receive: a devolved transport budget and transport powers to help provide a more modern, better-connected network; control over an investment fund of £15 million a year for 30 years; and new housing and regeneration powers for growth across the region. Noble Lords will recall that the implementation of the Tees Valley devolution deal agreed between local leaders and the Government has already seen three orders made in relation to the Tees Valley. The most recent of these was about devolving powers for a mayoral development corporation. We brought this last order forward in advance of today’s order, as the area is eager to establish a mayoral development corporation in South Tees on which an 11-week consultation had already been undertaken.
This draft order has been prepared on the same basis as I have described for the Liverpool City Region order. If approved and made, the order will come into effect on 8 May when the first Tees Valley mayor takes office, with the exception of the provision relating to the establishment of an independent remuneration panel, which will come into force on the day after the order is made to enable the combined authority to make any necessary arrangements.
Let me turn briefly to the detail. The draft order will confer the following powers, to be exercised by the mayor, on the combined authority: powers to pay grants to the five constituent councils of the Tees Valley Combined Authority, with the condition that the mayor has regard to the desirability of ensuring that the councils have sufficient funds effectively to discharge their highways functions; and powers to produce a local transport plan for the area. The draft order also provides that the functional power of competence, already exercisable by the combined authority, is also exercisable by the mayor. Finally, the draft order confers various powers on the combined authority: powers to provide local passenger transport services—these powers were already delegated to the combined authority by the Tees Valley Combined Authority Order 2016; the duty to review housing need in the area; and funding and constitutional provisions to support the powers and functions conferred, including the establishment of an independent remuneration panel to recommend the allowances of the mayor.
In conclusion, the two draft orders devolve new, far-ranging powers to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and to the Tees Valley Combined Authority, giving effect to the bespoke devolution deal of each area, putting decision-making into the hands of local people, and helping the two areas fulfil their long-term economic and social ambitions. The draft orders are significant milestones contributing to greater prosperity in the Liverpool City Region and the Tees Valley and paving the way for a more balanced and successful economy and improving housing supply across the country. I commend the two draft orders to the House.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I enthusiastically support the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has just made, notwithstanding the minor caveat that I entered the Chamber as he was replying to the previous order and note the unnecessary duplication and replication which can cause confusion. I encourage him, and the Government generally, to stay in touch with the local authorities that will be affected by the implementation of these orders to see in what ways they impact on them and whether there can be further streamlining and clarification.
It is 45 years since, while I was a student in Liverpool, I was elected to represent an inner-city neighbourhood—a slum clearance area—in the Low Hill ward in the heart of Liverpool. I served that ward on both the city council and on the Merseyside County Council that was created by the then Government, and then abolished by the following Government. During those years, I saw more changes than I cared to see in many respects. I served as deputy leader of the city council and as its housing chairman and had to deal with compulsory purchase orders, which were often imposed centrally with very little say locally on what their impact would be on the neighbourhoods they affected. Therefore, I particularly welcome what the noble Lord said about the devolution of compulsory powers to the city region and the opportunities for development corporations. The great success story on Merseyside, following the riots in Toxteth in 1981, was the creation of the Merseyside Development Corporation. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has recently received some criticism in your Lordships’ House but he deserves great tribute for the work that he did during that period and the achievements that were made. The extraordinary regeneration and renewal of the city of Liverpool had its seeds in the work that he did. In my view the orders that have been laid before your Lordships’ House today with the agreement of the local authorities on Merseyside pave the way for the continued renewal and success story that Liverpool now is. Therefore, I very much welcome what the noble Lord said and commend the orders to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I shall be short. My noble friend’s explanation of the advantages that these measures will confer on Liverpool contains some very important lessons for central government. He talked about spatial planning which will bring together the whole range of interests in Liverpool. Would it not be a good idea if we introduced that nationally? We do not have spatial planning nationally; we have a ludicrous position in which planning lies with the department for local government. That is not a proper place for it given that local government makes appeals to the Minister for Local Government, which itself is wrong. All the other interests lie with other departments and we suffer from not having a department of land use.
We now have a Government who are busy giving local authorities powers to structure themselves in precisely the way we fail to structure ourselves centrally. The Government will look increasingly peculiar if their central structure is so far out of line with these new structures. However, the Government are not imposing them as they are welcomed by these larger, more powerful local authorities. We have looked afresh at how best to run local government in Liverpool and the Tees Valley and have come to the conclusion that it is better to do it this way. Although my noble friend may well argue that there is something unique about local government which means that it is, of its nature, to be organised differently, I suspect that the truth is that, looking at government, this is where you want to be.
I am reminded of the ability of Americans to ask other people to run their democracies in a way that they do not run their own. For example, they make sure that you do not have gerrymandering of boundaries, that you do not have Christmas tree Bills and that you restrict the amount of money that you spend. That is what the Americans do to other people but they do not learn to do it themselves. I do not want our Government to behave in that way. I hope that we too will learn from what we have seen from our reorganisation of local government—that some very serious reorganisations are necessary at the centre to enable us to look after our land and to have a proper policy of spatial planning, with the special word “joined-up”, which I heard several times from my noble friend.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just said about the need for spatial planning across the whole country, and I remind your Lordships that it was the current Government who abolished regional spatial planning to the disadvantage of many local councils. However, I will address my comments to the two orders in front of us today.
I turn, first, to the Liverpool City Region. Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, it struck me that we ought to develop a new collective noun for mayors, and I have a couple of suggestions. Should it be “a charm of mayors”, as with goldfinches; “an obstinacy of mayors”, as with, I understand, buffalos; a “gaggle”, as with geese, or—perhaps not—a “murder”, as with crows? However, as has already been pointed out, there will be too many people in an area with the title of mayor and people will be confused.
Most residents think of a mayor as the civic mayor, and we ought to have come up with a different title for the ones whom we are proposing should be elected for the combined authorities. The difficulty that Liverpool may suffer from is having elected individuals with large egos—it already has one with a very large ego. The consequence will either be energetic co-operation or a dysfunctional system. I hope that the Government are thinking very carefully about how elected mayors will be able to co-operate effectively for the benefit of local people and for the regeneration and economic development of their areas.
We discussed some of the functions at Tees Valley two or three weeks ago in your Lordships’ House, and today I want to draw attention to the comments of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It draws to your Lordships’ attention that it was very clear that residents in the Tees Valley, when consulted, opposed by a clear majority having an elected mayor. The committee’s report says that,
“many people have in effect answered a question, ‘Do you want an elected Mayor for the Tees Valley?’, with the vast majority opposing it”.
Despite that, their views have been ignored. It is dangerous for local democracy to pose a question, get a response and then ignore it completely and do the opposite. They should not have asked the question if they did not want to respect the answer.
This is a very unsatisfactory way to proceed. The consequences are that Tees Valley will have an elected mayor, but that elected mayor will have to work extremely hard to gain the trust and confidence of local residents who, as we heard, opposed the measure. Huge effort will be needed and it may drag on the ability of the mayor to enable the development of economic regeneration and transport facilities, because that effort and energy will need to go into convincing local people that this is the right way to proceed. With those comments, I wish both areas a successful devolution, but have considerable concerns about the models that have been adopted.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, turning first to the Liverpool order, I certainly support the arrangements before the House today. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I obviously wish the Liverpool and the Tees Valley combined authorities every success in the future. But I want to put on record that this is no giveaway for Merseyside local authorities from the Government—nothing could be further from the truth. As we have seen, local councils have suffered huge public sector spending cuts in recent years and Merseyside has not escaped that. Cuts to police and fire services, primary and secondary schools, Sure Start and so on far overshadow the comparatively small investment that the Government are making today. That investment will not deliver the Government’s vision for the northern powerhouse, although we seem to hear that phrase less and less from the Government. The foundations for devolution are being cut away by the Government every year, which is not helpful. It just makes the challenges faced by local government that bit harder. Having said that, I welcome the arrangements before us for devolution.
As I said in a previous debate, however, I am concerned about the whole question of patchwork. I accept that there can be difference, but I still think the Government should set out a framework. We have a messy patchwork, which does not bring the best things forward. We should set out what we want from devolution for England and how we see the country going forward. I certainly recall that in a debate last week on Cambridgeshire, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to four tiers of local government in that part of the country. It is all a bit of a mess. We are not clear where the Government are coming from. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned that in the debate as well. This is all a mess and we need some clarity from the Government about where they want to go in terms of devolution.
There has been a distinct lack of public engagement in the order for the combined authority for Tees Valley. It is important to engage the public in devolution discussions particularly where we propose to have mayoral elections. We want to get the agreement of the public because we will ask them to go out and vote for these people at some point in the future. It would be nice if the public engaged with that and agreed that they wanted this form of government. I think about 2,000 people responded to the local authority’s consultation but only 11 members of the public responded to the Government’s consultation, which from a population of 670,000 seems a derisory figure—0.001%, which is poor by any stretch of the imagination. Of those 11, seven had a negative view of the Government’s proposals. The Government should take account of consultation but also ensure that the consultation is done in a way that engages people and enables them to give their views to us.
As I said, it is necessary for the Government to set out clearly where they are going in England with devolution, and they are just not doing that. That is why we have these problems in understanding what is going on with devolution. However, I certainly wish Liverpool and Tees Valley every success in the future.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate and I shall try to respond to the issues that have been raised. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we will keep this issue under review. Under the devolution deals, the Government of course stay in touch, and an evaluation of progress is made every five years. As this is a relatively new innovation, we will be particularly interested in seeing how it pans out. The noble Lord reminded me of my time as a junior Minister with Michael Heseltine in the 1980s after the White Paper into the riots, and he is right to point to the transformation that was undertaken in partnership with the local council and local MPs. As a result, substantial investment was made in the city. I am grateful for what he said about that.
My noble friend Lord Deben made a thoughtful comment in which he suggested, I think, that central government should seek to mirror centrally the sort of structure that is being developed locally. I have some sympathy with that. Against that, however, one of the signals we have been getting in central government is a plea for stability and certainty rather than further reform. One has to try to balance a move towards the sort of approach my noble friend has advocated with the plea for stability against a background of several planning Bills which have gone through the House. I say to my noble friend that the White Paper on housing is quite clear that neighbouring authorities should work together constructively. We are also going to look at the NPPF so that authorities must prepare a statement of common ground to work together. I will certainly feed in what he has said as we do that work on the NPPF.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I should point out that there is some tension between the reported views of local residents, which both noble Lords referred to, and the views of the locally elected councillors. Of course, that reaches us only if the locally elected councillors have decided that this is the way they want to go. The Government’s view is that it is legitimate to look to the locally elected representatives to come to a strategic view of where the authority wants to go rather than to a whole series of local opinion polls. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is a vice-president of the LGA—most people who speak in these debates seem to be. A long time ago, back in the 1980s, I was a vice-president of the AMA, but I think I was expelled when I abolished the Greater London Council. However, I think that the view of the LGA would be that it is perfectly legitimate to look to locally elected councils to reflect views.
I turn to the issue of having lots of mayors in one place. In London we have a Lord Mayor of London and a mayor, Sadiq Khan, and some boroughs have locally elected mayors. I think that people understand what is going on and while we could try to find a new name for mayors—the chain gang, or whatever you call them—if this is the way local authorities want to go, it would be a very brave central government that forbade them to do so, even though in some areas this does result in parish, district, county and combined authorities.
These draft orders confer further new functions on to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the Tees Valley Combined Authority, some of which are to be exercised by their respective mayors. The first ones are to be elected in May this year. I commend this order to the House.
Sky and 21st Century Fox: Proposed Merger
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement delivered in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:
“I came to this House on 6 March to give an update on the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky. At the time I said that I was minded to issue a European intervention notice on the basis that I believed there to be public interest considerations as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002 that may be relevant to this proposed merger and which warrant further investigation.
The grounds on which I was minded to intervene were, as I explained at that time, media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards, but I also confirmed that, in line with statutory guidance, I would invite further representations in writing from the parties and gave them until last Wednesday to provide them.
Having carefully considered the representations from the parties and the other representations that I have received, I can now tell the House that I have today issued a European intervention notice on the grounds of media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards. I have written to the parties, Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority, informing them of my decision.
While the representations from 21st Century Fox highlighted areas where it contested the position taken in my ‘minded to’ letter, none of the representations has led me to dismiss the concerns I have regarding the two public interest grounds that I previously specified. I am of the view that it remains both important, given the issues raised, and wholly appropriate for me to seek comprehensive advice from Ofcom on these public interest considerations and from the CMA on jurisdiction issues. I note that, overall, the parties have welcomed a thorough regulatory review, which is what will now happen as a result of the intervention notice I have issued.
Since my ‘minded to’ decision, I have also received just over 700 representations from third parties, the vast majority of which supported intervention. A number of these representations called for me to create a new public interest consideration which would require a fit and proper assessment of the parties to the merger to take place as part of the intervention process. They also argued that it should be made clearer that matters of corporate governance, accountability and conduct could be taken into account in assessing the merger. These issues relate to questions about the application of the fit and proper test by Ofcom—I will come to these issues shortly.
As I previously set out, this decision will now trigger action by Ofcom to assess and report to me on the public interest grounds that I have specified and for the Competition and Markets Authority to report to me on jurisdiction. They each have 40 working days to prepare and provide these reports. This means that I will expect their reports by Tuesday 16 May. I will then resume my decision-making role in relation to the merger. To be clear, this intervening period, and indeed any time after that until a final decision on the merger is taken, is subject to the constraints that apply to my quasi-judicial role.
Mr Speaker, I am sure you understand that I cannot, nor can any other member of this Government, comment substantively on the case as it proceeds. I will, as I have done so far, keep the House updated once I have considered the reports of Ofcom and the CMA.
What I will comment on is that much of the discussion in last week’s debate both here and in the other place focused on the question of Ofcom’s assessment of whether a licensee is fit and proper, including the ongoing duty which falls to Ofcom under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996.
I have received representations from the honourable Member for West Bromwich East and from the right honourable Member for Doncaster North, as well as from a number of other parties, on adding fit and proper as a new public interest consideration in the Enterprise Act. I want to assure them that I have carefully considered the arguments they have put forward.
The grounds set out in the Enterprise Act that allow for intervention in media mergers are aimed at ensuring plurality of the media, which is essential to a healthy democracy—something I know Members of this House and the other place support. It is a view which I fully and unequivocally endorse. I am also clear that assessing whether someone is fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence is a different requirement, and one that, quite rightly, sits with the independent regulator, Ofcom.
On Monday, Ofcom announced that it will conduct its fit and proper assessment at the same time as it would consider any public interest test in response to my decision to intervene in the merger. This means that Ofcom will conduct its assessment within the 40 working days it has to report to me on the public interests I have specified in the intervention notice. I welcome Ofcom’s announcement, which will provide clarity for the parties but also provide reassurance to those who have expressed their own concerns about this issue, that this is a matter which Ofcom will now consider before the merger takes place.
I trust, as before, that this update is helpful to honourable and right honourable Members and that this Statement gives an opportunity to debate this important issue, but at the same time respecting the limits of what I can say, as I mentioned earlier, given my ongoing quasi-judicial role in relation to this merger. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made in the other place. On this side of the House we welcome the decision that has been reached, that having been minded to go ahead with a full referral, the Secretary of State today confirmed that that is what she is doing. That is entirely right and appropriate. It is perhaps worth mentioning in the process, as alluded to in the Statement, that 21st Century Fox also welcomed the referral. That needs no further comment from me.
The two grounds on which the referral is made are broadcasting standards and the question of being a fit and proper person. I will deal with them both and ask a couple of questions around them. The broadcasting standards ground is a relatively new departure in this area because previous referrals have been done on much narrower grounds. Broadcasting standards is a very broad term but I welcome this. It is right that the consideration of this merger, since it involves a global media company, needs to engage with all areas that might affect the plurality of sources of information but also the entertainment and other features of the broadcasting world today. Will Ofcom have the power to investigate all corporate governance issues affecting 21st Century Fox, including anything that may arise from the phone-hacking scandal, any cover-up of illegality at News International, the rehiring of people responsible for corporate governance failures and ongoing sexual harassment claims currently being heard by a grand jury in the United States which, if proved to be the case, might lead to withdrawal of that company’s licence to broadcast there?
Secondly, plurality is a term that probably needs to be reinterpreted as technology has moved on considerably since the first time this issue was raised in the events of 2010-11. The work done at that time by Ofcom, which involved a 40-day period of investigating similar but not necessarily the same issues, resulted in a report provided to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has the power to publish that report but, as far as I can understand, that has not yet been published. Can the report now be made available, since it clearly bears on the issues before us? Whether or not it is published, can and will the issues raised in that report by Ofcom with the then Secretary of State be considered in the work going forward at this point?
I welcome Ofcom’s announcement that it will conduct the assessment under the fit and proper regulations at the same time as the other work it has been commissioned to do, so that we have a timetable of 40 days. That may prove a bit challenging given the amount of material that must be covered but it is important that we do so. The question of the “fit and proper” assessment is undefined in the legislation and it may be that there are, as we discussed in the Digital Economy Bill before your Lordships’ House, questions raised about exactly what tests are required for this. In some ways, it may be appropriate to reconsider those, and we may be able to find time in the remaining stages of that Bill to do so. Today, could the noble and learned Lord confirm that while the report issued after the fit and proper assessment at the time of the last merger investigation was largely couched in terms of directorial duties, this report will deal with not only individuals but the corporate structures within which they operate and that the level at which “fit and proper” persons are concerned will be adjusted to make sure that it covers the responsibilities inherent in a corporate as opposed to an individual structure?
Many of the questions I raise today and which are raised more generally by the approach that the Government are taking—which, as I said, we welcome—would have been considerably aided had they been informed by the work that could have been done under part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. That has been delayed and, for reasons that the Secretary of State gave at a recent meeting in this House, cannot be reopened until such time as judicial processes going forward are complete. I understand that and do not seek to raise any questions about it. But I put it to the noble and learned Lord that the issues that are likely to be part of that review will be germane to what we are discussing today, and I wonder if he has any comments on that.
Finally, on the question of powers, the founding document for the investigations being announced today is the Enterprise Act 2002. The current thinking is that sufficient powers to carry these out are available to Ofcom and the CMA under the different regulations that affect them. But will the Minister confirm that the Ofcom investigation has the power to obtain documents and compel witnesses to appear before it? That power is available to the CMA but may not be explicit in the regulations that are operating this investigation.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement and the way that the Secretary of State is approaching her responsibilities in this regard. The big problem is that we have been here before. In many ways, we are dealing with an issue that we have faced many times—since the end of the war there have been five royal commissions on the press, and Leveson—and yet we still have these concerns about power and influence.
I am still haunted by the word that Mr Murdoch used at the height of the hacking scandal when he appeared before the Select Committee and said it was the humblest day of his life. I always thought that that was an odd word to use. It is not humbling, it is not regretting, it is not “I am going to mend my ways”. In fact, everything that has happened since has warned us that there has been no change in the approach.
Can the Minister tell us what were the points that Fox contested? It would be interesting to know how it contested what we thought a week ago was a very good Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, where does this sit in the timetable of other decisions to be made about Leveson 2 and about setting up one of the great prizes of Leveson—a genuine, low-cost arbitration system under Section 40? It is important that we look at this in a holistic way, not a siloed way. I also worry about the 40-day time limit. We should not put false timetables on these decisions because we will be stuck with them for a very long time.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s emphasis on her assurances about respecting her quasi-judicial authority. Will the Government also guarantee that any meeting or communication between Mr Murdoch and the Prime Minister, or their emissaries, is made immediately public, as well as the record of any meetings that do take place? There is a long record of Mr Murdoch having access outside the direct ministerial responsibilities, in all the jurisdictions in which he operates.
The wording of the Statement gives us confidence but will the Minister assure us that we are in a process which is going to satisfy somebody he will be well aware of—the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus? When we get to the end of this process, will it feel right? Will it smell right? Will it look right? If it does not, we will have created another problem that we will have to face further down the road.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords for their observations on this matter. I will begin with a number of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson; first, the question of commitment to broadcasting standards. When one is looking at broadcasting standards, one can have regard to broadcasting by way of television and radio within the statutory context but of course when actually applying a test of commitment, one is looking much more broadly at the behaviour of a particular party. That would include their behaviour in the context of news media, newspapers and other related conduct. This is not a narrowly defined issue. Commitment to broadcasting standards will embrace the conduct of a party. A party includes corporate parties and their relevant behaviour but also of course the behaviour of a controlling shareholder of a corporate party, or even a shareholder with less than a majority interest but a material controlling interest in a corporate entity. I seek to reassure the noble Lord that the question of commitment to broadcasting standards is approached on what, I suggest, is a broad basis.
With regard to plurality and the publication of reports, I understand that the last report was published in December 2010. We will publish reports arising out of this intervention, albeit I understand that they may have to be redacted to some extent on the grounds of commercial sensitivity.
On the question of a fit and proper person being undefined, clearly there is a crossover between “fit and proper” and the question of the commitment to broadcasting standards. As I understand it, that is why Ofcom has expressed confidence in being able to respond to the Secretary of State by reference to not only commitment but the fit and proper test that applies under the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996.
With regard to Leveson part 2 there is little I can say, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, anticipated, in view of the undertakings given to the court pending the final disposal of the application for judicial review—an application, I would add, which was made not by this Government but against them. As regards the powers of Ofcom under the 2002 Act, it has expressed the view that it has sufficient powers. But I note that it does not, in the context of discharging its duty with regard to fit and proper under the Broadcasting Act, have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses. Nevertheless, where it requests their attendance or the provision of documents and witnesses and documents are not provided, that has a material bearing upon its assessment of commitment to broadcasting standards. Somebody who is not prepared to answer simple questions about how they would discharge their obligations as a licensee would throw into doubt whether they have a true commitment to those standards. That may appear a little circular to the noble Lord but it is essentially an effective mechanism by which Ofcom can control this process.
Coming to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I am not going to enter into a debate about the definition of “humbling”. Nevertheless, it appears on the face of it that what occurred had hit home not only with the corporate structure—the shareholders—but with individuals who held those shares. It simply would not be appropriate for me to identify the contested points made to the Minister at this stage. The Secretary of State is going to carry out a quasi-judicial process, on the advice of Ofcom and the CMA. We have to await the outcome of that process. The noble Lord mentioned the 40-day time limit. Again, that is a statutory provision and Ofcom is confident that it can adhere to that time limit. We therefore feel that it is appropriate.
As regards guarantees with regard to meetings, I am not aware of any meetings being planned or proposed by Mr Murdoch. A quasi-judicial decision will be made by the Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, may accept my reassurance that there is no question of inappropriate contact from any party with the Secretary of State pending the determination of that decision. With regard to the gentleman and lady on the Clapham omnibus—as originally invented, I believe, by Lord Denning—we will have to await their response to this process. But we have confidence in Ofcom and in the CMA, and we will see in due course whether it is necessary to take this on to a phase 2 inquiry at the instance of the CMA. I am obliged to noble Lords.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that one of the most worrying things about this link and takeover is the threat to the dominant position already enjoyed by Sky News, the Times, Sunday Times and Sun newspapers, as well as talkSPORT radio? This could impact on bidding for sports programmes, TV shows and movies, as well as eliminating potential competition in the news. I should declare an interest in that I spent six months as an intern—perhaps more glamorously called a stagiaire in French—in the European Commission’s directorate-general for competition. Does my noble and learned friend have the timetable for that investigation, which is ongoing, and the impact it will have on the Secretary of State’s decision?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not going to make any comment that would touch upon the merits of the proposed merger but the European Commission will of course take forward its inquiry into the competition aspects of this merger. My understanding is that the timing of that will fall within the time limit for the present investigation at the instance of the Secretary of State.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble and learned friend’s Statement. Perhaps I may elaborate on the question relating to the grounds for the intervention notice relating to the commitment to the attainment of broadcasting standards. That relates specifically to the standards as set out under Section 319 of the Communications Act on the content of programming for television and radio services. My noble and learned friend suggested that “commitment” enables one to go much wider on those grounds. However, it relates to the programming of television and radio services. If the question of commitment was raised in relation to something that did not relate to television and radio services, how could it be seen as directly relevant?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord for repeating an inquiry that he made at the time of an earlier Statement on this same issue, with reference to Section 319 of the 2003 Act. It does refer in particular terms to television and radio; however, I stress the use of the term commitment. In determining that more general issue Ofcom is confident—rightly confident, I suggest—that it can have regard to conduct in other areas of media. For example, the way in which a party has conducted its newspaper empire or whatever may be directly relevant, and indeed often will be, to the question of whether it has a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards when it comes to television and radio. I stress “commitment” as being important in this context.
Lord Deben (Con)
I thank my noble and learned friend for repeating the Statement, which will cheer a lot of us in its wording and in the commitment to high standards. Is he not also willing to accept that in a world in which we appear to be post-truth, and where there is considerable opportunity for people to create fake news, the position of broadcasters as a source of ensuring that what one understands to be true is true becomes even more important? When we talk about broadcasting standards, therefore, this now means something in our society that is a whole stage further than any consideration which we have had before. I therefore commend my right honourable friend for taking these steps, which enable so careful a consideration to take place.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to my noble friend and agree with him that any test, such as the commitment to broadcasting standards, has to be contextualised and must have regard to the current circumstances in which we operate with regard to our media. That would include the development on the internet of sources of news which may or may not be misleading. We must judge matters in that context.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister will endeavour to answer my questions, which I pose on behalf of the ordinary—“ordinary” is very much the in word these days—consumer. Does the Minister believe that the ordinary consumer has the confidence in Ofcom and in the CMA that he and the Government share? I am worried about Leveson, but I do not believe that the ordinary consumer is that worried. If one looks at the research that is undertaken among ordinary consumers, one will find that their interests are in costs and how they affect their pockets and their purses. The question that they would want to know that Ofcom is exploring in this context is: what benefit will accrue to the public from this exercise? What saving in cost, if any, will accrue to the individual consumer?
The majority of consumers do not spend their time watching TV programmes on parliamentary activities and politics, but a very substantial and increasing number of people in our country spend their time watching sport. They look at what Ofcom has endeavoured to do on sport. Last year, Ofcom and the CMA endeavoured to introduce competition into that area of activity, and we all support that, particularly between Sky, which had a monopoly at one stage, and BT, but we have ended up in a rather strange place—although we have competition, overall consumers are now paying much more money than they paid before. They are having to pay for BT and for Sky, and they are seeing precisely what they were seeing before. There are marginally more matches, but effectively they are paying more. I subscribe to Sky. I pay more to Sky now for an inferior service. It provides less than it provided five years ago. This comes about through Ofcom’s activities and its work in this area and also the work of the CMA.
I am endeavouring to represent and capture as best I can the view of ordinary people. Will the Minister say whether the cost side is being examined, what benefit will accrue and why the Government have such confidence? Ordinary people feel that the Government spend a lot of time chasing the BBC about its licence fee of £150 or thereabouts, but Sky is charging £600 a year now for sport, let alone for films and the rest on top of it. They see little taking place other than the Government falling in line with the requirements of Mr Murdoch and his company. I would like to hear some of those questions answered.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. The question of cost relates directly to media plurality. The noble Lord suggests that because competition has been introduced into the market, he is paying more. That may appear to be an immediate effect of more than one provider, each with a cost base, dividing a limited resource, but nevertheless I respectfully suggest that a monopoly situation has never ultimately obtained in favour of the consumer, a point Adam Smith made some years ago.
Commonwealth
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To move that this House takes note of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the Commonwealth, ahead of the United Kingdom hosting the Heads of Government meeting in 2018.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister announced on Monday that the 2018 Commonwealth summit, comprising the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, will be held in London and Windsor in April 2018. For the first time, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle will be among the summit venues. The UK and our vibrant capital city are ready to welcome the Commonwealth family for a very special week, which lies between the Commonwealth Games in Australia and Her Majesty the Queen’s 92nd birthday.
The summit, together with strengthening our relationship with the Commonwealth, is a priority for this Government. Last July, I had the privilege of being appointed as the UK’s Minister for the Commonwealth as an institution and as Minister for the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean. I have therefore seen at first hand that the Government are working tirelessly both here in London at ministerial and official level and throughout our network of diplomatic posts across the Commonwealth to ensure that this unique family of nations fulfils its undoubted potential. This is not the work of just one Minister or one department alone. It is embedded across all government work. When my noble friend Lady Mobarik winds up this debate later today, she will refer to some of the important work carried out across the Commonwealth by the Department for International Development.
First, I would like to place on record my thanks to the usual channels for enabling this government-led debate to coincide with Commonwealth Week and the many celebrations on Commonwealth Day, including those special events which took place with the Royal Family, including the launch of the Queen’s baton relay and a series of video messages from many of our high commissions setting out what the Commonwealth means to them and their host country. The fact that the Opposition agreed with the Government to use time in this way today shows there is truly cross-party support for the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth is a truly extraordinary organisation. It is a diverse family of 52 countries spread over six continents and home to more than one-third of the world’s population, a billion of whom are under the age of 25. Its strength lies in its diversity, its shared history and myriad connections between its peoples. This strength is further enhanced by its global reach and the strong common instincts of its members to nurture open societies and open economies.
As a well-established family of co-operating nations, with these combined strengths and shared values, the Commonwealth could, and indeed should, play a greater role on the world stage. We are determined to do everything we can to turn potential into reality. We would like to focus on two areas in particular: reforming the organisation to strengthen it as a force for good and boosting intra-Commonwealth trade to increase the prosperity of all our citizens.
Ahead of the summit next year, reform is a top priority. It is vital if the Commonwealth is to achieve its full potential. We want to see an effective Commonwealth Secretariat driving an agenda that benefits the whole membership and also sets a standard and a model beyond it. That is why we fully support the secretary-general’s reforms and the work she has undertaken. A reformed, leaner and more efficient Commonwealth Secretariat could do even more to meet the aspirations of its people.
The theme for the Commonwealth this year is “A Peace-building Commonwealth”. It is an area where the organisation has historically made a strong contribution, from supporting a peaceful transition from apartheid in South Africa to helping to resolve maritime boundary disputes in the Pacific. It truly has a global reach. However, peacebuilding is not just about resolving conflicts; it is about preventing them in the first place. Violent extremism is a growing threat in many Commonwealth countries and to the wider world. It is an area in which co-operation and information sharing are vital. Since the last Heads of Government meeting, the UK, together with Australia, has part-funded the establishment of a new Commonwealth countering violent extremism unit. It started work in January and will enable members to share expertise and strategies to protect their citizens better. This is a demonstration of the Commonwealth adapting to tackle the challenges of the day.
The Commonwealth could also have a positive impact on good governance worldwide. The values of freedom, democracy, human rights, development and prosperity are all enshrined in the Commonwealth charter. It states,
“international peace and security, sustainable economic growth and development and the rule of law are essential to the progress and prosperity of all”.
We believe that the Commonwealth could help to promote these values to the wider world by drawing on its own experience.
How have we acted to support that work? Over the past seven months, I have held a series of discussions with Commonwealth Ministers and high commissioners, not only in this country but in their own countries, at the Human Rights Council in Geneva and at the UN in New York. Just last month, our UK ambassadorial team in Geneva convened Commonwealth countries to discuss priorities ahead of the Human Rights Council, which is meeting in March. This was an effective way of increasing the profile of the Commonwealth at the Human Rights Council. We want to see the power of the Commonwealth used more in this way and transform words into actions.
Last week, I had the real joy of meeting the chair of the British Youth Council, which works to empower young people under 25 to influence the decisions that affect their lives. The Commonwealth charter recognises the critical role of young people in the future success of our Commonwealth. The UK worked with the British Youth Council to help to establish the Commonwealth Youth Council in 2013, which serves as the official representative voice of young people across the Commonwealth. The Government will continue to place a strong focus on youth engagement and will ensure that issues that are important to young people living in the Commonwealth are an integral part of the Commonwealth summit next year.
It is clear that many member states share these aspirations to reform the organisation and increase its global influence as a force for good. The Government want to use the 2018 Commonwealth summit to turn all our aspirations across the Commonwealth into a reality. That work is already under way, and I will speak more about that in a moment or two.
Our second focus is on seeking to strengthen our relationship in the matter of trade. Boosting trade within the Commonwealth is a key element of our vision for a global Britain as we leave the European Union, as the Secretary of State for International Trade set out clearly at the Commonwealth Trade Ministers meeting last week. It will meet the Prime Minister’s aim of reaching out to partners across the globe. It will also boost prosperity throughout the Commonwealth by spreading economic growth and opportunity.
Trade between Commonwealth countries is expected to reach $1 trillion by 2020. It has consistently grown faster than the global average and we see significant scope for more growth. Furthermore, it costs, on average, 19% less to trade within the Commonwealth than outside it. That is a huge advantage, and something that we should all seek to exploit more effectively. That is why we supported calls at the Malta Heads of Government meeting for a Commonwealth Trade Ministers meeting and why we were delighted to co-host with Malta the inaugural meeting in London on Thursday and Friday last week.
The fact that Ministers and representatives from more than 35 Commonwealth countries travelled to London is a testament to the importance that Commonwealth countries place on enhancing trade and investment. There was consensus at the meeting on the potential to increase trade and the need to facilitate business-to-business links. There was also agreement to improve co-ordination between Commonwealth Governments, institutions and the private sector. Those private sector representatives who attended the meeting recognised the opportunities that trade within the Commonwealth represents, and they were very keen to engage. We will be working closely with them ahead of the next Commonwealth Business Forum in 2018, which will be held alongside the Commonwealth summit. It was noticeable that, at a time of rising protectionism around the world, Ministers reaffirmed the importance of open trade, free markets and a rules-based system.
I want to take this opportunity today to thank my noble friend Lord Marland, as chair of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, for organising the first day of that two-day Commonwealth Trade Ministers conference last week and for working so hard to ensure its success. The meeting was an outcome of the 2015 Commonwealth Business Forum held in Malta. We were pleased therefore to be able to provide Lancaster House as a venue, and the Secretary of State for International Trade, the Minister for Trade Policy—my noble friend Lord Price—and I were delighted to attend. I also put on record my thanks to the honourable Kamina Johnson Smith, Foreign and Trade Minister for Jamaica, for her support in arranging and co-chairing with me on Wednesday last week a meeting between Cariforum Trade Ministers and UK Ministers, namely my noble friends Lord Price and Lord Bates.
However we describe the work that has happened so far and the work that lies ahead for all of us, it is clear that the Commonwealth faces challenges: reforming its institutions, raising its international profile and boosting trade, all of which are crucial. The next summit is an excellent opportunity to take all this work forward, building on the success of Malta 2015. It is also an opportunity to strengthen our relations with the rest of the Commonwealth and to showcase global Britain.
In hosting the summit, our primary aim will be firmly to reposition the Commonwealth as an organisation of global importance in the 21st century. We plan to take a creative and innovative approach to deliver that aim: for example, by using social media to engage youth across the Commonwealth and taking a fresh look at the format of the summit itself. We are encouraging new thinking across the Commonwealth and the whole of government, working in close partnership with the Commonwealth Secretariat, with parties in this House and another place, and with Commonwealth parliamentarians more widely, as well as with business, non-governmental bodies and civil society. Civil society will be absolutely crucial in the part it plays.
We have created an inter-ministerial group on the Commonwealth, chaired by the Foreign and Home Secretaries, which will be supported by a cross-government unit at the Cabinet Office, led by the Prime Minister’s chief executive officer for the Commonwealth summit, our experienced FCO diplomat and former ambassador Tim Hitchens. Under his guidance, ably supported by a cross-government team, we are already rapidly stepping up our engagement with member states and partner organisations, to listen to their views and aspirations, not only for the summit itself but for our Commonwealth chair in office until 2020, and for the future legacy of the organisation beyond that.
I have already made ministerial visits to a number of Commonwealth countries; for example, Barbados, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Uganda. In all of them, I have had productive discussions with their Ministers, setting out the UK’s high ambition for the Commonwealth summit and the importance of their engagement in making it a success. I shall shortly make further visits to Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean and will be delivering the same message. That is part of real consultation—not paper, but listening and acting on it.
The high level of UK ministerial engagement with Commonwealth countries underlines the priority we give to the organisation. In recent months, the Foreign Secretary has visited Pakistan, India, Ghana and the Gambia—where he gave his strong support for President Barrow’s ambition to bring his country back into the Commonwealth. Mr Sharma has been to India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand; Mr Ellwood has visited Rwanda and Nigeria; the Secretary of State for International Trade has been to Canada and India; and the Trade Minister, my noble friend Lord Price, has been to Australia and Singapore.
We are also working closely with the Commonwealth secretary-general and other member countries to develop the summit agenda. We will be drawing on our support for and engagement with all Commonwealth members, including the particular perspective of the small states, to ensure that the agenda reflects their interests. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Trade and the Department for International Development are working with the Home Office and all other departments together, and closely with the Commonwealth Secretariat. I pay tribute to the secretary-general for her drive and initiative and very much look forward to continuing to work with her.
We will also work with our fellow members around the Commonwealth, and all the organisations that make up the Commonwealth family, to ensure we make the 2018 summit a success and to show a Commonwealth that is forward looking, revitalised and relevant to the new generations that have grown up since its formation—a Commonwealth that can play an essential role in resolving some of the world’s greatest challenges and can build inclusive prosperity for all. That is our ambition for the next summit, and we intend to work tirelessly to achieve it.
Last Monday I had the privilege of attending the Commonwealth service in Westminster Abbey. I was delighted to see the prominent role played by my noble friend Lord Howell, who took part in Her Majesty the Queen’s procession as president of the Royal Commonwealth Society. Her Majesty ended her address by reminding us that we can all find,
“further reward and fulfilment by continuing to collaborate with others in a spirit of goodwill to build a peaceful and abundant future for all Commonwealth citizens”.
In that spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this timely and important debate on our future relationship and leadership role with the Commonwealth. As the Minister will be aware, and as noble Lords may be aware, the Foreign Office has five principles for its priorities for the Commonwealth. I hope all five will be promoted in our leadership role at the Heads of Government event that will take place in 2018.
The third of those priorities is “Promoting Human Rights, Democratic Values and the Rule of Law”. I want to highlight to noble Lords one area in that category:
“Promoting tolerance, respect, understanding, moderation and religious freedom for all Commonwealth Citizens regardless of race, gender, religion, physical ability or sexual orientation”.
It is important to raise that because while both trade and the structures of the Commonwealth are important, they are meaningless if the human rights of every single individual in the Commonwealth are not upheld. That must be a leadership role that we play. I understand that there is a very thin tightrope to walk in terms of not being seen as a western nation lecturing others where human rights may not be upheld. We must be supportive and encourage civil society, but at the same time show leadership and speak up when leadership is needed.
We talk about having shared values and beliefs, and working together across the Commonwealth on joint issues, and we sometimes we speak as though we in the Commonwealth are a homogeneous group, but clearly we are not. For example, would we in this House, or indeed most people in this country, say that gay people were disgusting? Would we say that homosexuality was unnatural and not a human right? Those are the words of certain Presidents in Commonwealth countries. Would we, as certain states in Nigeria do, have the death penalty for people who are gay? Would we want to see life imprisonment for people who are gay? Would we want to publicly name and shame people in the press for being gay, knowing that their lives, livelihoods and families were often at risk, purely because of the person they loved? I think the answer is no, and therefore we need to speak up—maybe a little louder than we do now, and maybe using our leadership role at this conference to ensure that these issues are central rather than seen to be muted.
I know the Minister has been superb on the issue of gay rights. There is no doubt about that at all, and all civil society organisations in the UK attest to that. However, maybe she is ahead of others in the Government, and we need to see the same leadership from everyone in the Government on this issue. I ask noble Lords to imagine that this was not about someone’s sexuality but that those same things were are being done because of the colour of someone’s skin, their gender or their disability. Not only would we be outraged, as many of us are with regard to sexuality, but I think we would be a little stronger in pushing members of the Commonwealth and the Government to uphold human rights.
I ask the Minister to ensure that these issues are central. You cannot have good relationships within a family unless everyone in that family is respected and treated equally. We must remind members of our family that they need to do more, not by lecturing but in a way that is supportive and brings in others. I will come back to that in a moment. I draw the House’s attention to the progressive words of the Prime Minister of Malta, Joseph Muscat, who spoke at the Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey on Monday. He said:
“I want to single out respect for LGBTIQ persons. The lack of it in a remarkable number of our countries is, arguably, a considerable blot in our family of nations’ standing. I have had conversations and am aware that there are leaders who know things must change, but are wary of how society would react to their first move. To them I say that the Commonwealth will be with them to help them make the first bold steps. History, I am sure, will judge them positively when they do so”.
I thought it was particularly brave of that Prime Minister to raise such issues when it was difficult. I hope and ask that at every opportunity our Government, in the leadership role in 2018, raise with absolute clarity the issue of LGBTIQ persons in the Commonwealth in the way that he has done.
We in the Commonwealth are a family of nations. When families have disagreements, there are different ways of dealing with them. You could lecture, though that is not always necessarily the best role. You could put people on the naughty step, which is also not always the best way forward. You can debate and you can discuss, which I am asking the Minister to do, but maybe you could also bring in the extended family to help—in this case, the extended family are the activists and civil society who support LGBT individuals who are persecuted in areas across the Commonwealth—to ensure that our family becomes a progressive one, and that all people are seen as equal and respected within that family of nations.
I shall give the Minister some suggestions for how this could be done and will ask specifically whether the Government will agree to these kinds of issues. I particularly thank the Kaleidoscope Trust, which has briefed me very well. It is one of the civil society organisations here in the UK that works across the Commonwealth with civil society groups to promote the equality of lesbian, gay and transsexual citizens. As the Minister will be aware, the Kaleidoscope Trust and its partners in the Commonwealth Equality Network have a strategy to implement, between now and the 2018 Heads of Government Meeting, an action plan, which is kindly being funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, there is no funding to implement the action plan, so we may have a plan with very little action because the money is not there. Will the Government commit to fund the action plan that the CEN comes up with to ensure that the things that could happen to strengthen human rights across the Commonwealth can be implemented?
The CEN would also like the UK, potentially with other like-minded countries, to announce a ring-fenced funding stream to be held by the Commonwealth Secretariat to support the reform of outdated criminal laws—not just on sexuality, but any outdated criminal laws. I ask the Minister if the Government, in their leadership role, would also look at a ring-fenced fund to help to ensure that outdated laws are repealed and that, again, there is a fund to help civil society in that.
It would be helpful if the language that the CEN uses were to be included in the leaders’ communiqué. Language is very important. The very fact that these issues are being raised in a sovereign Parliament in the Commonwealth will give strength not only to those in civil society who are fighting for this but to individual people who feel worthless or as though they do not have a voice. That is why it is important that the language of the communiqué should reflect some of the language used by the CEN.
In some of the plenaries and side events during the event, some of the civil society forums on subjects such as business, people, women and youth, which have been identified, have an LGBT element. It is important that that is not sidelined and marginalised in the plenaries and the civil society organisations.
My time is nearly up. I finish by saying that history will judge this family of nations and the leadership role that we take not just by what we say and not just by how we trade, but by what we do to support all people within our family of nations to be equal. That is why I ask that priority be given to human rights, particularly to LGBT citizens, and that they are not secondary to a trading bloc.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I rise with nostalgia. My first endeavour as a new boy in your Lordships’ House was to table a Motion calling attention to the importance of the Commonwealth. I warmly encourage closer working relationships with the Commonwealth, noting that the UK enjoys reciprocally beneficial membership of this invaluable intergovernmental organisation of, as the Minister reminded us, more than 2 billion people in 52 countries spanning six continents.
The UK has received unstinting support over the decades—including in military conflicts, disaster relief and its role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council—from the Commonwealth family of nations. Our distinguished Commonwealth partner country, Malta—now president of the Council of the European Union—hosted the most recent Heads of Government meeting in 2015, exploring the theme of “The Commonwealth: Adding Global Value”. It was a timely and relevant theme for this leading Commonwealth country—ours—as we stake out the Brexit ground. We, too, must seek to add value globally.
When we joined the EEC in 1973, our formal bilateral trade, aid and investment relations with Commonwealth countries—the Commonwealth preferences scheme—ended. Picking up a theme of the Minister, subsequently, under the Lomé convention, the Cotonou agreement and the economic partnership agreements, Commonwealth trade was notionally with the EU but headed primarily for British markets.
Political hay has sometimes been made of punishment that the UK might receive because of our vote in the recent referendum. Will any such punishment extend to our Commonwealth partners? Thirty-six of them are small countries with small markets lacking the negotiating clout to fight their corner with the Commission. Will Malta and Cyprus, joint EU and Commonwealth members, help them to consolidate their position, or will they be hampered by their own small state status? It is possible—I put this thought in the minds of government negotiators—that we can create a Commonwealth free trade area compliant with WTO rules. However, that would require considerable political will and expertise to modify existing rules of other customs unions to which members may also belong.
There is both an economic and a moral imperative to address this issue during the impending Brexit negotiations and beyond. Media reports sometimes dismiss Commonwealth trade potential, yet intra-Commonwealth trade could reach US $1 trillion by 2020, as the Minister also reminded us.
Opportunities await us. Commonwealth target growth sectors are financial services, technology, infrastructure, healthcare, tourism and sustainability. We in the UK are leaders in each and every one of those fields. Consider the welcome impact we could have in ensuring greater access to green technologies across the Commonwealth, particularly in areas plagued by natural disasters and sea level rise attributable to climate change.
Our expertise in the field of education is well recognised, as are the financial, research and cultural contributions to our country of increased numbers of international students and faculty—in significant numbers, from Commonwealth countries. Not only can this sector be enhanced here at home, but there is also significant comparative advantage for exports of technology, expertise and institution-building skills.
There exists much scope for our SMEs to enter and thrive in those Commonwealth markets, with access and performance eased by harmonised legal, regulatory and language frameworks—a happy circumstance described as “the Commonwealth advantage”. Many SMEs have not exported to the EU in part because of bureaucratic burden. They could and should now seize every opportunity offered for trade within the Commonwealth. I welcome the inaugural Trade Ministers meeting and the recognition of the timely benefits of improved intra-Commonwealth trade, industry and investment. The secretariat and the CFTC are well placed to co-ordinate Commonwealth business requests centrally, while Her Majesty’s Government can officially support Commonwealth development finance initiatives, such as the trade finance facility, that dovetail with their own. That is mutually beneficial.
Why is it important to engage at this level? There is far more at stake here than just the trade numbers, attractive though they are. The Prime Minister of Malta, speaking to Heads of Government at the most recent CHOGM, reminded us of the Commonwealth’s youth who, just like ours, can easily become aggrieved by being out of the loop, alienated by lack of respect, a poor standard of living and unemployment—and as easily seduced by extremist propaganda. Prime Minister Muscat pointed out:
“Terrorists are more scared of well-educated girls and boys who manage to get a good job than they will ever be of any army”.
Look no further than to the heartrending affair in Nigeria’s north-east.
We therefore have a shared interest in seeking to improve education and job opportunities for our young at home and, importantly, across the Commonwealth. To do so would assist in reducing migration—irregular or otherwise—by mitigating the conditions propelling peoples to flee their home countries. In turn, perilous journeys to the European mainland could be reduced, far right policies would have less traction and people traffickers would be put out of business. That is a win-win situation, well within our grasp.
I conclude, as I did in 1994, with the wisdom of Mr Arnold Smith, the first Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, when he remarked:
“100 years from now, I suggest, historians will consider the Commonwealth the greatest of all Britain’s contributions to man’s social and political history”.
I trust that today, the message will travel Commonwealth-wide: your partner and friend is back.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay for her introduction and her leadership in international development matters and, now, the Commonwealth. I want us to think of the Commonwealth as a global community which, like any community, will have very mixed ingredients, as we have already heard. Although it is important in our present moment to look at the potential for trade and its enriching, I want us to look at the wider context in which the meeting is happening and what the agenda for the Heads of Government might be to be fruitful.
I give your Lordships some headlines about the context in which the meeting in 2018 will almost certainly take place. We are moving into a time of increasing uncertainties about political values and identities—one where there are uncertainties about the liberal democratic institutions that so many of us have taken for granted. We are moving into a time of uncertainty about the viability of human rights. It seems to me that as the rhetoric and the noise about human rights get louder, there is more and more inequality, exclusion, poverty and suffering. We are moving into a time of populism, which is a mood expressing an emotional explosion from people but has no political shape or direction. That creates frustration and instability. We are moving into a time where the way to gather political consensus is to have a negative that people can all join in opposing. These are very testing times. This will be a unique meeting of leaders of 52 countries to make an impact in that kind of world.
I invite us to think positively, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has, about the Commonwealth and its potential, and for this meeting to be a significant moment in these testing times. The first thing I remind us of is that the Commonwealth is connected by common DNA and a common head. I stand here as a Bishop in the Church of England. Noble Lords will know that the Church of England is always rent apart by all kinds of disputes, different angles and different perspectives. That is almost inevitable because we represent all the people of the country. But we have a common head: the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church. That is a very powerful sign that whatever our differences and struggles, they need to be tackled in an ordered way under a common frame. The Commonwealth models that in the politically challenging world in which we are set: the importance of a holding loyalty, a common DNA and an ordered development, despite all the differences on the ground that people might bring to the table.
The second thing I want to commend about the Commonwealth is that by definition it is full of cultural and religious pluralism—the very things that test our understanding of who we are and what the political task is. India would be a good example of a struggle with cultural and religious pluralism. The Commonwealth has a charter, which is an invitation to subscribe to and go in a direction together that gives space for people to access it in their own way. There is a realism and maturity about that. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, there are different speeds and aspirations about human rights and LGBT people. We have to recognise that that is where we start from. The idea of the charter and the words the noble Lord quoted at the beginning of his speech give a common sense of direction and challenge all those in the charter to try to pursue it.
We live in a world where religious tensions make us see religion as negative, but many of the partners in the Commonwealth are places of deep spirituality and strong faith values. We need to see how that human spirit that desires faith and goodness can be nurtured and held together politically and economically. I invite noble Lords to think about a religious word. We live in a world that I see as a contract: “I’ll do this and you do that and we’ll try to find a way of making it work”. A religious word for holding people together is covenant, which is about the spirit in people that can unite them and give them a sense of direction. It was the word “spirit” that Her Majesty used on Monday in her address. I hope that leaders can show a spirit and exemplify it on the world stage, despite the differences of speed, aspiration, history, culture and religion—a spirit of the covenant to be walking together. That is a very profound thing that the Commonwealth has in its DNA. It is not prevalent on the world stage and it could be easily swept aside if we look just at trade, where we do need a contract to get the money we are due in the exchange. There is a deeper register that the Commonwealth can model.
I have another point on scale. The Commonwealth is 52 countries—what a huge bloc within the United Nations, which is 192 nations. How can this meeting galvanise that bloc about the sense of direction and the generous values and goodness in our DNA that is willing to have an ordered element under a common head? How can that help the United Nations get some purchase in this very challenging world?
That brings me finally to the sustainable development goals. That is a global agenda. This meeting could be a public laboratory on how 52 of the most diverse nations can look at the sustainable development goals and say, “We can make a difference in these ways”. I am involved in a movement called the Global Sustainability Network, sponsored by the Vatican, the Church of England, Muslim leaders and many others, trying to look at goal 8 on sustainability and modern slavery, which the Pope brought together in his encyclical Laudato si’. The Commonwealth is a very interesting place where sustainability, slavery, migration and trafficking could be looked at. All the ingredients and complexities are present, but this sense of covenant and common commitment might get some political purchase in the real world.
I welcome this opportunity of hosting the Heads of Government. I hope there will be some important work on trade, mutual flourishing and developing the institution creatively. I hope we will remember that the Commonwealth needs to be celebrated as a community with a covenant and with a sense of direction the world badly needs to see modelled positively and well.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Commonwealth Society and chair of the Council of Commonwealth Societies. I greatly welcome this debate and the heightened interest it reflects in the Commonwealth and its development. Indeed, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay on the personal contribution she has made to this developing interest. It has been enormous and we should recognise that. I greatly welcome all of the excellent speeches that have been made so far this afternoon—and there are many more to come.
Some people have somehow related the Commonwealth’s future to our present dilemmas and debates about how Brexit will work out and about the single market. I have never seen the Commonwealth as in any way a substitute for access to the single market—which, of course, all countries have and we will continue to have, although we hope with some special arrangements now to be negotiated. The two bodies are totally different in character, origin, structure and relevance to the UK economy. While the EU is a political construct, the modern Commonwealth is an organic growth. While the EU is a mixture of supranational tendencies and intergovernmental co-operation developed with great skill over the years, today’s Commonwealth draws its strength from the extraordinary connectivity at countless non-governmental levels that a common working language, common legal procedures, common accounting and commercial practices, cultural links of all sorts, a shared history and perhaps above all shared values allow and reinforce. What has emerged is a grass-roots-driven structure that could prove to be surprisingly more suitable to the expansion of trade and exchange in the digital age than the more dated trade blocs with a heavy top-down bias towards centralisation, scale and integration.
When the Commonwealth Trade Ministers met last week at Lancaster House in London for the first time ever, under the inspiration and leadership of my noble friend Lord Marland and with heavy support from the City of London, I heard some voices questioning whether this was really worthwhile. Some people said that the Commonwealth was not a trade bloc and never would be. That is right—I do not think so, anyway. Some asked what possible common interest there could be between giant nations such as India and the many small island states of the Commonwealth, and what the UK’s economic interest in such a disparate grouping could be.
What those doubters were and are ignoring is that the nature of global trade has changed in the last decade radically, fundamentally and disruptively, and is continuing to do so fast. In effect, in what people call a fourth globalisation, production has become largely internationalised, with separate stages and processes being spread between different countries in a maze of new global value chains. Gone are the simple days when one country made a product and exported it to another, or one country imported raw materials and then churned out finished goods. The bulk of emerging market trade now is between each other—with one another. That is a vast change in the last two decades.
McKinsey has calculated that the soaring trade flows of data and information connecting up this transformed world of fragmented and dispersed production actually generate more economic value than the whole of global goods trade—which is a vital point for us here in Britain, given that we are an 80% of GDP service economy. These are conditions in which like-minded countries, with minimum language and culture barriers and maximum similarities in legal and commercial procedures, are bound to be the winners. This is the serendipity of the scene: by luck as much as by good judgment or planning, the modern Commonwealth network fits like a glove on this new pattern and framework. That is the message that came over so strongly at Lancaster House last week, and it is a message that certainly my noble friend has accepted and that the Government as a whole have now grasped. Even some of the media may have grasped it; even the BBC may have grasped—faintly—what is happening.
I greatly welcome the development of this planned approach and pathway to the Commonwealth summit in the spring of next year, and I greatly welcome the appointment of a powerful Cabinet Office team, led by Tim Hitchens, to oversee—on a government-wide basis, not just on foreign policy, and in association with non-government agencies—a whole range of activities leading up to the occasion. Of course, I also greatly welcome the decision of Her Majesty the Queen to make Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle available for Commonwealth summit events for the first time in history.
One further consideration is that we have now the colossally expanded dominance of China trade in the supply chain nexus, as the one belt, one road programme opens up central Asia. It is the biggest investment in history, labelled now at $3 trillion—but possibly it will go further than that. When you add that to the pattern that I have described of digital trade transformation, it really becomes blindingly obvious just where trade strategies should be taking us—in other words, towards the closest possible ties with our friends old and new, in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Of course, the Commonwealth network is not that only beneficiary of this new trade landscape, but with English as the working language and with dozens of Commonwealth-wide professional links, with a network of 530 universities operating within a linked Commonwealth system and with a ferment of digital exchange of deals and initiatives expanding daily, it cannot but be the ideal and superbly fertilised seedbed in which both trade and investment of every sort are bound to flourish.
I will make one more point—in fact, more than one point—in the time available. The WTO rules have been downgraded by some people, but in fact they permit and encourage this new kind of trade rather efficiently. I commend for study the WTO trade facilitation agreement, which came into operation only last week and which offers still further encouragement and opportunities for open and free trade for everyone. That is what brought the Commonwealth Ministers together last week—and that answers the question of why they have not come together before. Unsurprisingly, this new momentum is attracting interest in the Commonwealth club from a growing number of other countries that would like to be in some way associated with it—one striking example being the Republic of Ireland. I hope that Ministers in our Government and the secretariat will consider its interest favourably.
There are other surprising interests. From Washington under the new President came word that they would like to know more about the Commonwealth. Indeed, I can report that the Royal Commonwealth Society has been encouraged to set up a branch in New York—and that is steaming ahead. On a lighter note, through the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this morning I had a note from Liechtenstein asking what chance it had of joining the Commonwealth. So the word is around that this is a club worth joining.
Some time ago, the head of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty the Queen, with more percipience than many of her Ministers, described the modern Commonwealth as,
“in lots of ways, the face of the future”.
The description and prediction are both right and far-sighted. It could be said that, while the recent London assembly of Trade Ministers and the planned Commonwealth summit next year are about the future, the negotiations about to commence in Brussels to reform our relationship with the old EU into a new one are more about reforming the past than building this new future that is emerging.
I have one more comment to make in the minute that is left. Although so much of the Commonwealth is non-governmental, we need a strong and supportive secretariat. There is absolutely no doubt that there has been a campaign of vilification, largely unfair, against the Secretary-General, when she has been trying to do her utmost to reform and streamline the Commonwealth Secretariat organisation. Those who have indulged in this or gone along with it should examine their motives. We want a free press to print facts and opinions, not vicious and distorted rumours and abuse.
We live in a world falling apart yet coming together. The information and communication revolution, as it continues to unfold at breakneck speed, connects people and interests on a scale never before seen in world history. At the same time, it triggers powerful forces of devolution, separatism and rejection of central authority from which no country is immune, including ours and others in Europe. Within this unsettled and dangerous context, the Commonwealth, with its self-binding tendencies and common ties, reinforced by information technology, assumes a more central role not just for the United Kingdom but for the cause of global peace and security generally. For the UK in a post-Brexit world, the case for a decisive strategy of redirection, not only of trade and investment but of linkages of all kinds and both ways, towards the Commonwealth and developing country markets of interests, now assumes the highest priority.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for introducing this debate so well and for all the incredible work that she does on behalf of this country and with our partner countries in the Commonwealth, and congratulate Ambassador Hitchens on his appointment to this important role. He is a superb ambassador who will do a fantastic job, and I am sure he is absolutely delighted to be taking on something so positive at the moment, when there may have been other options elsewhere in the Government.
One of the early pleasures I enjoyed as Education Minister in the Scottish Government in 2000 was attending the Commonwealth Education Ministers’ summit in Nova Scotia. Rather cheekily, I invited the Education Ministers to hold their next summit in Edinburgh in 2004. Little did I know then that I would be First Minister by the time they arrived. We organised alongside the education summit the Commonwealth youth assembly, which was the first of its kind, and which I think to this day is repeated as part of the education summit, turning a fairly stale occasion when Education Ministers simply swap information about their various initiatives in their own countries into a much more lively and dynamic occasion about the future of these young people. Perhaps that model of engaging young people across the Commonwealth is an idea the Government might be willing to take on board for CHOGM in the UK in 2018.
I think we would all agree that the young people of the Commonwealth, as across the world, will determine the future and deal with many of the problems mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. The new United Nations Deputy Secretary-General, Amina Mohammed, has made it clear that we must,
“empower youth to participate in and shape the political and economic lives of their countries and communities; to be the agents of peace and development”.
In this year of peacebuilding for the Commonwealth, one of the most perceptive comments has been made by the Commonwealth Young Person of the Year, Achaleke Christian Leke; I hope I pronounced his name correctly. He is from Cameroon and leads an organisation called Local Youth Corner Cameroon, which is engaged in peacebuilding and countering violent extremism in that country. To mark Commonwealth Day, this week he said that peacebuilding comes from the heart—that we cannot just rely on Governments to engage in peacebuilding, but that if we all engage in it we can make the world a better and more peaceful place. That resonated with me because the Commonwealth, while it has over the years engaged in conflict prevention and occasionally conflict resolution, could do so much more in that area. I sincerely hope that 2017—this Commonwealth year of peacebuilding—will not be a one-off; peacebuilding has to be at the core of the work of the Commonwealth not just this year but in the years to come.
As part of the sustainable development goals—I think they are now called the global goals for sustainable development—the United Nations member states agreed goal 16, which is to:
“Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”.
If that is not a core purpose of the Commonwealth in the 21st century, I would like to know what is. As our own ambassador to the United Nations, Matthew Rycroft, said recently, following a visit to the Lake Chad Basin, you have only to visit a place like it to understand just how important goal 16 is. With a United Nations that is perhaps overloaded with conflicts around the world to resolve and sometimes prevent, and with perhaps a challenge now to continental-based multilateral organisations following what has happened recently to the European Union, international co-operative organisations such as the Commonwealth could step up and help much more with the international effort on goal 16. The building of those democratic, stable, reliable institutions and the proper execution of the rule of law would fit well with the Commonwealth charter, but also with the challenges faced in our world in what are still the early years of the 21st century.
We need to remember that while we might have a moral duty to speak up for peace and justice in the Commonwealth, we also have a moral responsibility to development. The Commonwealth contains many of the poorest countries in the world. In Malawi, the twin threats of climate and population change are yet again this year causing serious issues, not just of poverty but of hunger. In Cameroon, the increase in population has negated much of the economic improvement there and, of course, the spillover of the conflict in Nigeria is affecting millions in that country. Nigeria—a wealthy country in many ways—still has the third-highest number of people living in poverty of any country in the world. Swaziland has one of the highest levels of HIV/AIDS in the world, and Mozambique one of the highest levels of malaria. Those problems and others are replicated in parts of India, Pakistan and some countries in the Caribbean and among the Pacific islands.
That means that our responsibility as a United Kingdom is not just to trade with the Commonwealth, but to ensure continued development of those countries in the Commonwealth. I worry that, at times, some of the more enthusiastic supporters of Brexit over the last year or two have sounded as though they would like to return to the days of the 19th and 20th centuries when we exploited the countries of the Commonwealth rather than worked with them as partners. It is critically important to recognise that, while we can trade with some countries in the Commonwealth on an even-handed basis, other countries in it need the building of a safe and secure business environment—the capacity-building that ensures that—before we are able to trade fairly with them. We need to approach that agenda with determination but also with humility, remembering our legacy and history, not just looking to serve immediate British economic interests in the short term.
Finally, I want to touch briefly on the great celebration that is the Commonwealth Games, which will happen next year alongside the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. I had the immense pleasure last week of meeting Kate Jones, the Minister for the Commonwealth Games in Queensland, Australia. If her energy and enthusiasm are anything to go by, the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games next year will be a very successful and enjoyable occasion. I will always remember the tears of Bobby Charlton in Manchester when he saw his city transformed by an event that put it on the stage globally; the first night in the swimming pool in Melbourne, when Scotland led the medals table at the heart of swimming down under; and, in particular, the fabulous Games in Glasgow in 2014—a spectacular sporting and cultural festival that did so much both for the city and for great relations among the young people of the Commonwealth. Next year, we will have that opportunity again. Kate Jones asked me to invite in this debate Members of your Lordships’ Chamber to take the opportunity next year to visit the Gold Coast and Queensland and enjoy the experience for themselves. I hope that many noble Lords will do so.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Royal Commonwealth Society, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for securing this important debate. I am a great admirer of her work at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I appreciate her personal commitment to strengthening the Commonwealth, which is very close to my heart. That commitment will surely only gain in importance as Britain looks to a new future outside the EU. However, I raise an issue on which I would like a change of approach from the Government ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting next year. That issue is frozen British state pensions, about which I have spoken several times in this House.
The freezing or active exclusion of some British people who live overseas from the annual uprating adjustments to state pensions is a national shame and a great injustice. It could affect any British citizen. The impact is predominantly felt by recipients living in the Commonwealth. In fact, of the 550,000 British state pensioners living with a frozen pension worldwide, 520,000 live in the Commonwealth. That includes 247,000 in Australia, 144,000 in Canada, 65,000 in New Zealand and 36,000 in South Africa. There are substantial numbers in other countries too—India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, Antigua, St Lucia, Montserrat and other overseas British territories. The list goes on and on.
Let us be very clear. As a country, we, like other modern nations, rightly recognise that entitlement to a state pension should continue when a person moves overseas. That entitlement is linked to national insurance contributions made over the years, not to place of residence. But Britain is currently alone in our uniquely inconsistent approach when it comes to uprating policy. While our pensioners at home benefit from the triple lock, our pensioners overseas face a bewildering lottery of entitlement. Those who live in the EU, or more accurately the EEA, are protected by the social security provisions of the single market, and continue—at least for now—to get their pensions uprated as they would at home. So too do those living in a handful of other countries, including America, Turkey, Israel and the Philippines, where historic bilateral arrangements are in place. But for British pensioners living in most of the Commonwealth, their state pensions are frozen, with recipients destined to receive the same weekly rate for as long as they remain overseas.
One of the greatest benefits of the Commonwealth to Great Britain is surely the continuing economic and cultural ties that the countries in it have with the United Kingdom, and vice versa. Generally, what has preserved these links has undoubtedly been the historic and continuing movement of people. But many British people who decide to leave the UK and retire elsewhere—for a variety of reasons—are in for a nasty shock. In the Caribbean, for example, one of the biggest constant issues that British high commissioners have to deal with is that of frozen pensions.
I know from my correspondence bag that mild bewilderment quickly turns to an understandable anger and resentment when those who have worked all their lives in the UK discover, often only after having moved overseas, that they will be landed with a frozen pension. It does not take great intelligence to work out the impact of pension freezing: incomes fall in real terms year-on-year. For the first few years it is an inconvenience but, as time goes by, it is a more serious concern. I met an 85 year-old recently who had had their state pension frozen since their retirement to Canada in 1998. At that time the state pension was £64.70 a week, and that is therefore what he continues to receive to this day. He is £25,000 poorer today than he would have been with an uprated pension and now, understandably, struggles to get by on his own income without the support of his family. He is, sadly, not alone. There are many older—and, as a result, poorer—frozen pensioners out there.
It really is a myth that all Brits who live overseas are wealthy. On the contrary, many rely on their state pension income just as they would at home. People migrate for many different reasons—sometimes for work, sometimes for health reasons, and often to be closer to their families, to help with grandchildren. The last thing they want to be is a financial burden, but without an uprated pension, frozen pensioners are losing their independence and facing pensioner poverty, which should shame us all.
We are invited today to debate how the UK might strengthen its relationship with the Commonwealth. It is a credit to the Minister that relations with the countries of the Commonwealth are generally so friendly. But the noble Baroness will be aware that frozen pensions remain a rare diplomatic grievance and that many Commonwealth leaders are openly puzzled by our approach to our own citizens abroad. We will need to do trade deals with these countries in the next few years, and this issue is likely to be raised time and again in this context.
I did not want to mention the “B” word in this debate, but there is no way to avoid it. The Brexit process is also likely to bring the frozen pension issue to the fore. Many of the 492,000 retired British expats living in the EEA are increasingly concerned that the Government have not provided more reassurance to them. They are living in fear that, without the legal protections of the single market, they too will end up with frozen pensions like their Commonwealth counterparts. In fact, when I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, about this matter in the House last year, she was very clear that state pensions are uprated,
“only where we have a legal requirement to do so”.—[Official Report, 24/2/16; col. 251.]
My understanding, therefore, is that the Government will now either need to determine a legally binding social security deal as part of the exit package or be forced to act unilaterally to maintain uprating rights for EU-resident British pensioners. Either way, I propose that the Government should take this opportunity—when so much else is up in the air—to take a more fundamental look at their approach to payment of the state pension overseas. A modern, global Britain should surely recognise that the movement of its people is a good thing. A modern state pension system should recognise, support and encourage this, especially at a time when our ageing population is putting increasing strains on public services here at home.
In the case of the Commonwealth, with increasing numbers of those who came to the UK in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s now considering a return in their retirement years, there is surely an obligation not to penalise them, while allowing full rights elsewhere. Many of them helped to make Britain great over the years. The Commonwealth will surely be stronger if Britain recognises that it cannot expect only to enjoy the benefits of membership when it needs it, but that it must also meet its obligations when people move the other way. Will the Government consider putting right this injustice as soon as possible? I believe that change on this issue is possible and would be the right thing to do, as it would do much to strengthen Commonwealth relations in years to come. This should be part of our legacy for our Commonwealth family. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this issue.
Lord Goodlad (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who has done so much to entertain and inspire young people in this country and no doubt in other parts of the Commonwealth. I very much share her concern about the overseas pensioners to whom she referred and about whom I was greatly concerned when I was in Australia. She is quite right that the Government now have an opportunity to look at the issue again. I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay on her introduction of this debate, and particularly on her tremendous work as our Commonwealth Minister.
The term Commonwealth of Nations was first used by Lord Rosebery, speaking in Adelaide in 1884, 10 years before he became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He was probably down under for the Melbourne Cup. Little can he or his hearers—who then thought only about the British Empire—have imagined what the Commonwealth of today would be. Those of us who have been privileged to visit most of and live and work in some of the countries of the Commonwealth, truly do feel part of a worldwide family, with shared values, vulnerabilities, hopes and aspirations.
The recent meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers at Marlborough House, to which my noble friend referred, clearly signified a new determination to make the Commonwealth a driving force for a better world. The resolutions about global trade, protectionism, the sustainable development goals, the so-called Commonwealth advantage, the needs of small vulnerable economies, intra-Commonwealth trade and investment, and a commitment to regular Trade Minister meetings in the future have produced a practical agenda for the secretariat. I am sure, from what we have heard from my noble friend, that the Government will play a leading part in forwarding that agenda.
I declare an interest as president of the Overseas Service Pensioners Association, which represents the surviving members of what was Her Majesty’s Overseas Civil Service, who were responsible for the administration and development of the former colonial territories that now constitute the great majority of the member countries of the Commonwealth. I inherited that interest some years ago from the late Lord Waddington, to whom your Lordships recently paid tribute and who is remembered by the Overseas Service Pensioners Association with affection, respect and gratitude.
Her Majesty’s Overseas Civil Service came to an end in 1997 with the transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong to China, but the pensioner members are living out their lifespans remembering, I believe with justifiable pride, the achievements of their lifetime’s service. Their dwindling numbers have led to the planned ending of the association later this year. The records of the service—and of the origins, therefore, of the Commonwealth—are being carefully safeguarded and enhanced by academic institutions here for posterity. Several hundred members of the association from all over the world will converge for a final event in London in June. They and their predecessors have made an immense contribution not only to the administration and development of the former colonial territories but to the very ethos of the Commonwealth as we know it today. I believe that we owe them all a debt of gratitude.
My noble friend the Minister is aware of the privations which have been suffered in recent years by those retired British officers who agreed with the British Government’s request to stay at their posts after the unilateral declaration of independence in Southern Rhodesia, and again after Southern Rhodesia’s independence. Despite the British Government’s assurance at the time of the Lancaster House agreement, and by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who I am delighted to see in his place, that the constitution would contain full safeguards for pensions, the pensions owing to many of those pensioners by the Government of Zimbabwe have in recent years not been paid. Those involved now number between 1,200 and 1,500 people living in various countries. A debate was held in this House some years ago, introduced by Lord Waddington, during which the then Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown—gave some hope that Her Majesty’s Government might give some help to those pensioners, but that help was not forthcoming. Since then, there has been much correspondence and meetings with Ministers and officials, for which the association is grateful, but so far to no avail. I hope that, even at this late stage, my noble friend the Minister will be able to offer some hope that the Government will now look seriously at every possible way—perhaps through supporting the proposed Zimbabwe public service pension fund—of alleviating the undeserved penury, and indeed, in some cases, worse, of these loyal former servants of the Crown. Many people, including myself, regard it as if not a legal obligation, a moral obligation and a debt of honour.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, set out her personal vision of the Commonwealth in the Romanes Lecture in Oxford a few weeks ago. It is a very remarkable agenda and the noble and learned Baroness deserves all our support in fulfilling it. I wholly endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Howell in saying that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, deserves—and I am quite sure will receive—the full support of Members of this House.
The setting up of the Commonwealth Office of Civil and Criminal Justice Reform is potentially a ground-breaking development. To share templates for legislative reform and best practice in Commonwealth jurisdictions will benefit us all. Partnerships with the judiciary, prosecutors, police, national human rights institutions, international agencies and civil society organisations will make a widespread difference. The Tackling Corruption Together conference last May showed the determination of leaders in government, civil society and business to agree on practical steps to expose and make at least a dent in corruption. Although Hong Kong is sadly no longer a member of the Commonwealth, I hope that the experience of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which has been such an enormous success there, can be built on elsewhere. This is an immensely sensitive area and the values and qualities that the Commonwealth countries share could, if successfully applied, have great potential not only in the Commonwealth but throughout the world.
The Commonwealth has been rightly described as a network of networks—networks of states, Governments, businesses and institutions, with fluid and dynamic patterns of allegiance, alliances and friendships, linked by our shared history, language, legal systems and values. We now live in the digital age—a new network linking the millions of young people in the Commonwealth who represent a huge proportion of the population of the Commonwealth, and who will be texting and tweeting each other with ever-increasing velocity as the years go by, bringing everybody closer and closer together.
I am totally delighted that the present Government are so wholly committed to the future of the Commonwealth in the ways in which my noble friend Lady Anelay so eloquently outlined. I join other noble Lords who have spoken in the hope and belief that, in the words of Ben Okri inscribed into the stone pillar of the Commonwealth Gates:
“Our future is greater than our past”.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to hear and to follow the wise words of my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad.
The Minister has set out the ideals of the Commonwealth with her usual care, attention and deliberation, for which we are grateful. She has chosen an opportune time for this debate as we withdraw from the European Union. It is now fashionable—and we are hearing some of this today—to seize the moment of Brexit and call it an opportunity for all sorts of new trading arrangements, most notably with the Commonwealth, which is seen once again as a golden global alternative to the European Union.
When my father was a prominent anti-Marketeer in the 1960s, he and his “Suez group” used to talk endlessly about Commonwealth preferences and say that our EU membership was selling our oldest Anglo-Saxon cousins and ex-colonies down the river. I was sailing firmly in the opposite direction, studying the EU’s institutions and European languages, determined that we in the UK should stop pretending to be a world power and recognise the realities of our position between Europe and the Atlantic. This is the view that I broadly hold to today.
Now that we have moved on, I want to scrutinise the negotiations very carefully, particularly on trade. I know that by leaving the European Union, which, although it needs radical reform, I still believe to have been a foolish decision, we and our overseas partners are likely to incur enormous losses if we are not careful, as well as finding so-called opportunities, and we have to recognise that. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, it is not an either/or situation. I am a tremendous fan of the Commonwealth. I have lived in India and visited many Commonwealth countries. The Secretariat has reminded us of the many aid and technical assistance programmes the Commonwealth already offers to developing countries to improve their trading positions.
I spoke during Second Reading and Committee of the withdrawal Bill on the effects of Brexit on the poorest developing countries. The jury is, of course, still out on the true costs, and will be out for some months to come. However, already the Overseas Development Institute and others have estimated that poor countries will lose hundreds of millions of pounds currently received from Europe under the various treaties and conventions mentioned by my noble friend Lord Waverley. Therefore, I looked eagerly through the Secretariat’s briefing for any signs to the contrary, but according to it, too, Brexit could cost Commonwealth developing countries as much as $800 million if comparable EU preferences are unavailable, and that is a big if.
I received some reassurance in a letter on 9 March from our Brexit Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, which states:
“The Government is committed to ensuring developing countries can reduce poverty through trading opportunities”.
He also says:
“DIT and DflD are working closely on the UK’s future trade policy”.
I am comforted by this, and I am quite sure that he and his fellow Brexit Ministers genuinely want to ensure that the trade interests of the poorest countries are properly protected.
But how can this best be done? The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, have already pointed the way. It seems to me a very powerful argument—namely, to place the 17 sustainable development goals and their related 169 targets much higher on the Commonwealth agenda, and the agenda of the next CHOGM in particular. In this way, Commonwealth members can all be aware that poverty reduction is the central focus for any aid or trade arrangements. This applies in particular to smaller and island states—highlighted by the noble Baroness, who has visited some of them—and to countries most affected by civil war, climate change and natural disasters.
This will also imply a much greater use of DflD funds to offset some of the losses in trade which we know will occur. The use of the Commonwealth Development Corporation could be helpful here. If the CDC is genuinely linked to poverty reduction, as it is attempting to be, then the use of the private sector in strengthening infrastructure such as rural roads and in other ways stimulating local economies and small businesses, for both men and women, in the poorer Commonwealth countries will be vital.
Some countries—not just small ones—are still highly dependent on the UK and are likely to remain so. There are three Commonwealth developing countries that send a substantial proportion—over 19%—of their total world exports to the UK: for Botswana, it is over half, or 54.4%; for Belize the figure is 22.7%; and for the Seychelles it is 19.3%. The UK takes more than 70% of the EU exports of two small island states, St Lucia and Tuvalu.
The question of free trade agreements came up in our own EU External Affairs Sub-Committee report, published last December, but the Government’s thinking has moved on since then. The subject cropped up again during the Commons International Trade Select Committee’s first inquiry into the UK’s trade options post-2019, published on 7 March. That committee is quite clear that, although free trade agreements and the new WTO arrangements, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, may work for the EU and developed countries, they can actually be to the detriment of some developing countries.
The committee was reminded by the Fairtrade Foundation that economic partnership agreements offered by the EU were resisted by many developing countries, which had to sign them under threat of tariff imposition. A much fairer solution, argued by all the major aid agencies, would be to offer non-reciprocal, tariff-free access to the most vulnerable countries, including the least developed, which currently benefit from everything but arms agreements and the generalised system of preferences—GSP Plus.
Although I know that the Minister can give no guarantees, I am sure that when she winds up she will want to make the connection between aid and trade as one response to the detrimental losses that will be caused by Brexit. She will, I feel, also want to mention the benchmarks set by the SDGs in relation to our trading arrangements with all these countries. I look forward to hearing that that is indeed the case and being told what the Government are working on.
Finally, I want to say a word about Nepal. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has heard this once or perhaps twice before, but I remain firmly of the view that Nepal should be encouraged to apply to join the Commonwealth. I have been in touch with our ambassador in Kathmandu about this over a long period, and he is coming to London next week. I simply urge the FCO to do all it can to persuade the Nepalese that it would be in their best interests to join. It is a very independent nation. It does not want to be seen as a former colony or anything like that, but it needs to be encouraged, quite soon after its own difficulties and civil war, to accept that this would help it move forward.
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a British citizen of Indian origin born in Uganda, I enjoy a triple connection with the Commonwealth. I was therefore drawn—almost like a magnetic field—towards speaking in today’s debate.
I would like to focus on two themes. The first is the relative roles of Britain and India as two linchpins among the Commonwealth’s 52 members. In doing so, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the various roles that I play in this bilateral relationship, including as a member of the UK-India CEO Forum. Secondly, I would like to suggest some bold steps which the Commonwealth should consider to secure its relevance well into the 21st century.
Britain’s interest in rejuvenating the Commonwealth is self-evident. It suits our post-Brexit narrative and objectives, particularly on trade. However, multilateral organisations are not fashionable at the moment, given the rise of nationalistic and protectionist tendencies, so we should legitimately ask: why would 51 countries want to play ball with us? Before turning to this fundamental question, I should like to address India’s role.
The modern Commonwealth effectively started in 1949 with the London Declaration, which allowed India to remain a member even though it was no longer a dominion, and thereby it became the first republic to do so. As part of this settlement, India agreed to accept the British sovereign as a symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and, as such, as Head of the Commonwealth.
This pragmatic solution secured the participation of India, which could easily have taken a more anti-imperialist stand. To its credit, India’s leadership was more far-sighted and adopted Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of “forget and forgive”. Speaking on 17 May 1949 to the Indian Parliament, Prime Minister Nehru—previously an arch opponent of continued Commonwealth membership—said that,
“I had a feeling when I was considering this matter in London … in a small measure perhaps, I had done something that would have met with the approval of Gandhiji”.
Today, India represents more than half the Commonwealth population of 2.4 billion and is the joint largest economy alongside the UK. For obvious reasons, Britain has historically been seen as primus inter pares among Commonwealth members but I believe it is a mantle that should now be shared with India. This might be seen as a sensitive subject but we should not be afraid to address it directly. This is not to dilute the equal value and status of every member but it recognises the geopolitical realities and choices open to an emerging superpower such as India, for which a seat on the UN Security Council is long overdue and only a matter of time.
The second area which we should assess candidly is the future ingredients of success. Yes, the Commonwealth enjoys some alluring features: scale, growth, youth and diversity. All these are certainly necessary but in my view not sufficient to take the organisation to the next level. I would like to offer three specific suggestions.
The first is to aggressively add new members. As statisticians will confirm, the power of any network is proportionate to the square of the number of nodes, so that each new member is of increasing value to the others. It is hugely positive that Mozambique and Rwanda have joined in recent years and that South Sudan and Gambia are in the queue. However, the Commonwealth needs to be much more ambitious. Why not attract Japan or the Gulf states, or even some European countries—perhaps those sitting outside the eurozone? Given the shifting plates of the world geopolitical order, this is an opportune moment to be brave and think big.
The second proposal is to create a sharper financial focus that provides some glue to bind us together. I mentioned the relative unpopularity of multilateral organisations but it is interesting to note that two new bodies have been created in recent years, both of them banks: the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the BRICS’ New Development Bank. The idea of a Commonwealth bank has been doing the rounds for some time but there is little point in creating a copycat entity. However, the other two are focused on infrastructure and development respectively, so there does appear to be a gap in the market for an institution focused on global trade finance. This would provide a sharper and more practical focus for the Commonwealth and should be considered very carefully.
Thirdly, I believe that it is appropriate to review the leadership profile of the organisation. In doing so, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am in no way criticising the current or previous secretariat of the Commonwealth and I fully echo the comments of my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Goodlad in support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland. However, I feel strongly that the role of Secretary-General should be seen as one of the top global roles that public servants covet in the same way that there is fierce jockeying for position to become the UN Secretary-General, the head of the IMF or president of the European Council. We should absolutely aspire to entice a David Cameron or a Stephen Harper; a Kevin Rudd or a Manmohan Singh to become Secretary-General. This would be a worthy ambition and help to take the organisation to the next level.
We might apply the “visitor from Mars” test to the Commonwealth and ask whether we would create the organisation if it did not exist today. My heart, influenced by my triple Commonwealth identity, would, of course, say yes, but my head would hesitate a little more. However, given that the Commonwealth does exist, we should unequivocally build and strengthen it further so that it achieves its full potential.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I, too, join with noble friends to thank my noble friend Lady Anelay for this debate. The Commonwealth is a 21st century, ahead of the curve multilateral, as its modus operandi is network. Over the last few years, we have heard of networking lunches, networking the room and of course virtual networks, so I join my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Goodlad in assessing this as part of the essential DNA of this organisation. Her Majesty’s Government recognised that in evidence to the House of Lords committee on soft power, saying:
“The UK lies at the centre of an increasingly networked world”.
The report stated in relation to the Commonwealth that,
“it operates extensively at the level of people, below the radar of governmental and official contacts. This is of rapidly increasing significance in a world of personal and informal networks, where millions of individuals, groups and organisations are in daily and intimate contact”.
Engaging with the Commonwealth Initiative for Freedom of Religion and Belief, which I work for, I have seen its flexibility. You can get to know who is interested in your issue among the secretariat, high commissions, parliamentarians and NGOs without all the formality and bureaucracy of the UN. We selected the Commonwealth not only because of its parliamentary democracies in countries that have either freedom of religion or belief successes or issues, but because it is a network. Both the current UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Ahmed Shaheed, and the former postholder are on our advisory board, so it is clear to them that the role of the Commonwealth in human rights is important.
The word “relationship” is important. Relationships are at their best when they are mutually self-sacrificing. There is much talk in the Commonwealth that the UK is back but that, “You forgot us while you are in the EU, but now you need us. You told us in 1973 that we were the past and the EEC was the future”. There is a fear among countries of being used by us to service our own economic needs again, which resonates badly bearing in mind the Commonwealth’s complex origins. The UK’s relationship should be about engagement to bring wealth and peace to all the nations of the Commonwealth, sometimes putting aside national self-interest for the benefit of all—a Commonwealth of equal partners who can put on the table as well as intra-Commonwealth trade, intra-Commonwealth migration. The question for Her Majesty’s Government is how to avoid Brexit alone framing this event. The involvement of British citizens of Commonwealth heritage is crucial to making this a Commonwealth event. This again is a network that can provide a solution.
Our migration has historically been and still is Commonwealth-focused. From census material from 1971 through to 2011, of the top five countries where people are born outside the UK, three out of five in each of those decades are Commonwealth nations: India—as my noble friend outlined—Jamaica, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria. According to the 2001 census, 88,378 Nigerian-born people were resident in the United Kingdom. By 2011, the census recorded 191,183—a similar figure to that of South Africans.
CHOGM will take place just over two months from the 70th anniversary of the arrival of MV “Windrush” at Tilbury, so involving the Commonwealth’s diaspora needs to be a priority and include careful planning and advice from our vast Commonwealth diaspora who can aid FCO staff. I know that the Minister has reached out to the Caribbean diaspora, but the Foreign Secretary needs to play a key role as he has existing relationships from his time as Mayor of London. As I asked earlier this week, do the Government have a strategic plan to engage this diaspora and involve it in CHOGM?
Although I am sure that the Lord-Lieutenant of London, Ken Olisa—the first black man of Commonwealth heritage to hold that title—will play a high-profile role, how will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office handle the visual of the diplomatic corps? From my research, there are 34 high commissioners and they are all white. I use the word “handle” carefully as our diplomats are clearly being trained in digital technology. That is a group photograph that we do not wish to see. The Foreign Secretary hosting key British citizens of Commonwealth heritage could also make a plea for applicants for the Civil Service fast-track scheme at the same time. This is not just about issues on the agenda, but about creating a Commonwealth event and getting the hospitality right. One has only to go into the Robing Room in this building to see that it is an important value that is alive and well among many of Commonwealth diaspora. I remain saddened that the BBC never realised that the top dish on the Parliamentary Estate menu is jerk chicken with rice and beans, which outstrips everything else by a country mile.
Keeping the Commonwealth institutions at the centre of this event is also vital, as they represent the 52, not just the UK. Although there will be 60 civil servants helping to organise the event, they should not replace the role of the Secretary-General and her secretariat. Distance and respect by Whitehall are vital. I am grateful for the Minister’s outline of her support for the Secretary-General and her reforms, but reforms take resources, so I would be grateful if there could be discussions to ensure that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, has sufficient resources to bring about these reforms and that Her Majesty’s Government will seek to get other Governments to give her their similar wholehearted support at this crucial time.
Although trade will be a large part of the ongoing relationship with the Commonwealth, so is the connection through parliamentary democracy. The CPA has a vast network of relationships across the Commonwealth. How will Her Majesty’s Government ensure that the training of holding Governments to account, on which we spend so much UK taxpayers’ money, will be put into practice at CHOGM? Perhaps the six best-performing Commonwealth countries in terms of female political representation could be asked to lobby the Heads of Government for an initiative through the Commonwealth on this issue. Those six are all African nations. That is the kind of leadership of a new Commonwealth of equal partners that we need to see in action.
In the field of freedom of religion and belief, how much better if colleagues from South Africa, Ghana, Trinidad and the Pacific islands lead on this issue. I commend the efforts of South African parliamentarians attempting to form their own version of an all-party group on this issue in their Parliament. Will Her Majesty’s Government specifically resource parliamentarians to engage at CHOGM? I commend my noble friend’s comments that civil society is absolutely vital, but there is a youth forum, a people’s forum, a business forum and a women’s forum but no parliamentary forum alongside CHOGM. I join the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, in saying that we need to look at outdated laws. That includes laws on mental health issues, sedition laws and laws relating to religion. At the end of the day, the parliamentarians are the legislators.
The UK’s relationship with the Commonwealth network has a further unexplored potential. Her Majesty is the Head of State of 16 Commonwealth realms and the head of a religious organisation, the Church of England, but the UK remains religiously plural. Religion and state are connected but compliant with international human rights norms. The population of the Commonwealth is primarily Hindu, then Muslim and then Christian, and in many countries, if you want to make progress on human rights, on climate change and even on business, you need their religious leaders. I have visited Nigeria only once to speak briefly at an event called the Holy Ghost Congress of the Redeemed Christian Church of God. Some 1 million people were physically present and it was shown on cable TV. The Vice-President of Nigeria is a former member of the denomination, so think of the influencers and decision-makers who were in that audience. How is the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting going to include this mass transnational network and seek to understand its influence?
The Commonwealth is uniquely placed as the world faces network challenges, as my colleague Professor Monica Toft outlined recently in the IPPR periodical, Juncture:
“Given the nature of religious beliefs that transcend national boundaries, it is not surprising that radicalism and its attendant violence has been promulgated through loose networks”.
As my right honourable friend Alistair Burt said to me only this morning, there will be no peace without religious tolerance.
Finally, who will the delegates meet at the forum running up to CHOGM—not only the Heads of Government but the speakers at forums, the conference organisers, hospitality staff and security? Last night I looked in detail at the Chevening Commonwealth and Marshall schemes, which are funded by £42 million of UK taxpayers’ money, but I could not find an equivalent scheme for further education or apprenticeships. Soft power exists beyond academic influence in the professions and government nowadays. UK taxpayers, the majority of whom do not have a degree, should surely see Commonwealth apprentices so that every nation state has young people not only studying at our universities and who can attend CHOGM, but also young people learning skills. I hope my research skills have failed me as otherwise the use of UK taxpayers’ money could be portrayed as elitist, as does any suggestion of Empire 2.0. I am sure this must have been a misreporting as that kind of language does not convey the notion of a Commonwealth of 52 and plays into the paradigm of elites running this country. The only way to avoid appearing to use, and in fact using, this network only for our own ends is to reach out to British citizens of Commonwealth heritage to reframe this event, as we risk running a UK’s Commonwealth meeting, not a Commonwealth meeting hosted in the UK.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my entries in the register of interests, in particular as the founder and founding chair of Stonewall. I want to begin my remarks by congratulating my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, who became the Commonwealth Secretary-General in April last year and who has put human rights at the heart of her tenure. As noble Lords have said, she deserves our unreserved support. I welcome this debate and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on setting the tone in her opening speech because there is much to celebrate among the Commonwealth of 52 independent nations and sovereign states pursuing shared goals such as development, democracy and peace. The 52 nations represent a combined population of 2.4 billion people.
I am grateful to the many organisations which have written to tell us of the benefits of closer relations, closer trade and developing artistic and cultural relations, celebrating the diversity of the nations of the Commonwealth—here I quote the sign outside the Commonwealth Secretariat—“Coming together for the common good”. I wish to recognise the vital work undertaken by the Commonwealth Secretariat in so many areas, but particularly in the field of human rights: universal human rights. I cite the work that the secretariat has undertaken with its programme on national human rights institutions and strengthening the capacities of parliaments and parliamentarians to promote and protect human rights. It has also undertaken important work with the African Union, delivering the first African Girls’ Summit in 2015 and working with the University of Pretoria and the African Commission by convening child marriage dialogues with civil society, national human rights institutions and traditional and religious leaders.
It has undertaken work on LGBTI people’s rights, but that has proved to be much more difficult and states have been deeply resistant to change. The secretariat is rightly trying to build capacity for parliamentarians and institutions to understand the vulnerabilities and the violations faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people. It would be churlish of me not to recognise that the number of countries where LGBTI people are criminalised has reduced—from 41 countries to 36. I, too, recognise and pay tribute to those local LGBTI activists and small NGOs who have undertaken the fight for equality, often resorting to the courts and facing threats to their personal safety and space, to their livelihoods and indeed to their lives. They have shown and continue to show courage and bravery almost beyond imagining. This is the area on which I want to concentrate the Government’s mind and those of the heads of government of the Commonwealth.
Working together for the common good is the aspiration of all, but the benefits of doing so evaporate if you are LGBTI. You are in fact denied the common good and even the common protection of the law, let alone equality before the law. This equality does not exist in 36 out of the 52 states of the Commonwealth. That is a shameful record and one that must be put right. Far too often when we in the north raise our voices, we are accused of neo-colonialism—but our accusers fail to recognise that the laws were imposed on their countries hundreds of years ago by us, a colonial power, and that it is now time for them to throw off such colonial laws. This is where the Government could lead at the summit in 2018 by offering an apology for the laws that we imposed, often with the harshest of penalties, and illustrating that we have now thrown off those repressive laws. By our apology we can encourage others in the Commonwealth to do the same. I do not expect an answer from the Minister, but I would urge the Government with every fibre of my being to consider this and to bring about a real change in the dynamic of LGBTI rights—human rights—in the Commonwealth.
Let me remind your Lordships of the reality of this discrimination, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, described earlier. Criminalisation fosters egregious and systematic human rights violations across the generations and directly harms LGBTI individuals in numerous ways, regardless of whether the laws are actually enforced. It limits access to employment, education, healthcare and housing, and it outlaws LGBTI people’s very identities and makes them second-class citizens in both the public and private sphere. It can result in gross violations such as murder, assault, “corrective rape”, forced or coerced marriage and suicide. Sadly, I could go on because the list is long.
Criminalisation affects the non-nationals of those countries, too, such as LGBTI people who are asked by their Governments, NGOs or international companies to go to those countries—or indeed who are tourists. These discriminatory laws are largely excused by reference to culture, tradition or religion. I deeply respect culture, tradition and religion—but not as an excuse for such human rights abuses. Far too often, organised religions remain silent on the discrimination and persecution faced by LGBTI people and their families, and the silence should end. Whether from the Anglican Communion, the Roman Catholic Church, Muslim leaders or elsewhere, the silence must end.
At the last Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Malta, the Kaleidoscope Trust, which does brilliant work in this area, along with its partner, the Commonwealth Equality Network, raised the issue of LBGT rights in a number of forums and had some influence on the final communiqué. Now is the time to build on that at the 2018 summit in order to achieve significant commitments to positive change
I believe, as do many others, that the Commonwealth summit is the perfect place to facilitate important south-to-south exchanges, and that the UK as the host Government are uniquely positioned to create the space for civil society to engage with decision-makers who are not normally willing or able to consider LGBTI concerns. I will look to the Government for support and will welcome their reaction to that approach. Once again, I believe that the most important way to ensure a way forward for other member states is by an apology from our Government for imposing laws through colonialism which criminalised LGBT people and led to wider discriminatory laws and practices.
Finally, I want to pay tribute again to the work undertaken by the Kaleidoscope Trust, the Commonwealth Equality Network, the Human Dignity Trust—which is so active behind the scenes—and Stonewall. Most of all, I want to remember David Kato, the kind, gentle, compassionate Ugandan LGBTI activist who was murdered and who even in death was refused a dignified burial by his church. I want to remember him and LGBTI activists and others in the Commonwealth and beyond who put their lives at risk by daring to ask to be treated fairly, justly and equally alongside others. These are the heroes and heroines who make me proud to be a member of the human race and a citizen of the Commonwealth.
Lord Watson of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I declare two interests; first, as the former chairman of the Council of Commonwealth Societies, a post in which I have been so admirably succeeded by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. I should also declare an interest as vice-president of the English Speaking Union, the role of the language in the Commonwealth and its future being of seminal importance.
By CHOGM next year, we should know a lot more about the direction and balance of Brexit. Brexit will be a key dimension to CHOGM, because it can reshape in many ways our relationship with the Commonwealth and its relationship with us and the European Union. Let us not forget that 32 countries of the Commonwealth are covered by specific EU agreements and it is calculated that our departure will end up making them pay well over £800 million per annum in additional duties to access the UK market and through the UK as a member of the European single market.
There are significant sums in sterling remitted to Commonwealth countries by individuals from the Commonwealth living here, and thus sterling’s effective devaluation is already having a harsh effect. That was made clear to me at a conference I attended yesterday and the day before, the youth Commonwealth Africa summit. In many ways, it was a most encouraging conference, but strong feelings were expressed on that issue. Brexit cannot be ignored as blandly at CHOGM as it clearly was by the Chancellor in his Budget a week ago.
Many factors will affect our future relationship with the Commonwealth. In assessing them, we must recognise the huge contribution that Her Majesty the Queen has made to the coherence, the cohesion and the recognition of the Commonwealth. Just to share a personal recollection, I was born in South Africa of British parents. My father was in the church and an anti-apartheid activist in early days, close to Father Huddleston. I remember vividly as a boy the visit to South Africa in April 1947 of the then Princess Elizabeth and her broadcast—which incidentally was reprinted and distributed, even in apartheid days when the nationalists had come to power, to schools throughout what was then the Cape Province. I will remind your Lordships of the key words of that statement. She said:
“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service”.
I think that we all recognise, and the Commonwealth recognises, the extraordinary extent to which she has fulfilled that declaration. Let me express the view—of course, it is only a personal view—that the Crown’s future relationship with the Commonwealth will matter much, both to the Crown and to the Commonwealth, and I hope that it will continue.
Turning more specifically to the economic landscape before CHOGM, let me warn against a temptation which is becoming evident in London to see our course as “a return to the future”. Rhetoric around what has been dubbed “Empire 2.0” is not only misleading but in the Commonwealth will certainly be resented. There is a danger that we seek to rewrite history in reverse. After all, in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, as the logic of European integration became clearer, British politicians sought to reconstruct Europe in some ways as a copy of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth as a copy of the European Union. For example, Harold Macmillan’s well-remembered note to Anthony Eden in the early 1950s read:
“The answer is not for Britain to join such a Europe but to propose the unification of Europe along Commonwealth lines”.
A few years later, Harold Wilson, as he approached what would be the great Commonwealth Trade Ministers conference, argued in a sense for the potential of the Commonwealth to emulate the European Union as a trading bloc. He was bitterly disappointed.
The truth is that the Commonwealth cannot replace the European Union by seeking to emulate it—I agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, had to say around that subject. The Commonwealth Secretariat, wonderful organisation though it is, will never become, nor should it try to become, a kind of emulation of the European Commission: a driving, organising, administrative force for greater integration.
The way forward is to think afresh. I want to put forward five factors which are worth us considering and to seek a government reaction on them. First, what are the real focus points of potential in the Commonwealth for us now? The first, which is quite remarkable, is the growth of intra-Commonwealth trade, of which we are a part. The growth of that trade was largely unremarked on until Brexit and the discussion thereafter, but it is of great importance.
The second is the entrepreneurial opportunity presented by the youth of the Commonwealth—the vigour, the creativity and the entrepreneurial instinct of many young people within the Commonwealth today—and the fact that the great cities of the Commonwealth, particularly in Africa, are becoming markets of great importance to us and to them.
The third—here again I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howell—is the information technology, the mobile telephony and the new connectivity which characterise a global economy but which are particularly important in the developing countries of the Commonwealth. The impact of mobile telephony, for example, on agriculture in Africa is an extraordinary achievement and we must make the best of that.
Fourthly, there is the shared English language, to which I briefly referred. The important thing here about English, which is not the official language of the Commonwealth but is its working language, is that it is also the working language of globalisation so that the future trade patterns that emerge will be substantially dependent on the English language.
Finally, we hear a great deal about shared values in the Commonwealth and we have also heard during this debate sad examples of where values, particularly on human rights, have not been respected. Again, at this conference yesterday and the day before, where there were many young people, I was very struck by shared aspirations—if not shared values. For example, there were aspirations about the primacy of law and the fight against corruption. I chaired a session in which there were two parliamentary representatives from the Commonwealth. It focused on corruption and how you deal with it. I was astonished by how frank and practical that discussion was. Then of course there is the aspiration about the advance of parliamentary democracy inside the Commonwealth.
On balance, I am very hopeful about the future relationship with the Commonwealth and urge the Government to commit, with vigour, to the furtherance of these five dimensions—of course, there are others—which have such rich potential for the Commonwealth.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on calling this timely debate. These are early days, as many noble Lords pointed out, in our thinking about what we might do to resolve the difficulties that will be created by Brexit. Our ideas will inevitably be preliminary and incomplete. However, I decided to speak in this debate because it is valuable to identify the possibilities for doing this by expanding our interactions with the Commonwealth, even if, as was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Watson, the EU and the Commonwealth are quite different constructs. I will focus narrowly on what we might do with Australia, but what I say applies equally to other developed Commonwealth countries. I apologise for this narrowness, but the breadth of the Commonwealth has been talked about a great deal.
I grew up in Australia and while I have not lived there for almost 60 years, I have over the past 20 years been involved in a number of activities, especially in Melbourne. To declare my interests, I was for several years a member of the Melbourne University council and have been a member of the advisory board of the Melbourne Energy Institute. I have held a Sir Louis Matheson visiting professorship at Monash University for the last six years and this year am acting as a consultant to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. CSIRO is the 6,000-person federal government agency for scientific research in Australia. Its chief role is to improve the economic and social performance of industry for the benefit of the community. I have also chaired an advisory council for New Horizons, a $400 million government-funded collaboration between Monash University and CSIRO. So I have been involved in a broad spectrum of engineering and scientific research activities in both academia and industry, and it is my observation that there is considerable potential for increased interaction with the UK. Put another way, there is very little interaction now.
I am also the non-executive president of the Australian Music Foundation, having in my youth been a singer and held a choral scholarship at Cambridge. The foundation, chaired by Yvonne Kenny, the opera singer, is a charity that helps highly talented young Australian musicians to further their studies and careers, especially in the UK. It has limited resources but accomplishes a great deal, although again it leaves a large reservoir of untapped potential, showing that the potential for increased exchanges spans the cultures.
Since the middle of the 19th century, there have been extensive interchanges between universities in the UK and Australia. Indeed, Australia’s oldest universities were to a large extent based on British ones. These exchanges spread in the 20th century to researchers in government and industrial laboratories. It is an understatement to say that there is a special relationship between Australia and Britain. It is my view, having lived around the world, and for the longest in the United States, that the culture of Australia is closer to that of the UK than any other country in the world—and I have not even mentioned cricket. This relationship has been sustained despite the UK’s membership of the EU, although there is little doubt that educational, academic and industrial research exchanges would have grown more with the Commonwealth and especially with Australia over the last 44 years if the UK had not joined the EU. This is also the case more generally with trade, as pointed out by many noble Lords and the Minister.
Now there is the opportunity to take another look at how we can expand our educational, industrial and cultural exchanges with Australia. We could attract more students to our higher education institutions, enhance our research base by attracting more post-doctoral researchers and tap into Australia’s rapidly increasing industrial and educational interactions with China and India. Australia is broadly in the same time zone as China and is taking advantage of this, rapidly expanding its interactions with Chinese industry and educational institutions. I know several Americans who moved to Australia because its proximity to China makes it so much easier to pursue Chinese interests.
There are areas of scientific interest where we have similar aims to Australia, ranging from the Square-Kilometre Array to biotechnology and medical advances. Melbourne is regarded as one of the world’s top biotech hubs having, for example, produced the first cochlear implant, invented by Professor Graeme Clark in Melbourne in 1979. There are world-class and leading projects on bionic eyes and X-ray imaging, to name just two research areas. Next week at the All-Party Parliamentary Engineering Group, which I co-chair with Laurence Robertson MP, we are debating medical imaging with three remarkable engineers and scientists from the Crick here in London, from Cambridge and from Melbourne. These researchers all know each other well but do not collaborate directly. There is great potential for increasing research collaboration with Australia, perhaps through joint ventures with joint funding.
Many schemes support student exchanges with Australia, but there is potential for expansion. In fact, some of these exchanges, such as the scholars supported by the Menzies Foundation, now receive less support from the UK Government than they did because the Chevening money was withdrawn several years ago. We should look into how we can expand our exchanges to make up for the reduction in overseas student applications we are already seeing as Europe shifts its attention away from the UK.
Industrial joint ventures aimed at the Chinese market are another possibility. High-technology advances in a variety of industrial sectors might be better brought to Far Eastern markets through collaborations with Australian companies, rather than trying to do it directly and ending up having to compete with them.
In conclusion, this is the time to renew and expand our academic and industrial interactions with Commonwealth countries, and especially with Australia. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2018 provides an ideal opportunity to do this.
Lord Selsdon (Con)
My Lords, in many ways, the situation confronting the Government of the United Kingdom today is similar to that confronting the Government in 1621 with the formation of the Council for Trade and Plantations. The mandate given then was:
“To take into their consideration the true causes of the decay of trade and scarcity of coyne and to consult the means for the removing of these inconveniences”.
Now, there has been a growing tendency to dismiss the growth of trade and the balance of trade as matters of reduced importance to the British economy. The great Board of Trade exists in name only and the Department of Trade and Industry had the word “trade” ignominiously expunged from its title and was replaced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—a most confusing title. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry also held the historic title of President of the Board of Trade, and those Cabinet Ministers who have held this important job have usually been replaced within a year. These and other constant changes in the structure have led to a lack of continuity. This in turn has led to ignorance and a lack of understanding of the vital role that international trade has played and must play in the creation of economic growth and prosperity.
British international trade was historically described as “exports and imports” and concerned mainly the export and import of manufactures and materials. These were later known as “visible exports” and are now described as “trade in goods”. In the 1970s the importance of the growth of the service industry sector emerged as a part-replacement for the decline of the United Kingdom as a manufacturing nation. This sector became known as “invisible exports” and now is called “trade in services”.
I am not sure why I am standing here today. I think it is something to do with Australia. My great-grandfather was the first Lord Mayor of Melbourne. It all happened when, as Scots, we ran out of money and we could not find enough sheep to knock off and flog in the market. Someone said, “These sheep are available somewhere with a much better climate, where the wool grows better. We cannot remember the name of the place but it is a big blob at the bottom right of the map”. So we set up a shipping line and found that with chilling machinery, instead of just taking immigrants out to Australia we could bring back sheep, frozen. That worked extraordinarily well for a while, until we were stuck off South Africa. The ship would not work and there were all these frozen sheep beginning to melt. With the intelligence of those of a different religion, we realised that certain religions liked lamb and mutton much better. So we took them ashore and allowed them to melt a bit and rather pretended, but did not say anything, that they had just been slaughtered because no one would have believed that they had come from Australia—first of all, no one knew where Australia was. This went on and we then found that instead of sheep we were taking workers back.
I had a little moment before I knew that our family had lost its shipping line in the Tasman Sea when out of the blue I got a letter from a bishop who had sent me a little parcel of three stone jars. The letter said, “At 92, my diving days are over. This was the last bit of kit I could find from the wreck of the ‘Brahmin’, which belonged to your family”—I did not know we had owned a ship. But I kept them and this gives me some sort of good feeling.
When we come down to the practical moment of dealing with the balance of trade, exports and imports, and the value of sterling, in many ways the situation is the same as that which confronted the Government in 1621, as I said.
I wonder why we do not teach geography in schools any more—it seems there is a shortage—and why people cannot read a map or a chart. I suffer from one really great disadvantage. I love charts. When I joined your Lordships’ House I knew I was unimportant and did not realise quite how unimportant I was until I was summoned during the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry and asked—because my family was associated with ships and I must know something about it—if I would please speak. I did, rather nervously, and some people from the Department of Transport very kindly came to see me afterwards and said, “We would like to invite you for a drink and to give you a little donation”. I went to see them and they pulled out a long box, and in it was a rolled-up chart, with lots of red on it all over the place, and little black dots, too. These little black dots, I was told, were British ships at sea or in harbour. The red on it was British and this was where we were, right the way around the world. It was amazing at that time but we forgot our shipping.
If we bother to say, “What can we all do to help?”, first of all, the relationships with the Commonwealth are pretty good. As I mentioned, the same situation confronted the Government in 1621. I am a great fan of the Commonwealth. I always wanted to be a good cricketer but I was not; I was a wicket-keeper. I found that that pays you back pretty hard 25 years later when you find you cannot really walk because your joints have gone. Then of course a bright Australian surgeon comes and says, “We’ll give you a new knee, mate. It’s not very difficult these days”. So I am in the difficult position of wondering whether I should sit down now—which I will—and think about my knee.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, there can be no more thrilling spectacle than the sight of the flags of the Commonwealth nations flowing down the central aisle of Westminster Abbey, carried, two by two, by 52 young people. That is what I think, anyway. On Commonwealth Day, their youth, enthusiasm and sense of expectation underlined both the diversity and the unity of their Commonwealth of Nations.
The new Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, was absolutely right to recall Her Majesty the Queen’s observation, during her Silver Jubilee in 1977, that her role as Head of the Commonwealth represents,
“the transformation of the Crown from an emblem of dominion into a symbol of free and voluntary association. In all history this has no precedent”.
The noble and learned Baroness went on to say in the Ministers Reference Book Commonwealth 2017:
“A sense of continuity and building on the best of what we hold in common, enables it to flourish as a powerful influence for good … Exchange of ideas, as well as trade, are the lifeblood of Commonwealth connection”.
Acting early to prevent violent extremism has to be one of the Commonwealth’s top priorities. By offering support to strengthen and stabilise national institutions, the Commonwealth can be a steadying anchor in these turbulent times.
At this point I should declare an interest. I have been a member or officer of the APPG for the Commonwealth for some years, and I am currently the chairman of the National Liberal Club’s Commonwealth Forum.
As we prepare for the Commonwealth summit—CHOGM—in London and Windsor, to be held in the week beginning 16 April next year, we will find ourselves pretty well halfway through the UK’s Brexit negotiations with the EU. The received wisdom is that by then we will be forming a picture of to what degree the revival of long-neglected trading links with the Commonwealth will be feasible, and whether they can provide an essential cushion against the impact of the loss of preferential trade with the EU in 2019.
The International Trade Committee’s report to the House of Commons last week on UK trade options post 2019 provides some interesting insights. The 52 Commonwealth nations, ranging from developed to emerging to developing nations, present a bewildering array of potential trade options. A salutary factor is the marked decline in UK exports to the Commonwealth that has occurred since the UK joined the EU more than 40 years ago. Anyone who has ever been involved in international business development can tell you that it takes years to build customer confidence, trust and loyalty, and even longer to restore these when lost.
I well recall, working in Malaysia as a business development director for a UK international consulting engineering practice, the impact of the UK Government introducing a university fees structure for Commonwealth students which tripled their costs, compared to UK students. Two things happened. The USA and Australia almost immediately significantly increased the number of scholarship university places they offered to Commonwealth students, and the Prime Minister of Malaysia issued an edict to his country’s public and private sector procurement managers alike, to buy British last. The director of the Malaysian public water supply department reminisced with me over the wonderful times he had spent reading engineering at Glasgow University, and how he had followed the British systems and specifications for equipment. He therefore bought British goods and services throughout his professional life. I doubt very much whether his successors have followed his example, particularly as many now struggle to get a UK student visa, let alone assistance to attend a UK university.
According to the Commonwealth Secretariat, Brexit is likely to have far-reaching implications. Commonwealth members’ trade with the UK has long been governed through EU policies. Under Brexit, many developing country exporters are concerned that their market access into the UK and Europe could be disrupted. Brexit may also have implications for broader co-operation to take advantage of the apparent 19% Commonwealth trade-cost discount. Enhanced co-operation will also enable the Commonwealth to be an effective force for global good, in pursuit of realising the sustainable development goals. There has been an unprecedented global slowdown which is threatening the efforts to build on the achievements of the MDGs. Now is the time for the Commonwealth to play a pivotal role in making international trade an effective means of realising the sustainable development goals—the SDGs. Growth has slowed from 2.4% per year to 1.7% in 2016. There has been a lost decade of trade gains since 2008, which has had serious development implications. We could find that we have had the slowest decade of trade expansion since World War II.
The SDGs outlined in The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development aim to reduce the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day, which is currently 14%, to zero by 2030. The SDGs have extended scope to include the challenges of environmental sustainability, equity, inclusiveness, urbanisation and strengthening global partnerships. Reviving global trade flows while mitigating the consequences of Brexit is an important issue in keeping SDG implementation on track. The UK and the EU therefore need to work together to mitigate post-Brexit risks and manage uncertainties by continuing the trade preferences that developing countries currently enjoy in Europe and the UK.
The House of Lords Library has pointed out that in 2014, total UK exports to the Commonwealth were worth £48 billion, or some 9% of the UK’s exports overall. UK exports to the EU, meanwhile, amounted to around £250 billion—some five times that of the Commonwealth, which by any reckoning requires a huge displacement to rebalance. In the inaugural Commonwealth Trade Ministers meeting last week, business and sustainability was identified as one of the six key pillars of the “Agenda for Growth”. This was one of the areas which will contribute to greater intra-Commonwealth co-operation and utilisation of the Commonwealth factor. Ministers anticipate that this will unlock new trade and investment opportunities for member countries. Recent research by the Business & Sustainable Development Commission shows that the SDGs will require something like $2 trillion to $3 trillion each year in new investment, but can help to unlock $12 trillion in new market value across 60 sectors. These figures are beyond the scope of my imagination, but that is what they are.
The “Agenda for Growth” posed a number of key questions and I would be grateful if, in her reply, the Minister could share with noble Lords the answers that those Ministers arrived at in their panels. For example, do the SDGs provide a useful framework for businesses and Governments to understand the scale of the sustainability challenge that we face and restore public trust in states’ abilities to meet this challenge? What role can the Commonwealth play in raising awareness and helping Governments to meet this challenge? Finally, how can private investment be best mobilised to support the sustainability goals in countries where their credit and reliability put the risk assessment out of reach?
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome the debate and appreciated the way in which the Minister introduced it. Over the last 10 years or more, I have worked mainly in Africa and have come to understand the Commonwealth much better—what extraordinarily strong links we have as a member of the Commonwealth; what a powerful voice in the world it is and could be; and how important it is, particularly for the poorest countries and particularly in Africa.
I know that these points are reflected in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s priorities for the Commonwealth—I think here particularly of the last three. The third priority is:
“Promoting Human Rights, Democratic Values and the Rule of Law”.
I understand the enormous challenges in all three of those areas. I think in particular of the rights of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex, which were so eloquently discussed by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Cashman, and by others. As the UK strengthens its role in the Commonwealth, it is very important that it continues to speak up about these rights and voice its concerns, about not only those rights but other human rights abuses.
The fourth area of priority for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is:
“Supporting sustainable development and prosperity”.
Those issues are important for the UK, as well as for every other member. Its final area is about “Championing understanding within” this wonderful, worldwide diverse community.
Against this context, I want to speak specifically about health, development and prosperity, and the links between the three. I stress the links because too often they are treated as if they are separate issues, but they are intimately connected. I want to put forward the argument that an emphasis on these three together should be made within the Commonwealth and should feature at the Heads of Government meeting next April. Doing so will contribute enormously to these wider goals.
I will make three main arguments, give a current example that is very effective and put forward a specific proposal for the future. The first argument is about the economic impact of health. This is often neglected and we think about health and health services as a cost. It is time that we showed that that assumption is wrong. There are costs and benefits from investment in health. It is perfectly true that the wealthier a country is, the more it can spend on public services including health, but it is equally true that good health is a driver of productivity and that poor health destroys it. We need only look at the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa to understand how it reduced economic growth over many years with detrimental impact throughout the southern part of the continent at least. We equally need to look at other countries where they have had improved health which has led to improved productivity and economic performance. There is also the demographic dividend, which is that as children get healthier and survive more often, families become smaller and the dependency ratio within a country reduces. It is really a health dividend that we should be very conscious of in thinking about policy.
There is more to it than that. The recent UN commission on health employment and the economy demonstrated that employing more health workers is beneficial to the economy, improving health, education and economic prospects in the country as a whole, but there is even more to it than that. Health is the fastest growing major industry in the world. It is growing at 5% globally and at 8% in south-east Asia. Commonwealth countries need to have their share of it. We in the UK know that the biomedical and life sciences need to be a major part of our industrial strategy. We have 4,800 companies in this sector, turning over more than £55 billion. We heard from my noble friend Lord Broers who spoke eloquently about the need to work with Australia and other Commonwealth countries to invest and grow this sector, whether it is through the prosperity fund or other routes.
My second argument is about the links between health and all other aspects of development. There is abundant evidence that health and education are linked. We know that in India the children of girls with five years of education are 40% more likely to survive to the age of five, but we also know that it is the other way round as well and that ill-health impacts on education and opportunities. For example, in some southern African countries about 40% of children are stunted. That impacts on their mental development, all their achievements and subsequently on the economy and everything else. We should not see these issues as separate; the central point here is human development, or human flourishing, as Amartya Sen would call it.
My third argument turns to the House of Lords report on soft power, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. It emphasised that the UK is the best-networked country in the world. He and others have expanded on the idea of the Commonwealth as a network today. Health is an extraordinarily influential network. There are 6 million or so nurses within the Commonwealth and doctors are intimately linked with their partners in other parts of the world. There are any number of partnerships between UK institutions and health institutions throughout the Commonwealth. I am reminded of the health partnership scheme promoted by the Government and hope that it will indeed continue. People care about health; they link with each other and share. Health is one of the streams that will help us to have greater understanding within the Commonwealth. Investment in health provides wide-ranging economic and social benefits and the Commonwealth should see it as a priority.
Let me turn to my examples. The first is the current one: the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust has money raised from the Commonwealth. It has set up a trachoma initiative with £41 million, which is being managed by Sightsavers. I had the great privilege to chair the organisation at the time, although I no longer do so, and I declare my interest. It is having an extraordinary impact in the Commonwealth: 11 million people have been treated and it has great partnerships. There are all the benefits that have been talked about. It benefits the poorest most, it benefits women most, because women, surprisingly, are more likely to be blind, and it allows people suffering from this disease, and their carers, to return to work.
My second example for the future is to urge that the Commonwealth should play a major role in a new global campaign for the development of nursing. Members of your Lordships’ House will well understand how vital nurses are in every country in the world, but particularly in low and middle-income countries where very often they may be the only health workers that anyone sees. A recent study by the UK’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health, which includes Members of your Lordships’ House, with the support of the Commonwealth Nursing and Midwives Federation looked at the development of nurses globally. It made three very important points. First, universal health coverage will not be achieved without developing nursing globally. They are the largest part of the profession. Secondly, nurses are very often undervalued and underutilised within the system, perhaps because they are women or perhaps because they are not doctors. We very often train them to a high level and then, in practice, we do not permit them to work to that level. Nurses could have an even more significant impact in the future. Thirdly—and this is a very important point—developing nursing will have a triple impact in contributing to three of the sustainable development goals: improving health, promoting gender equality and strengthening economies.
As the result of the popularity of our report with people around the world, we have decided to launch a global campaign to raise the profile of nursing globally, support the empowerment of women globally through employment and develop local economies. I am delighted to say that the World Health Organization has already given its support, and we are in very positive discussions with the Commonwealth. That has partly been with the Commonwealth Secretariat—I echo the comments of other noble Lords about support for the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, in the important and very difficult role she is playing at the moment. But we have also had discussions with a large number of members, and already Ministers, senior officials and health leaders in countries as far apart as Jamaica, India and Tanzania have given their support. My noble friend Lady Watkins and I are meeting with the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Health next week to present this proposal. Planning is under way.
I very much hope that the Government will give serious consideration to including health, development and prosperity, linked together, and in particular this global nursing campaign on future Commonwealth agendas and at the Heads of Government meeting in April next year. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, whether she would be willing to meet with my noble friend Lady Watkins and me, and the leaders of the campaign, to take this forward.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to contribute to this important debate today. I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay for introducing the subject and congratulate her on the excellence of her speech.
I have spoken previously in your Lordships’ House of my respect and admiration for the Commonwealth. Covering 52 countries, and a third of the world’s population, it is an enduring symbol of unity. The Commonwealth is perhaps one of the world’s most diverse unions, yet shares the values of democracy and the rule of law. Particularly at a time when the world seems so divided, we must celebrate this strength of unity and harmony. I am proud that we send high commissioners rather than ambassadors to Commonwealth countries as we do not regard ourselves as foreign in relation to each other.
Next year, the United Kingdom will host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. This is an opportunity for us to drive forward an ambitious and progressive agenda. The previous summit in Malta in 2015 made a great deal of progress in areas such as climate change, peace and security, and sustainable development. Indeed, given the size and breadth of the Commonwealth, it seems only natural that it takes a lead in addressing some of our biggest global challenges. I say this with particular regard to our upcoming exit from the European Union. We must now refocus our efforts on tackling global issues through new networks.
I will speak specifically about the importance of building our bilateral trade relationships. In an increasingly globalised world, there is great demand for bilateral trade agreements that help to build economies without sacrificing national sovereignty. We know that we need to develop a post-Brexit trading plan. As the EU acted as a protectionist bloc against trade with outsiders, so the Commonwealth can open our trading borders to an entirely new world. The Commonwealth itself is effectively a ready-made trading network. It contains a diverse range of economies, both large and small, developed and developing. Specifically, it contains some of the most dynamic and fast-growing economies, including two of the BRICs: India and South Africa. India is also a member of the “7% growth club”, along with fellow Commonwealth nations Tanzania and Bangladesh.
Trade links between the United Kingdom and the wider Commonwealth are already strong. In 2015, total trade flow between the UK and Commonwealth countries was approximately $91 billion. The Commonwealth Secretariat has calculated that, overall, the UK is the fourth most important export market for the Commonwealth, behind only the USA, China and Japan. Twenty-four Commonwealth countries send at least a quarter of their EU exports to the UK, and eight Commonwealth countries send around 10% or more of their total global exports to the UK.
There are long-standing reasons for the success of our trade within the Commonwealth. Our commonality of language, as well as of administrative and legal systems, plays a crucial role in tearing down barriers. Not least, we of course by definition share a proud heritage and long historic ties.
It has been estimated that when both bilateral partners are Commonwealth members, they often trade around 20% more and generate 10% more foreign direct investment. I would like to see more use of the internet and social media to enhance trade between the various Commonwealth countries. We must focus on channelling investments into sectors with the potential for new growth while helping developing Commonwealth countries to develop their infrastructure and productive capacity. We will need to be very ambitious and liberal in our scope for new trade agreements. We will also need to ensure timely and efficient implementation of such agreements in order to realise their full potential.
I can personally vouch for the level of interest from our Commonwealth friends in increasing trade with the United Kingdom. Earlier this week I attended the high commissioners’ banquet at the Guildhall and discussed a range of issues with high commissioners from different countries. As someone who has a long-standing connection with the City of London, I was pleased to see the City of London Corporation hosting such an event. At dinner I sat next to the high commissioners for Kenya and Malawi. There was a clear appetite for closer trade ties in both cases.
In relation to Malawi, I also discussed the matter of establishing educational links between our academic institutions. I am a strong supporter of such initiatives due to the cultural benefits that they can provide to young students and the long-term economic benefits to our countries. When we learn from each other we gain from each other, and education, like trade, brings people together. Kenya and Malawi are just two of many developing countries within the Commonwealth with optimistic futures for their growth and prosperity. This presents us with vast opportunities for foreign relations.
I would like specifically to mention Sri Lanka, a Commonwealth country with which I maintain close links. I have previously tabled a debate in your Lordships’ House on the matter of bilateral trade with Sri Lanka, and recently asked a Question about trade with that country. Our two countries have sustained healthy political and economic ties for over 200 years. Sri Lanka has experienced significant growth over the past 15 years and is forecast to grow by at least 5.5% this year. It has signed three regional trade agreements with other nations and one is under negotiation with China. I recently met the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka; last week I had a meeting with the country’s Trade Minister; and soon I will meet my noble friend Lord Price, accompanied by two Sri Lankan businessmen. I hope we can build closer ties for the benefit of both our countries.
It is important to note that we already have a large diaspora here from Commonwealth countries who bring knowledge and expertise with them. We must activate and nurture this pool of talent. We must also encourage them to take their knowledge and skills from here to their home countries. On migration policy, it is imperative that our immigration system serves our national interest. We should encourage some migration, subject to certain criteria, but must also assert control over our own borders, which we will be once again free to do. In any case, the renewed opportunities for responsible migration from the Commonwealth will be most welcome. We must seek to promote the movement of the best talent from the Commonwealth to provide us with adequate staff to enable the country to progress further. Can consideration be given to formulating a suitable plan for the immigration of people from the Commonwealth?
We are entering an exciting new phase in our relationship with the Commonwealth. I applaud the meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers held in London last week, and pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Marland for his tireless efforts. I understand that the meeting comprehensively identified opportunities as well as challenges across the Commonwealth. I also commend the establishment of the Department for International Trade, and hope that it will place a heavy focus on Commonwealth countries. I hope that we will begin to appoint more trade envoys to Commonwealth countries to identify and investigate opportunities in greater depth. Do the Government intend to appoint more trade envoys?
Finally, I am pleased to note that work is being done among Commonwealth countries to combat radicalisation and promote human rights. I ask my noble friend how we can enhance these activities, as the two issues are very important.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this debate—and the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—to take note of UK relations with the Commonwealth leading up to CHOGM in 2018 in London and Windsor. Could we not have a wider range of UK cities? I declare an interest as having spent the first six years of my life in south India, where we used to enjoy dancing cobras on Christmas Day, and I am now a visiting fellow of Cambridge’s Malaysian Commonwealth Study Centre, which supports an Asian network for climate science and technology. I am also director of CERC, a small consulting company in Cambridge which is working with environmental organisations in Malaysia. Like many businesses, we expect to work closely with both the Commonwealth and the EU.
We celebrate the Commonwealth for our common history, culture, science and language. In 2016, for those who are of the mathematical bent, we had the great celebration of Indian and British mathematics with the film of the great story of Ramanujan and his colleagues Hardy and Littlewood at Trinity. Of course, Indian and UK culture was celebrated last week in London at a certain museum.
Two weeks ago, I was at the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi, which, to my amazement, was covered with the flags, posters and cranes of JCB—whose chairman is of course a Member of this House—the UK engineering company, which has a large factory and R&D centre in India. They were celebrating a scientific and cultural weekend of innovation. It was interesting: I have never seen such an event on any other campus. Other Commonwealth campuses could consider it.
My general observation from visiting many campuses around the world is that Commonwealth countries would derive more benefit from these exchanges if there was a cultural and general educational exchange element connected with professional exchange. The UK provides this element for a select few Chevening scholars, but not to specialists. The United States, through its Fulbright programme, does not discriminate against scientists, engineers and technical specialists. I have been on many British Council academic visits and had many British Council visitors to the UK, but in none of the Commonwealth countries involved has there been briefing or information about the general or specific aspects of the countries to which people are travelling.
However, there has been progress. I have been moaning about this for 10 or more years. Recently, the British Council made progress. We had a day here in the House of Lords addressed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Chief Scientific Adviser and Members of the House of Lords in which a range of technical and specialist people were allowed to talk about politics, culture and the ways in which our different countries were working together. Scientists may be run by some countries; in some countries they rule the country, as they do in China. We should be taking a broader view of technical exchange.
The wider issues of openness should be a priority for the Commonwealth. We now have extraordinary sources of information, which many other noble Lords have discussed, that have great economic value. People have spoken learnedly about networks. All networks need information, with IT, satellites and so on, but we need a much greater culture of openness in all governmental organisations. One way of encouraging the culture of openness is through schools and communities. There is a great deal of secrecy; we see that in this country and I am afraid there is quite a culture of secrecy in many Commonwealth countries. This is the only way we will solve problems of health, the environment, improving business and so on.
I wondered whether one of the themes of this CHOGM might be more openness. People have talked about corruption, but openness is a much broader topic. We should be focusing on that. One of the other features is that openness comes with a greater breadth of knowledge and learning, and cultural attitudes towards it. I found it interesting when visiting a major university in India that it commented that the traditional, more specialist degree in UK and European universities is noticeably different from the broader research degree from the United States. It is the latter kind of training and teaching that equips people better for getting appropriate positions in developing countries such as India. It would surely be useful for Commonwealth countries to consider the most appropriate education policies for the countries and perhaps even push the UK in this direction of more openness.
One of the important features that other noble Lords discussed is the question of global climate change. It is accepted now as an overarching policy issue in all Commonwealth countries, but this goal is also pursued in conjunction with global programmes of the United Nations. Despite the slightly negative remarks of some noble Peers, the United Nations is an extremely important part of the functioning of the Commonwealth. Commonwealth countries benefit from it. We need to know where we can have the best benefits. It is noticeable that scientists from many Commonwealth countries are involved in leadership positions in the United Nations, notably in some of the leading positions on climate change.
Another interesting feature is that if you go to tropical countries you find that they are now very interested in the poles—the Arctic and the Antarctic. They claim that they have the third pole, which is of course the Himalayas—that enormous area of snow—but now because of the melting of the Arctic ice, prospective future trade routes may involve shipping going right through the Arctic. That is why India, Singapore and other countries are observers in the Arctic Council, which is a big new development and another area in which the UK can collaborate.
The essential issue is to develop practical plans that connect health, economics and environmental preservation with reducing carbon emissions and adverse impacts. My noble friend Lord McConnell reminded us of the importance of the UN sustainability goals. They are one way to see about our progress. It is very important to see technical and commercial exchange between the UK and Commonwealth countries working in these practical areas. For example, just three weeks ago the Indian Space Research Organisation sent up one rocket with 100 satellites on it. That is quite something. Indeed, we will be discussing in the House of Lords next week British space legislation to have more of these small missions, focused on very specific applications. This is something we shall learn with other Commonwealth countries.
The other important point is that Commonwealth countries have great experience in non-carbon energy systems, both large systems and microsystems. There will be many opportunities for collaboration. One of the interesting features of many Commonwealth countries is that there is tremendous competition for space. Therefore, we have to find systems that are economical in land use, if not using offshore areas. The City of London is noticeable now for helping these new systems. As the noble Lord, Lord Broers, said, one of the important things is to have connections between the developed and the developing countries of the Commonwealth. Canada, for example, has great experience in nuclear and wind power systems. We shall look forward to these kinds of schemes.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Global LGBT Rights and a long-standing member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and AIDS. This week the Prime Minister said:
“As we look to create a truly global Britain, the deep partnerships that we share through a 21st century Commonwealth can help us strengthen the prosperity and security of our own citizens, and those of our many friends and allies across the world”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in introducing the debate, talked of the cross-governmental work going into reframing a fresh approach to the Commonwealth. I want to talk today about how we might work similarly to deal with a long-standing problem.
As we know, the International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, is meeting representatives from Commonwealth countries to promote free trade deals between Britain and African countries, an event organised by the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. It is a plan that has been internally dubbed “Empire 2.0” by some Whitehall officials. I hope that that tag does not stay, because the word “empire” is one that does not resonate well around the world. But that leads me to the point that I want to talk about. If this is to work, we need to create a new relationship within the Commonwealth, and one that reflects the new business reality. We need to create new conditions in which modern business can thrive. In 2015, the Human Dignity Trust noted that the,
“criminalisation of homosexuality is undoubtedly a specific Commonwealth problem. The Commonwealth alone encompasses 2 billion of the 2.9 billion people worldwide who live in countries where it is a crime to be gay”.
The World Economic Forum produced a report in 2015 on the cost of discrimination, saying:
“On a range of social and economic indicators, LGBT people, especially lesbians and transgender people, tend to fare poorly compared with the general population. Studies in multiple countries have found rates of poverty, food insecurity and joblessness to be elevated in the LGBT community … These statistics represent untold personal tragedies for the individuals concerned; but they also reflect a senseless waste of human potential on a grand scale. Every trans youth thrown out of home or forced to miss out on an education is a loss for society. Every gay or lesbian worker driven to leave their job or even their country is a lost opportunity to build a more productive economy … At a macro level, the cost to a country’s economy can be counted in the billions. According to a pilot study conducted for the World Bank last year, discrimination against LGBT people in India could be costing that country’s economy up to $32 billion a year in lost economic output”.
The report goes on to say that part,
“of the solution lies with governments”,
who have the power to change laws. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, set out some of the progress that has been made, but the rate of change is way too slow. If there is to be further progress, Governments need the active involvement and commitment of business, and in all likelihood, it will be the big, international businesses that are at the forefront of change. They need to be certain that they can send their employees into environments that are safe and inclusive of the LGBT communities. It cannot send them to places where their health is going to be compromised or cannot be sustained.
I pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about HIV. The top 10 countries globally with the highest HIV prevalence are Commonwealth nations. Some nations, such as South Africa, are making great strides because of political change, but laws where criminalisation makes it harder for people to access services without fear of imprisonment or outing by local media also exist in Commonwealth countries. The Academy of Science of South Africa notes:
“The paradox of the laws that criminalise same-sex sexual conduct is while they are in part justified by their proponents as measures to improve public health, such laws have an immediate and destructive impact on health”.
Criminalisation and stigmatisation not only worsen physical health outcomes for those marginalised, unpopular parts of the population; they have an impact on crime, economic empowerment and the rule of law, all of which are essentials for business to thrive.
This issue needs political change. Many Commonwealth leaders deep down know that the change has to come but are fearful because of local politics, often—I say this to the right reverend Prelate—fanned by hateful religious rhetoric funded by Christian supremacists from the United States. In such a circumstance, politicians fear speaking out. We have had things such as the Harare Declaration of 1991, the Kampala communiqué of 2007 and the 2013 Charter of the Commonwealth. They do not talk explicitly about LGBT communities, but talk about human rights and freedom without distinction of any kind.
We in this country have led the way on this issue, but we did it over 50 years and it was a fraught process—not least for Members on the Benches opposite, who started from a more conservative position. Because of some of our legacy contacts with the Commonwealth, we are uniquely placed to enable political leaders in those countries to go through a similarly difficult journey. It will not be easy, but we should do it. Will the Minister pick up the comments made by the Prime Minister? Will she say how the Government see the summit as helping the process of developing diversity and prosperity? Discrimination is a very expensive business. Wasting talent, losing skills, keeping people in jail—these are so expensive that we in this country cannot afford to do them, and Commonwealth countries certainly cannot.
We have numerous mechanisms by which we can help that process of leadership to happen. We have links at governmental level between Foreign Ministers, Finance Ministers, Health Ministers, Women’s Affairs Ministers and Education Ministers. We also have links with civil servants and across professions, such as in the courts and judiciary. Given the scale of that, and given that the Minister has started to indicate that this is a cross-governmental priority, can she explain how departments other than DfID and the FCO—for example, our business and trade division—will help in that key change, which has to happen?
I listened intently to what the right reverend Prelate said about the covenant. The role of religion in building that covenant in a manner respectful and inclusive of all is important. The Church is a key player in all this, and some of us will watch with interest the leadership role that it plays in ensuring that we are part of that covenant. I invite him to come and talk to the APPG when we start work on our next report, which is due to be on the role played by religion in LGBT equality.
The Head of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty, said that:
“The Commonwealth is not an organisation with a mission. It is rather an opportunity for its people to work together to achieve practical solutions to problems”.
It is time for us to change the terms of the debate away from cultural imperialism and exploitation by the north to one of mutual respect and the development of good business, for all Commonwealth citizens—especially women.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I would like to address LGBT rights. In doing so, I inevitably reiterate some of the points made so effectively not just by her but by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Cashman, in powerful speeches earlier. All three are to me noble friends engaged in a common enterprise. Indeed, one recurring feature of our welcome and valuable debates on the Commonwealth in recent years has been the demonstration of strong, cross-party support for action to remove the suffering and discrimination endured by millions of homosexuals in its member countries who become criminals if they give expression to the love with which they have been imbued. Some 90% of Commonwealth citizens live in jurisdictions where same-sex intimacy is a criminal offence. It must be right that on all sides of the House we should stress again today the need to put a complete end to this grave violation of human rights, which so flagrantly breaches international law and is incompatible with the Commonwealth’s own charter. When human rights are set aside, human misery inevitably follows.
That view, I believe, is widely supported on these Benches. It has been championed by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood in many debates. Unfortunately, he cannot be here today to renew personally his call for the removal of the terrible injustice that gay people endure in 36 of the 52 countries of the Commonwealth. Many of our colleagues share these sentiments—they were expressed with trenchancy, as many noble Lords will remember, on a number of occasions from these Benches by our Lord Speaker, before he took up his office. Of course, as has been pointed out, we must be careful not to adopt an unduly strident or insensitive tone in seeking to encourage those 36 Commonwealth countries to abolish oppressive discriminatory laws—they got them from us in the days of empire, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, reminded us. As a Commonwealth country that has rid itself of these laws, is it not natural for us to want to extend the same legal rights and protections as we now enjoy to gay people in other Commonwealth countries, united to us by ties of kinship, affection and history? We would be untrue to ourselves if we repressed the desire to liberate others as we ourselves have been liberated. Many in the Commonwealth agree. It is now over five years since the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group unanimously recommended that Heads of Government should take steps to encourage the repeal of discriminatory laws against homosexuals.
How welcome were the words of one Head of Government—the Prime Minister of Malta—this week, in drawing attention to the blot on the Commonwealth’s reputation created by widespread disregard of the rights of LGBT people, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, mentioned earlier. It was in Malta itself, two years ago, that the effects of the denial of those rights were brought closer than ever before to the centre of Commonwealth discussion and debate. The Kaleidoscope Trust—whose wonderful work has quite rightly been commended here today—working in partnership with the Commonwealth Equality Network, succeeded in raising LGBT issues in a number of forums during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting that Malta hosted. It was an important breakthrough. The Commonwealth summit in London and Windsor next year must follow this up in a decisive manner. In Malta, the Commonwealth Equality Network’s LGBT activists from countries where gay people are criminalised were able to give first-hand accounts of the perils and dangers to which they are daily subject. Both the network and the Kaleidoscope Trust are convinced that, in their words, an approach involving those directly affected is essential for stimulating progress on LGBT rights.
My noble friend Lady Anelay will know all about this; she has shown great receptiveness to the views of LGBT organisations, whose respect she has won. They stand ready to work with the Government in creating a firm place for LGBT issues on the summit’s agenda. The Commonwealth Equality Network has proposed the inclusion of presentations by countries in the global South which have decriminalised, enabling others to learn from their experience. What is the Government’s view of that suggestion? Countries that want to decriminalise homosexuality should be able to look to the Commonwealth Secretariat for advice and guidance. For that, the secretariat will need adequate resources. That too deserves a prominent place on the summit’s agenda. This summit could provide a turning point for LGBT issues in the history of the Commonwealth. We must not let the opportunity slip.
I touch briefly on one other wholly unrelated matter. Our Commonwealth debates often include references, always couched in the warmest terms, to the Republic of Ireland. My noble friend Lord Howell made brief reference to it today. Many of us would rejoice if our close neighbour and partner in so many enterprises could be persuaded to consider coming back into the Commonwealth family. It would find an organisation utterly different from the one it left nearly 70 years ago, and 52 wholly independent states working together on terms of equality would have their collaborative endeavours enriched if the Irish Republic was also involved in them. As regards Northern Ireland, it is now accepted on all sides that there can be no change in its constitutional position without the democratic consent of its people. With its own links to many different parts of the world going back centuries, the Irish Republic would find a natural home as part of the Commonwealth’s great global partnership. This is not an issue which has so far stirred widespread interest in political circles in the Irish Republic itself. But with the Commonwealth at an important crossroads in its history, those at the helm of its affairs should surely be encouraged to reach out to all parts of these islands, for the Commonwealth is a unique family of nations. The Republic of Ireland belongs within our family.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for ensuring that we have a generous amount of time for this important debate.
There has never been a time when the diversity and unity that the Commonwealth represents have been more urgently needed. Although there are continued challenges within the family of the Commonwealth, including discontent between the developed and the developing nations, small states and large states, tiger economies and fragile ones, let us not forget the considerable achievements—for example, the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles in 1971, the Harare declaration of 1991 and the setting up of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. Of course, there is also the underpinning of work carried out the world over in co-operation with civil society organisations.
However, we face new, seemingly insurmountable, issues of radicalism, migration and trade. What can the Commonwealth do to counteract potentially divisive global trends? Is it equipped to act to its full strengths? Not as well as one might hope. That said, most multilateral institutions are having difficulty grappling with the big issues of the world today, in part because they were never designed to deal with such a rapidly changing political environment. The goal posts have shifted seismically. But is there more that could be done? What are the major obstacles?
Despite any number of agreements, there has been a failure by Commonwealth countries generally to implement fully the principles that underlie membership. For example, of the 52 member states, only 27 have signed the Arms Trade Treaty adopted in 2013, and of these only 20 have ratified it. This treaty, if universally adopted, would be a powerful instrument in reducing the destruction associated with the billion-dollar illegal arms trade. Surely, the Commonwealth could become a leader on this, creating awareness of the treaty and insisting on ratification. One can also look at access to information. Freedom of information laws and practice have become a consistent feature of functioning democracies. The Commonwealth was one of the earliest intergovernmental organisations, in 1980, to recognise the importance of people’s right to know and to be involved in decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods. Despite strenuous efforts on the part of parliamentarians through many CPA programmes, in the shape of workshops on the concept, practice and experience of freedom of information, only 20 Commonwealth countries had introduced freedom of information laws by 2010—that is, roughly 30% in 30 years.
Commonwealth efforts to empower women in politics are another area worthy of scrutiny. Again, there have been innumerable meetings, workshops and reports, yet in all our regions the engagement of women, especially younger women, in political life is still modest. The Commonwealth Women Leaders’ Summit last year concluded with strong practical recommendations in three thematic areas: violence against women, women in leadership and women’s economic empowerment. We continue to look forward to hearing more in the coming months about the impact of these programmes.
The work of the Eminent Persons Group, set up in 2011, together with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative to look at options for reform arrived at an important conclusion: it is only when parliamentarians work with bureaucrats, civil servants and, crucially, NGOs that obstacles can be overcome. It is also now a well-researched fact that, unless the wider population is if not engaged then at least aware of parliaments’ priorities, the chances of successful change will be slim.
The UK has the privilege to host the 2018 CHOGM. What steps can be taken now to ensure that there are measureable and lasting outcomes? The Minister has already confirmed the importance of parliamentary engagement in the CHOGM event but cautions that the agenda is agreed by consensus. Nevertheless, it is parliaments that drive Governments in agreeing legislation, in allocating budgets, in oversight and in ensuring implementation. Commonwealth parliaments, through their various linked bodies, are in an excellent position to discuss, agree and disseminate a few clear action-based programmes.
The Commonwealth has, over the years, taken upon itself a heavy agenda but the recurring themes are the promotion of human rights and democracy, youth engagement and the management of economic globalisation. The Commonwealth Secretariat is small and modestly funded. It could perhaps use the occasion of the UK CHOGM to downsize and sharpen its goals, while at the same time investing in ever greater networking and joint programming.
There is now a golden opportunity. Put very simply, there is just about time before CHOGM to encourage Commonwealth parliaments to decide on their own priorities, whether these be on peace measures, trade and/or security, and thereafter to communicate intra and inter-regionally, and to convene in the early spring of next year to agree which priorities should go forward to an organising committee of regional chairs. Once sifted, the task would be to agree, and draw up, a clearly worded action plan to be presented at CHOGM.
Such a programme would require good will, energy and commitment from parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth. The synergistic effect of several parliaments across traditional divides, acting together with relevant NGOs, could be considerable. Furthermore, if managed, it would place parliamentarians at the centre of implementing Commonwealth values, which, to me, seems appropriate.
Many Commonwealth countries have deep links with the UK and, via the UK, with the EU. Inevitably there will be consequences from the UK’s decision to leave the EU. These could entail moves to hinder all kinds of seemingly small but very important conventions that bind us together—for example, changes in facilitating remittances, travel, visas, tourism, investment flows and cultural exchange. CHOGM night perhaps take the lead in announcing its intention to protect these conventions through a programme of self-interest and solidarity.
It has been said by thoughtful people that the perils we face are greater today than at any time in history. That may be so and, as parliamentarians, we should be prepared to work across party and national boundaries to insist on measures agreed at CHOGM. The Commonwealth provides an ideal forum for the exchange of experience, for exploring the most effective ways of transforming obligations under international law into the domestic legal framework and for reaffirming our legal, cultural and political heritage. There is no shortage of Commonwealth bodies. I think that at the last count there were something like 90, ranging from law and journalism to business, youth, trade and aid. If united on the vital global issues, the Commonwealth and all its satellite organisations could emerge as a strong and capable leadership committed to ethical governance. Never has the time for the overt adoption and practice of such a role been more urgent.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for taking a lead and calling this very timely debate. Given the remarkable historic trade summit and Commonwealth week of celebration in the presence of Her Majesty, I was inspired by the contribution in the City of London by the honourable Prime Minister of Malta, Joseph Muscat, and his far-sighted vision of a more united Commonwealth. As a daughter of the Commonwealth, I wish to focus my comments on the role of women in the Commonwealth.
Current leadership can easily give a false sense of comfort, with Her Majesty carrying the baton for equality, but there are only two women heads of government—in Britain and Bangladesh. But the speaker of the Bangladesh Parliament, Dr Shirin Chaudhury, is the chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland is the Secretary-General. Her priority this year is to drive Women in the Changing World of Work: Planet 50:50 by 2030. The aim is to continue as pioneers towards gender equality and to achieve fully the economic and social inclusion of women and girls. I wish to take this opportunity to speak particularly about the importance of the political, social and economic inclusion of women at the heart of our trading and security relationship among the 52 Commonwealth countries, without which there cannot be lasting peace and prosperity in our world.
I am a member of the Africa Group in Parliament, and last year we concluded an inquiry. Among the many objectives was the role of aid in promoting human rights. The UK rightly takes pride in its aid policy and it is important leverage in our work alongside Commonwealth partners to pursue our common desire for social justice and equity, be it in peace or in times of conflict. My personal observation during that period was that while many Commonwealth leaders have unflinching loyalties, given the rising influence of a younger generation, a significant number of Ministers and leaders were mindful and stated in no uncertain terms in their evidence that aid cannot dictate the social justice policies of sovereign Governments and partner countries.
In this context, any reference to empire, old or new, raises legitimate questions about how CHOGM and other institutions surrounding the Commonwealth can benefit all the Commonwealth equally alongside British interests. The fact is that we have enjoyed an unfettered advantage. Many want to negotiate a new post-colonial relationship, and I am in total agreement with the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, whose comprehensive analysis looked at how we can achieve levels of parity and respect among nation states.
Our Commonwealth Charter declares that,
“gender equality and women’s empowerment are essential components of human development and basic human rights. The advancement of women’s rights and the education of girls are critical preconditions for effective and sustainable development”.
These values of human dignity and gender equality must be intrinsic and present in all our trade and security relationships as we continue to strengthen our ties. Of course, if women are absent in their thousands from executive governance and in Parliament, the consequence of limited progress towards gender equality in these areas at regional and national levels is inevitable.
Women’s political empowerment and equal access to leadership positions at all levels are fundamental to achieving sustainable economic participation and a fairer world. With restricted growth in women’s representation, the advancement of gender equality and the business of governance, peace and security are seriously threatened. Unsurprisingly, 2017 has seen a decline in women’s political participation in a number of countries. Only two nations of the Commonwealth have female heads of government. This surely indicates that change has to be embedded in every corner of society. Progress in the number of women Members of Parliament worldwide is also moving at a snail’s pace, albeit that the number of women Speakers of Parliament has seen a small increase. However, the number of Ministers remains unchanged. It is still far from gender parity and indicates that gender equality remains out of sight in structures of power and decision-making; economic power and high office remain the domain of men.
Without a fair and level playing field along with a concerted effort to protect and promote women’s rights and leadership, we will not see a social environment in which entrepreneurship and small businesses can thrive. If we do not regard women as critical factors in our economy, there will be no equality in the market or the boardroom and they will not have financial independence, which will render the very fabric of our institutions undemocratic. We leave aside at our peril the importance of women as consumers of trade and business and as soft power generators. While many of these changes must come from within national institutions and Governments, the international community—and Britain in particular—has an onerous responsibility to ensure that gender equity can forge ahead unconditionally. It has to be the highest priority on our agenda for economic ties.
There seems to be a distinct excitement about the post-Brexit relationship with the Commonwealth. Successive Governments have overlooked the significant prospects for Commonwealth nations. Notwithstanding our colonial past, the people of the Commonwealth continue to defer to the UK’s standing and political values, not to mention their adherence to the remnants of our own legal system and governance. Their systems are prevailingly based on our model, although a little cranky at the edges.
We also have a forceful diaspora here with a deep-rooted Commonwealth heritage who contribute immensely to the UK economy. We should utilise these people as our assets and ambassadors to strengthen our economic and institutional ties. Many second and third generation Asians and Africans who were born and brought up in the UK are trail-blazing in business in their parents’ birthplaces, seeking out emerging markets and opportunities as well as assisting in building community infrastructures such as schools, hospitals and charitable institutions. I have witnessed many such projects at first hand in Bangladesh and I know of many friends who are actively engaged in India, Pakistan and many parts of Africa. Of course this means that our Government will need to refresh our policies on migration as well as trading arrangements and I cannot but mention the need for a welcome mat for international students beyond China. As an officer of the APPG on International Students, I must reiterate our call for international students to be taken out of net migration figures. It should be noted that the message that students from many parts of the Commonwealth are not welcome has been too harsh for too long.
The irrepressible presence of the Bangladesh, Pakistan and India diaspora of nearly 2 million people with financial clout represents a massive potential link to developing export markets. China is already cultivating and strengthening its position in these regions where our standing, history and friendship are far more significant. The much-respected and praised noble Lord, Lord Marland, has already opened the door of possibilities by recently organising the first ever Commonwealth heads of trade meeting with a view to increasing co-operation and trade between Commonwealth Governments and leading businesses. I had the privilege of having a conversation with the noble Lord and I wish him well in all his endeavours.
Finally, the Commonwealth Secretariat, in collaboration with the Commonwealth Youth Council, the Commonwealth Youth Gender and Equality Network, and Rotary clubs in Canada and the Caribbean, has launched the Commonwealth Women’s Mentorship Scheme. I hope that some of our UK business leaders will participate and mentor the new generation of business women from the Commonwealth.
I conclude with the following questions for the Minister. First, what will Her Majesty’s Government do to ensure that all future political, economic and trade discussions embed women’s leadership at their core, as well as a recognition of the right of women to contribute to their nation’s economic progress? Secondly, not just for the greater good of humanity but because of our historical contribution, what plans have been put in place by Her Majesty’s Government to bring about peace among the various countries within the Commonwealth where long-standing conflicts rage, afflicting countless generations and exposing young people to the threat of extremism? India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Bangladesh are cases in point.
I will repeat my previous call made in this House about reparation and apologies for the hundreds of thousands of women of Bangladesh raped by the Pakistani army as a weapon of war. Will the Minister consider this proposition within the context of peace building? I accept that it demands courage and foresight, which she has in abundance.
Finally, I want to take this opportunity to salute Her Majesty, the Prime Minister and the Secretary-General for their continuous leadership to usher in a more peaceful and prosperous Commonwealth and look forward to the 2018 meeting.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Commonwealth in your Lordships’ House. I declare my interest as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Uganda and Rwanda.
For those of us who have argued for many years that we have neglected the Commonwealth, leaving the European Union offers us an historic opportunity to reshape our foreign policy and rekindle relations with this amazing group of nations. I am very fond of quoting my noble friend Lord Howell, sitting just near me, who has said:
“Europe is our region, America our ally, and the Commonwealth our family”.
It is our family, and as in all families, we are all different yet united by strong foundations, none stronger than the amazing leadership of our sovereign, Her Majesty the Queen.
However, as a Member of the other House said in 2014:
“The Commonwealth has strong and deep foundations; but without constant renewal, these risk gradual decay”.
It is about such renewal that we have been talking today and we should continue to do so in future.
I want to ponder for a few moments where we have gone wrong. I think that there are four main causes. First, successive UK Governments gave little thought to how we could make the Commonwealth an effective trading body, and many of our Ministers and civil servants feared Britain playing a leading role in the organisation because of the “colonial” feel it might produce. This is both nonsense and cowardice.
Secondly, the signing of a new Commonwealth charter in 2012 was meant to give it a new direction. The members agreed to prioritise democracy and human rights. That has not worked, because we have prioritised over trade, where there is very little dispute, the areas where there is the most contention.
Thirdly, our membership of the European Union consumed a vast and disproportionate amount of diplomatic time and resources without delivering an equivalent amount of good outputs. Finally, our membership of the single market and customs union spread apathy among many of our businesses. British businesses which have created what should be world-leading products have limited themselves to our nearest trading partners, such as the European Union, and neglected emerging markets and the Commonwealth, where we really need to be.
If we are to give the Commonwealth purpose, let us focus first on trade. The Commonwealth comprises 52 largely English-speaking countries with a combined population of 2.6 billion; it covers a third of the globe; it has a combined GDP of more than $10 trillion and includes five G20 countries, with trade projected to surpass $1 trillion by 2020. Given that Britain’s trade deficit of £40 billion is the greatest economic challenge facing our country, we should keep it in mind that a recent report on the Commonwealth highlighted that it is 19% cheaper on average for a business in the Commonwealth to trade because of commonalities such as our legal system and language. By reforming the Commonwealth around a trade agenda, we solve one of our biggest problems and help to spread prosperity. Trade is of mutual benefit—for not just one but both countries concerned.
We are all children of the Commonwealth. As with my noble friend Lord Gadhia, I was born in that great continent of Africa. I now turn to our relations with the 18 Commonwealth countries there. While there are many things we can do at a Commonwealth level to build trade links with all nations, there are also many things we should be doing at a bilateral government level as well. At the moment, seven of those 18 countries have trade envoys, including the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, for Kenya and Tanzania. We should as a matter of urgency appoint trade envoys and recruit a DIT staff member for the remaining 11 countries, including Zambia, Malawi and South Africa. Are there plans to do so? The trade envoy programme offers us a unique opportunity to build bridges with these nations and to spend time on issues that Ministers simply cannot always get to. I have been in the role for just over a year and we are on course to double trade with Uganda and increase it in Rwanda by up to 20 times the 2015 level.
There are other steps we can take. Our aviation links with African Commonwealth countries are woeful. The decision taken by British Airways to suspend flights with Dar es Salaam, Entebbe and others—flights that were almost always full—was shameful. Those were our bridge to these nations and I hope other providers will continue to step in and replace them. However, a replacement is difficult because there are no slots available at either Gatwick or Heathrow. We often talk about aviation policy in this House but in a post-Brexit world we need connectivity. We are 30 years behind where we should be. We need not just a third runway at Heathrow but a second at Gatwick, and others. When I see what other countries are doing in aviation, I am ashamed of our faint-heartedness.
Similarly, the decision taken by Barclays Bank to sell its African trading arm should be seen as a national scandal. It has been in Africa for 100 years, its brand is beyond compare and yet, because of legislation passed in this very House, it is selling away one of our great connections. That harms the great brand of UK plc.
I finish with an idea that I came up with when my noble friend Lord Howell was a Minister in the Foreign Office and I took up with the current Minister for the Commonwealth, my noble friend Lady Anelay. I proposed a Commonwealth bank that could unite the Commonwealth—or, more fittingly, the “Queen Elizabeth Commonwealth Bank”. Collective institutions bind organisations together. We already have a World Bank and a European Bank so why not a Commonwealth bank? I have in mind something like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, of which Britain is a founding member, which could transform economic development across the Commonwealth, supporting major infrastructure projects and possibly lending directly to businesses. Across the Commonwealth there is a huge appetite for new infrastructure investment. New roads, rail and energy projects are all essential to economic development. A Commonwealth bank would be a great way of demonstrating our commitment to our family, showing that Britain is still an outward-looking nation. It would help all its members, particularly the poorest. Will the Minister commit to exploring the idea before the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting next year?
The recent Commonwealth Trade Ministers Meeting —a brilliant initiative driven by the Commonwealth Business Council and my noble friend Lord Marland—is a good start. Next year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is another excellent opportunity. Let us be bold in our approach to the Commonwealth; let us unite around increasing trade, investment and cultural links; and let Britain lead the charge for a Commonwealth bank. It will bring the Commonwealth together in shared purpose, and would also be the most fitting tribute to Her Majesty’s magnificent leadership of this wonderful family of nations.
Baroness Flather (CB)
My Lords, we have had a very interesting afternoon. We have heard a variety of speeches on a variety of issues. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for the comprehensive way she introduced the debate. I do not think she left anything out in her opening speech.
We almost always have a debate on the Commonwealth every year. Some of it is the same as ever because obviously the issues do not go away so we have to remind ourselves of them. I was very pleased to hear the support for the new Secretary-General, who has been a good friend to many of us. One of the newspapers said she was very greedy because she was asking for the same pay as the former Secretary-General. Is that greedy? Should she accept lower pay just because she is a woman? Somebody else said she was spending so much money doing up the flat but she says it was started beforehand. That is not in the papers. Nobody says that the works had started before she took office. These are the issues that even in our society women have to face.
That reminds me of women—not that I ever forget women. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, spoke about women. She spoke more about the leadership role of women. I have noticed how many Prime Ministers and leaders who are women do not focus on the needs of their sisters. It is very sad because they have to fight their way and they have to fight all the people around them, and are not terribly well supported in their roles. Certainly, if I go back to Mrs Gandhi, she did not do anything at all for women. Mrs Thatcher did more than people know but there are many women leaders and Prime Ministers who have done nothing for women.
My focus is always on the poorest women. Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and I were at a conference on Nigeria. I said, “The women in Nigeria do three-quarters of the work and you give them nothing. They get nothing at all for that”. The people there did not say, “No, no, they do not do three-quarters”. Actually, I could have said they do almost all the work but I thought that would be a bit over the top, but they do. They do agricultural work and all kinds of other work and there is no return for them, and they are controlled totally by the men. They do not have any money, position or status.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, said, without the women we cannot have a change in society. Women are the only way to change the nature of society and the nature of society in the developing countries of the Commonwealth is not good—and that includes India. It is amazing. People say, “Oh, but India has so much money”. Yes, India has money but it is not for the people. The money is for the individuals who have money. That is the problem. Maybe Africa has money, I do not know, but it does not go to ordinary people and certainly not to the women. If we want a proper change, we have to start thinking about how to make it possible for women to have a reasonably good life and access to some money.
I have been involved in development issues since I came to this House. Everywhere I have gone, in every project I have seen, women earn a little bit of money; they change, their children change; they send their children to school—everything changes. Their health changes. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that health is a very important factor. What he said about nurses was extremely valuable. In India, which is a great place for health tourism, nurses are not valued at all. They are treated almost as if they are street women. So even in the professions or jobs where they are badly needed, women are not valued or treated well.
I have to say a word about Bangladesh. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, will agree but I have been to Bangladesh several times and it does better than India on every tick-box. It does better on food security, health, education and family planning—in fact, very much better on family planning. I believe that is because there are so many women in paid work. We always say how dreadful these garment factories are; they are dreadful to an extent but they employ girls and women, who change once they are employed. If they get even a small amount of money, they change and when they do, everything else changes with them. In their families, they do not want to have children or to marry too early. All sorts of things happen.
I was speaking a little earlier today to the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Boateng. I said how important it was to have family planning and they both said, “It’ll happen by itself—there’ll be more education and a change in their circumstances”. I do not quite know which circumstances they meant. I am sorry, but we have been saying for 50 years that everything will happen by itself and education will come. No, it is actually longer than 50 years because it was in the 1950s that we started saying, “Don’t worry, education will come and everything will change in developing countries”. Are we not still waiting?
When we have CHOGM next year it is my hope and expectation that we will be clear and straightforward, and not try to pretend that we must not say this or that. We have heard about the treatment of LGBT people. How can we tolerate that? We have to speak out about it. I say frankly that the religious and faith leaders have a real role to play in that. They have a real responsibility and should speak out openly and clearly to the faithful who follow them, but they do not. They are always a little ambivalent about it and they should not be.
We should not be ambivalent about issues which are extremely important and clear. We should not be ambivalent about the treatment of women, or about the fact that somebody like Zuma can build a huge palace for himself and it is said to be perfectly all right. It is not perfectly all right. What would Nelson Mandela say about Zuma? The value of the currency there has dropped like a stone, while he has this huge palace. There are issues in the Commonwealth which cannot be papered over as if they do not matter. We cannot paper over Mugabe. We ought to try to persuade other countries in Africa to say, “This is not the way to treat people”, when things are so bad. Zuma has now said that white farms are there to be taken. Everything seems to be going the wrong way round and they should not be doing those things.
At CHOGM, we ought to set down exactly what we want to see. It is not just about doing it for them; they have to do it for themselves but we have to help them and point out why. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, also mentioned the rule of law. Nothing can happen in a country—no human rights or anything—if there is no rule of law. You can say, “All right, we have human rights”, but how will you make them happen? You cannot, so the rule of law is very important. I hope noble Lords will make sure that next year it is big on the agenda.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, it is always rather a challenge to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, especially on a day with so many excellent speeches from so many noble Lords. I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Anelay not only for introducing this debate with such a comprehensive opening speech but for her commitment to her brief, including her role as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. She is an inspiration to many of us here and outside this Chamber and it is clear from all the speeches today that she is held in immense respect by us all.
Earlier this week we celebrated Commonwealth Day, a time for us all to stop and reflect on and celebrate our rich diversity and shared values. The values that hold our unique partnership together are promoting democracy, championing human rights and extending social and economic development across all 52 Commonwealth member countries. Our family spans six continents and is home to one-third of the world’s population, some 2.2 billion people, and, with 60% of its population under 30, now more than ever the Commonwealth has the potential to be an unstoppable movement in delivering global social progress. I endorse the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that young people should be engaged and welcomed at CHOGM next year. It would be a great opportunity to encourage and develop the next generation of leaders, and they should be properly supported on that journey to leadership.
Next year, the UK will resume the chair of the Commonwealth. The UK is already a leader in economic and sustainable development and is the only G7 country to give 0.7% of its GNI to international aid and development. It is transforming lives around the world every day. Our chairmanship will come at a critical moment for the world’s poorest and offers a unique opportunity to help to implement and deliver authentic, concrete action in support of the global goals for sustainable development.
There is much still to be done. Despite incredible progress, preventable diseases still wreak havoc across the Commonwealth and, indeed, the world. The collective power of the Commonwealth means that we can make tangible plans to curb these debilitating and, in some cases, deadly diseases. Previous Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings have shown that this is possible.
Let us take polio as an example. In the years leading up to the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, outbreaks of poliovirus were occurring in places where it had not been seen for years. The disease seemed to be making a terrifying comeback, even though we had been 99% of the way to eradicating it for good. In response, millions of pounds of new funding were pledged from donor countries such as the UK and, importantly, the leaders of Pakistan and Nigeria, which accounted for the majority of polio cases at the time, pledged to prioritise the effort. Six years later, the situation with polio is vastly different. Only 37 cases were reported across three countries last year, compared to 650 cases across 16 countries back in 2011. Challenges remain that may yet derail such progress, but with the Commonwealth’s ongoing support we stand on the cusp of making polio the second human disease in history, after smallpox, to be eradicated.
The Commonwealth’s legacy on polio leaves lessons for other urgent causes. In working together to eradicate polio in the most remote, vulnerable and socially excluded communities, Commonwealth countries are constructing a blueprint not only for tackling preventable diseases such as malaria but for achieving the sustainable development goals as a whole. To this day, 90% of Commonwealth citizens still live in malaria-endemic countries. Malaria kills half a million people every year and although there has been significant progress in tackling this disease—Sri Lanka was declared malaria-free last year—more needs to be done to tackle what is considered to be the greatest killer disease of all time. The collective power of the Commonwealth can make this happen.
By the same token, the only way in which we will end extreme poverty in all forms is, as noble Baronesses have said in recent speeches, by prioritising the rights and needs of girls and women across the world. For too long, the efforts to ensure gender equality have fallen short, even among Commonwealth nations. To this day, each Commonwealth member country has at least one law on its books that discriminates against girls and women simply because of their gender. Further to this, at least six Commonwealth countries do not have legislation on domestic violence, while 15 still have exemptions that permit marital rape, ensuring that men only face criminal charges for raping their wives in very limited circumstances. This is not good enough. Women also face barriers when it comes to laws and practices affecting their right to work, financial inclusion, inheriting property and harmful practices such as child marriage. The Commonwealth can be a force for good in this world, provided that we first get its own house in order.
In these uncertain times, the Commonwealth has a real, legitimate chance to be a major power for social good in the world. Like the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I am a former adviser to Global Citizen, which, with many other NGOs, is working to support Commonwealth nations to collectively address discriminatory laws and practices, including gender-based violence—barriers that keep girls and women from realising their full economic and social potential. In the spirit of the sustainable development goals, Global Citizen believes that, by demonstrating the political and financial will needed to achieve a polio-free world by 2020, we can ensure that no one gets left behind.
Whatever your gender, and wherever you were born, you deserve a fair chance to live a healthy life of opportunity. The lives of women and girls and of children vulnerable to the devastation of polio and malaria cannot be forgotten. UK aid already has a tremendous impact on the world’s poorest, something that we should all be incredibly proud of. When we take the chair of the Commonwealth next year, not only should we strengthen our ties with our old allies, but we should ensure that its awesome power is harnessed to give help to those around the world who need it the most.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, after the most amazing variety of speeches this afternoon. This all goes to show how all-embracing he Commonwealth is, but it also means that the Government, in working on their programme for the summit meeting next year, will have to take some very tough decisions about priorities. If we try to do everything, we will do nothing, so we have to select the kind of issues we want to focus on.
Over the last decade or so, I have taken part in most of the debates on the Commonwealth. There has always been a great deal of good will towards the Commonwealth, and a great deal of good will from the Government of the day, but precious little action, if any. When I was privileged to lead the last debate, 15 months ago, after the Malta conference, I saw perhaps the first signs that things might be beginning to move under the leadership of that excellent Prime Minister of Malta, Mr Muscat, but still I was sceptical as to whether there was really much movement. Now we have a different situation, with new momentum from the Government, and the irony is that it arises from Brexit.
Two things flow from that. First, there is no substitute for the EU in the Commonwealth: they are two quite different things. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made this point right at the beginning of his speech. Incidentally, he has been tireless in support of the Commonwealth, not just over recent years but over decades, for which we owe him a very great deal. Secondly, we must not use that as a reason to step back into the past, and perhaps I am the best person to say that, as the last British administrator to take up a job in Kenya when it was still a colony. Things were not quite as bad as some people like to make out, but I can say, with great strength of feeling, that that is all the past. In leading the Commonwealth, as we are, towards the next summit, we cannot afford to show today any kind of paternalism, to lecture other countries or to try and impose our views on them too strongly.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister referred recently to the Commonwealth as a unique opportunity. That is exactly what it is, and we either take it or leave it. I am glad that she set up this unit to supervise the summit meeting under Tim Hitchens, and I am glad that she is getting the departments of government to work together towards that end, working right across departments. Of course there is a culture in the Commonwealth, in which Her Majesty the Queen herself has set the lead, of personal rapport—of contact with people. It is almost an attitude of mind that Ministers in government—indeed, all of us who work with the Commonwealth—need to follow.
We should look first at other departments at home. Take the Department for Education. At the moment there is very little education in schools about the Commonwealth, yet it is a salient part of our history. I hope there will be leadership on that between now and the next summit meeting to stimulate schools to take an interest in their history and their past in the Commonwealth of today. There is something called Commonwealth Class, in which the BBC, the British Council and the secretariat work to get contact, through digital revolution links, between schools all the way around the Commonwealth.
Then there is DfID. As has been mentioned today, it has a very important role: it finances part of the institutions of the Commonwealth. However, it needs a more coherent strategy with the FCO on its approach to the Commonwealth, and I hope we will hear more about that in the near future. There is one thing it might like to think about in the longer term: we contribute 14% of the total resources of the European Development Fund and the multilateral work that the EU does. That could mean there could be something like £4 billion available in the period between 2020 and 2026, and I hope we could devote a lot of that to the Commonwealth, among other issues.
There has been plenty of discussion today about strategy. Others know far more than I do about trade but I join all those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Marland. We need men and women of action who will set up projects and then move them forward, which the noble Lord has done with the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council and with the Trade Ministers’ meeting in recent days.
Of course, we have to keep perspective. Over 45% of our exports and imports are with the EU while under 10% are with the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth is growing pretty fast. As we have heard, the projection is that there will be $1 trillion of trade by 2020. It needs to be non-bureaucratic. I do not like this talk of endless treaties; we need non-bureaucratic agreements about trade to facilitate trade between us. We need to invite India to take an active part in this. Recent studies show that the potential for trade with India is enormous—within the Commonwealth, not just between our two countries.
On Africa, the all-party group recently produced a very constructive report suggesting ways to make it easier for Africa to trade with Europe and the rest of the world. If we want Africans to support the Commonwealth actively, there must be some advantages to that which would bring help in terms of the development of their people.
Then there is education. I declare an interest as chancellor of the University of Gibraltar and former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. Here we can take any number of examples. The scholarship and fellowship fund of the Commonwealth has 30,000 alumni, people in leading walks of life all over the Commonwealth who have important links with this country. The scope for developing much more in the field of education with the Commonwealth is enormous, to facilitate more movement between staff and students and more partnerships between universities. In fact, perhaps the equivalent of Erasmus in the EU can be projected into the Commonwealth as a whole. The Association of Commonwealth Universities has 500 members, and an enormous amount can be done through educational co-operation.
That leads me naturally to the role of professional bodies, of which, as we have heard, there are at least 80. I join others in robustly supporting the Secretary-General in the work that she is trying to do. The secretariat has limited resources, and there is immense advantage in forming partnerships with Commonwealth professional bodies for particular projects: groups of countries working together; Britain sometimes in the lead, sometimes not. It depends on the interests of the countries concerned. Through those professional bodies, enormous partnerships of great effect can be progressed. The Commonwealth of Learning has its role to play. The Commonwealth Foundation, of which I used to be chairman, has a role to play. We have not mentioned the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, whose work at the moment emphasises the role of women and youth. Those two areas are vital, as we have heard.
There is an enormous amount to be done on security, for example; on corruption, where we could co-operate with President Buhari in Nigeria; and on the charter. I agree with everyone who has made speeches on human rights, but the best way to move them forward is not megaphone diplomacy but the reasoned arguments that we have heard today—through dialogue within the Commonwealth.
As Nehru always said, the purpose and value of the Commonwealth is that it can show a touch of healing, and that is exactly what we need.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly during the gap, and declare an interest as a member of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Commonwealth. I have also had the privilege of participating in bilateral visits to Commonwealth countries, as well as of attending the international assemblies organised by the CPA and building friendships and channels of communication—soft power, soft diplomacy, call it what you will.
Given all the talk about trade today, which is of course of great future significance, I wish to emphasise the importance of the democratic process, effective parliaments and parliamentary co-operation. After all, many, although by no means all, Commonwealth country parliaments are based on the Westminster model, so we have an undeniable special interest. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, said that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association had not been mentioned so far. My intention in speaking in the gap was to mention it. I believe that it is fundamental, and the United Kingdom branch has played a leading role in developing parliamentary relationships, not only through bilateral visits but by setting up workshops, seminars and round tables to enable the exchange of information on parliamentary procedures and practices and ways of holding Governments to account—especially in encouraging more women to participate in parliamentary work. My noble friend Lady Berridge referred to that.
I therefore hope that the United Kingdom branch of the CPA will be recognised for the important work that it carries out, permitted to participate in the preparation for the CHOGM agenda, and guaranteed a place at the meetings—as well as being involved in appropriate fringe meetings. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give assurances on that.
As a postscript, and something else that has not yet been mentioned, I refer to the overseas territories—those tiny territories that are also part of the Commonwealth. I hope that they, too, can have suitable representation and presence at the CHOGM in London next year.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I too am grateful for being able to speak in the gap. As many noble Lords have mentioned, human rights are among the basic values of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, the record on human rights of some member countries is not so good. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the human rights situation in what is known to be the largest democracy on earth, India, particularly in the part of Jammu and Kashmir under its control.
According to Amnesty International’s report of 2016-17, the most recent one, in Jammu and Kashmir since July 2016 more than 80 people, mostly protesters, were killed in clashes and thousands were injured. At least 14 people were killed and hundreds blinded by security forces’ use of pellet guns, which are inherently inaccurate and indiscriminate. Security forces used arbitrary or excessive force against demonstrators on several occasions. In August, Shabir Ahmad Monga, a lecturer, was beaten to death by army soldiers.
The Jammu and Kashmir Government imposed a curfew that lasted more than two months. Private landline, mobile and internet service providers suspended their services for weeks on orders from state authorities. The communications shutdown undermined a range of human rights. Residents reported being unable to reach medical assistance in emergencies. In September, Khurram Parvez, a Kashmiri human rights defender, was arrested and detained for more than two months on spurious grounds, a day after he was prevented from travelling to a UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva, Switzerland. In October, the Jammu and Kashmir Government ordered a Srinagar-based newspaper to cease printing and publication on vague grounds.
Over this period hundreds of people, including children, were placed in administrative detention. Will the Minster condemn these abuses of human rights in Jammu and Kashmir? Furthermore, will she ask the British Foreign Secretary to raise the issue of human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir with his counterpart in India at their next meeting to bring them to an end and bring the culprits to justice?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I have been in this House for only three years and do not have the depth of experience of many noble Lords who have contributed so well to the debate regarding the Commonwealth. Over those three years it has been a real privilege for me to develop my knowledge and understanding of the Commonwealth. It is a privilege of mine to serve alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on the executive of the CPA. I was both delighted and slightly irritated when the noble Baroness contributed in the gap. I was delighted because she raised the CPA and the work that it does, but irritated because she said pretty much everything that I wanted to say, having sat here for a number of hours waiting for my moment to finally address CPA issues. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, gave a tantalising mention of it, and then the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, spoke. I am sure that the House will forgive me if I repeat—perhaps I should say “emphasise and strengthen”—some of the noble Baroness’s contributions.
In some ways it remains remarkable to me that, with such a conflicted history of military occupation and economic exploitation, the UK retains such warm familial relations with such a diverse network of 52 independent sovereign states around the globe. It really is a remarkable 21st century network of countries, as the Minister said. Our debate on the UK’s relationship with this association quite rightly recognised that we no longer set the terms. Many contributions debated how the UK uses its relationship with this network and whether in some key areas it is perhaps not being proactive enough. Therefore, I thank the Minister very warmly from these Benches for allowing this debate to take place, for the manner in which she introduced it and for the work she does in her ministerial portfolio, which has rightly been recognised across all sides of the Chamber.
The diversity of activities under the umbrella of the Commonwealth and the number of organisations and bodies within that umbrella—as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, said, it is now touching on nearly 90—is as diverse as the countries within the network. There are countries with populations over 1 billion and others with populations barely over 10,000 people. It really is quite remarkable. But when it comes to CHOGM and our discussions in the Commonwealth, they are all equal. Whether it is the United Kingdom or a Caribbean island, we are equal partners. Then there is the extraordinary work that the British Council does in partnership with the Commonwealth—this year is the UK-India Year of Culture—right through to the CPA work on cybersecurity, on the cutting edge of some of the challenges that parliamentarians have to face. A conference is coming up on cybersecurity, organised by the CPA, with more than 90 parliamentary delegates from across the Commonwealth.
This debate has also reflected diversity, from education to economic development, from development policy to diplomatic dialogue and from LGBTI injustice to shared values. But within all those interesting areas, the debate focused on the two broad themes of human rights and trade—perhaps rightly so, as they are issues that face the world at the moment and are a priority for the United Kingdom.
The Minister referred to the Commonwealth being a unique family of nations. One thing that struck me in her introduction was when she said that within the Commonwealth there are 1 billion young people. The future needs and opportunities for a whole global generation are reflected in the debates and dialogue that we have within the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, referred to his experience with young people, and the fact that they have a direct input into some of the global decision-making structures, including the development goals, and the challenges that they see. The Commonwealth can play a much greater role in supporting those developments from a neutral political standpoint. There are still immense challenges, but the Commonwealth has a very clear role.
The diversity of the Commonwealth being one of its strengths does not mean that there are universal standards on human rights. That has rightly been the focus of much of the debate this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Scriven said that the values and defence and promotion of human rights should be universal. He is absolutely right and he highlighted the scale of the challenge. Within the family of nations, as we have been referring to it, there requires to be much greater dialogue and open exchanges on addressing issues where we would like to see development.
For two-thirds of the Commonwealth countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and other noble Lords said, representing 90% of the people in Commonwealth countries, the criminal code on private, consensual conduct between same-sex adults is something that we cannot support. The penalties for such include 10 years’ imprisonment and hard labour in Jamaica; 14 years’ imprisonment in Kenya; 20 years plus flogging in Malaysia; and 25 years in Trinidad and Tobago. Bangladesh, Barbados, Guyana, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Uganda retain life imprisonment as a maximum sentence, and in 12 northern states in Nigeria the maximum penalty for male homosexuality is death. These are all independent sovereign nations in differing regions of the world, and we can no more dictate the terms of their legislation than they can ours. But if the Commonwealth is for anything, it is for having the relationship that my noble friend Lady Barker mentioned in her speech, which is one of equals, but one where we address this and address it proactively. After her really very strong speech, I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
As for offering practical support to the secretariat, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and his request for extra capacity in the secretariat so that we have more ability to work with our friends and colleagues in the Commonwealth, I hope that the Government will see the benefit in that, and I hope that in their ongoing dialogue with the secretariat those things will be taken forward.
There are other issues that I know the Minister is passionate about. One concerns the retention of the death penalty. I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Abolition of the Death Penalty. The majority of Commonwealth countries still have the death penalty on the statute book. I have visited Malaysia, and will be going to Uganda soon, to discuss with parliamentary colleagues ways forward for those who wish to see reforms. When we chair CHOGM, I hope that the abolition of the death penalty can be one area on which we move.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, one of the real instruments for allowing such movement to happen is for parliamentarians to work with parliamentarians. The CPA is now in its 106th year—it was formerly the Empire Parliamentary Association—and has 17,000 parliamentarians from 180 national, state, provincial and territorial parliaments and legislatures. But it is not just parliamentarians; clerks, committee staff, librarians and legal support all play such an important role in the developing capacity of parliaments around the world. I am pleased that there will be ongoing work in advance of CHOGM on this. In the discussions of the CPA UK branch, we are already taking the lead-up to CHOGM very seriously.
I have had the privilege not only of taking part in outward visits; in many respects, as a British parliamentarian I have found inward visits the most useful in learning from our Commonwealth friends, especially now that we have national parliaments in Edinburgh, Wales and Belfast. We can learn from developments in the unicameral parliaments of smaller countries. This week, there has been a visit by a very strong delegation from Canada. We can learn much from that wonderful federal country, to cite just one example. I apologised to the Canadian delegates that they were here in such an uneventful political week in the United Kingdom, as they visited Westminster and Scotland. We have much to learn from our Commonwealth friends.
The second broad area that we discussed today was trade. In my final minute I shall address one element that came through from my noble friend Lord Chidgey and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Luce—that we should not lose perspective. Of course there is huge potential for growth in our trading relations with Commonwealth countries. However, the perspective is that, of our top 25 export markets, only four are in the Commonwealth. The figure is only three for our import markets. Brexit is already having an impact. We have heard in the debate that the lower value of the pound, for countries such as Botswana, India and Nigeria, translates into reduced earnings and difficulties for their exports to us. If we do not have bilateral trading relations that are the same as the 32 FTAs that Commonwealth countries already have with the UK through the EU, there could be an increased burden on the least developed Commonwealth nations through increased tariffs.
I hope that the Government are seized of those areas, but ultimately the debate has been framed in positive terms. We all look forward to CHOGM and the British chairing of it, and wish the institution well for the coming year.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and my noble friend Lord Cashman, I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights. I am also a member of a number of other organisations that promote human rights, particularly those of LGBT communities.
The Minister opened by stating that the aim of the Government was to help the Commonwealth to unlock its vast potential, and use the opportunity of hosting the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018 to do just that. She is absolutely right to stress that there is cross-party support for that objective. When we debated the results of the last CHOGM 15 months ago in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, she pointed out that it coincided with the European Union Referendum Act receiving Royal Assent. It is quite strange that today’s debate also coincides with the Bill to trigger Article 50 receiving Royal Assent—I do not know if that is a coincidence or was planned by the Government. In that previous debate, the Minister emphasised that the choice facing the country in the referendum was not binary; our membership of both the EU and the Commonwealth complemented each other. For some, the UK’s vote to leave the European Union means that our relationship with the Commonwealth assumes a greater significance.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about the synergy that members of the Commonwealth have. There are undoubted opportunities but, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, there are also threats. For members of the Commonwealth, Britain was—and remains, until we finally leave—a powerful advocate within the EU, with considerable opportunities to work in its broader interests. The Commonwealth, comprising 52 developed, emerging and developing nations, presents a range of potential trade options and challenges. Of course, trade between the UK and the bloc declined markedly between 1948 and 1973, with UK goods exports to the group and Commonwealth goods imports to the UK both falling from 38% to 18%. From 1991 to 2011, however, UK exports changed from 9.2% and 8.8%, bottoming out at 7.4% in 2006, while Commonwealth imports rose steadily from 7.7% and 10.6%.
Many noble Lords have reminded us, as the Minister did last week, that the promised inaugural Commonwealth Trade Ministers’ meeting has taken place. As we have heard, its objectives were set in Malta in 2015 and reflected the commitment of Commonwealth member countries to a,
“transparent, free and fair multilateral trading system”,
and to define an ambitious Commonwealth-led agenda for growth. However, I am afraid that the International Trade Secretary travelling around the world to hold pre-negotiations with potential trade partners is no substitute for a clear policy. Perhaps if Dr Fox had first focused on policy rather than polemics, we might have been spared the embarrassment of him alienating Commonwealth Ministers with a vision of trade that his own officials refer to as “Empire 2.0”.
The UK must learn to engage constructively with the rich diversity of potential trading partners who are willing to work with us post Brexit. Many Commonwealth trading partners are concerned to see the UK, post Brexit, continue the EU’s GSP-plus system of enhanced preference for countries that have implemented core human and labour rights as well as environmental and good governance conventions. Least developed countries, in particular, need reassurance about the “everything but arms” arrangement, which grants duty-free and quota-free access into our markets to all products from those countries except arms and ammunition. Until the UK signs new FTAs with the nations of the Commonwealth, Britain will be in the odd position of having worse trading terms with these countries than Brussels has. As Sir Simon Fraser, the former head of the UK Foreign Office, noted recently, the damage goes beyond that, saying,
“these EU trade agreements are vital for”,
Commonwealth states’,
“development goals. The UK will no longer be able to champion their access to the EU market as we have in the past”.
Does the Minister not agree that it would have been better for the Government to present to Parliament and the country an international trade White Paper, setting out their international trade principles and a clear plan for what they intend to achieve through future trade negotiations—which may even assist members of the Cabinet to speak with one voice?
As the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, said, it is vital for the UK and the EU to work together constructively to mitigate post-Brexit risks. Does the Minister agree that perhaps the best way of managing the related economic uncertainties would be to specify or include continuity of the trade preferences that developing countries currently enjoy in Europe? However, as we have heard in this excellent debate, the future of Britain within the Commonwealth goes further than trade.
As I have said, Commonwealth government leaders were firmly of the view that Britain within the EU represented a positive force in the development debate in both financial and influence terms, and in ensuring that the EU’s role as the world’s largest multilateral donor followed a more progressive agenda. Britain’s contribution to the EU aid budget has been substantial. In 2014, the Department for International Development distributed £1.14 billion of aid through the European Commission—that aid is considered the best form of support from a multilateral body—including £328 million through the European Development Fund.
The removal of British influence—of British government departments, NGOs and think tanks—from areas of development spending will have direct implications for achieving the sustainable development goals. On her election as Commonwealth Secretary-General, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland committed to,
“build consensus on a revitalised Commonwealth”,
which will focus on the,
“twin goals of democracy and development”.
I totally associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others about her absolute commitment, and how terrible and totally unjustifiable some of the attacks in the media have been. The 2015 final communiqué—
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
In the light of earlier remarks, does my noble friend think that our embassies should now fly the Commonwealth flag, given that our European embassies fly the national flag and the EU flag? Does he not think that would be a logical step forward?
Lord Collins of Highbury
As the Minister knows, I am keen on flags flying at embassies, including the rainbow flag, which we managed to achieve through her efforts. Certainly, I think my noble friend’s suggestion is a good idea.
The 2015 final communiqué welcomed the adoption of the 2030 UN agenda for sustainable development and the 17 goals and 169 targets. We have to keep reminding ourselves of these because it is a very tough agenda to deliver. I would certainly like the Government to engage this Parliament and this House more in discussing how those SDGs are implemented. The universality of the goals and the specific commitment to leave no one behind are key to the importance of Commonwealth involvement. We all have an obligation to be part of the SDGs’ implementation. None of us is immune from scrutiny as regards how well we implement them. In Malta, David Cameron announced a package of initiatives aimed at supporting efforts to build their resilience, increase their access to climate finance and reduce their reliance on aid. This included UK funds to support a new Commonwealth climate finance access hub. Could the Minister update the House on this and its success in leveraging private sector investment for green projects across the Commonwealth?
Another element of today’s debate is good governance and respect for the rule of law, which are vital to achieve stable and prosperous societies as well as efficient, effective and accountable public institutions. Reference has been made to the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Marland. As chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, he said that the focus on free trade agreements hides the real issue, which is that not enough small businesses are exporting. He argued that abuse of the rule of law and a lack of trust in trading partners were barriers to trade for UK companies, and he suggested that the Government should focus on increasing their capacity to support businesses confronted by such obstacles. I hope that the Minister will be able to address those specific concerns of the noble Lord. Of course, the Commonwealth agreed to make anti-corruption work a priority. It committed to strengthen efforts to tackle corruption, including through increased transparency and co-ordination among law agencies.
One area that has not been touched upon is tax havens and international finance policies, which have resulted in developing countries haemorrhaging billions of dollars in taxable financial resources. These tax losses could have been invested in reducing inequality and poverty, and in developing jobs and prosperity. Surely the time has come for this Government to work harder to achieve global agreement on tax, and that must be a top priority across the Commonwealth countries too. Can the Minister update the House on the work that has been done since the anti-corruption summit last year?
As the Minister said in her introduction and as she has said in previous debates, peace and security are also a key issue for the Commonwealth. Since Malta, a priority has been to counter extremism by increasing co-operation between member states. The UK funded a dedicated Commonwealth unit to deliver this. What assessment have the Government made of this work—in particular, of the work with young people and education networks to counter extremism propaganda on the internet?
At the Malta CHOGM the Commonwealth reaffirmed its commitment to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to support the empowerment of women and girls. As we have heard in this debate, LGBT rights remain a major source of division among Commonwealth members. I think that the point has been made that we do not have the right or the opportunity to force states to decriminalise, but we can work with them so that they understand the economic as well as the human rights issues involved in making the necessary change. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has said on numerous occasions, the 2015 CHOGM leaders’ statement recognised the economic potential that can be unlocked by tackling discrimination and exclusion.
My noble friend Lord Cashman highlighted the fact that persecution and criminalisation of identity can also decimate efforts to halt the spread of HIV. It often results in gay people not being able to access the healthcare, education and employment that they need, and it prevents access to HIV testing and treatment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has repeatedly stated the Government’s belief that the Commonwealth must stand up for human rights, including LGBT rights. She has also confirmed in previous debates in the House that the Government are working on plans to ensure that that important message is delivered when hosting CHOGM in 2018. Because of the noble Baroness’s efforts in this field, I doubt that I am alone in hoping that I am one of her GBFs.
The key to progress in 2015 was the way, as we have heard in the debate, in which LGBT activists from criminalising countries were able to lay bare the facts about life as an LGBT person in many Commonwealth countries. As the country of the host Government, the UK is uniquely positioned to create the space for civil society to engage with decision-makers who are not normally willing or able to consider LGBT concerns. How will the Government work with the Kaleidoscope Trust and the excellent Commonwealth Equality Network, which we have heard about in this debate, to include LGBT issues and tackle this problem at the summit? What is the Government’s position on enabling countries from the Global South that have decriminalised to lead on this issue in terms of reforming outdated criminal laws, particularly sexual offences laws? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about providing government funding to enable the Commonwealth Secretariat to support the reform of these outdated criminal laws in Commonwealth member states.
These are uncertain times in intra-Commonwealth relations. It is possible that as well as threatening the future of the UK and the cohesion of the EU, the Brexit vote will also threaten the socioeconomic development and therefore the political stability of Commonwealth countries. I do not want to overplay that and raise the hyperbole, but the fact is that we need to focus on those relationships in a constructive and deliberate way, as partners, not as the former empire and former great nation. We must see ourselves as partners in terms of trade. Ensuring that there is parliamentary engagement at CHOGM may be a key way of addressing those concerns. That was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
In December last year in an exchange on an Oral Question, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, recognised the importance for parliamentary democracies at CHOGM 2018 to have a way of communicating with the event and agreed to take forward the idea of how best we can ensure that there is parliamentary engagement. Will the Minister tell the House how far forward that has been taken?
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, can I say just how much I have enjoyed listening to today’s debate? I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It is a reminder of the depth of interest in and support for the Commonwealth in this House. Today’s debate has really done justice to such an important subject. I add my voice to those of other noble lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Anelay for her excellent work as Commonwealth Minister.
This Government are strongly supporting moves to strengthen the UK’s relationship with the Commonwealth ahead of the Commonwealth summit, which we will be hosting next year. The Commonwealth is a truly extraordinary organisation with immense potential for global influence. Its members, large and small, developed and developing, cover more than a quarter of the world’s land mass. They are home to more than 2 billion people, two-thirds of whom are under 30 years old.
Those are staggering statistics. They mean that if the Commonwealth speaks as one voice, the world should listen. This is why the Commonwealth is so important to the UK. It is not only because of our strong cultural ties from the past, which of course matter to us enormously; it is also because of its potential to influence real change in the future. That is why we are investing so much in supporting the development of our fellow member countries: it is a crucial part of our expanded role on the world stage—the Prime Minister’s vision for a truly global Britain.
The Government are intensifying our efforts to end extreme poverty and promote development. Developing Commonwealth countries benefit substantially from UK official development assistance. In 2015, 10 of the top 50 national recipients were Commonwealth countries and total official development assistance to all Commonwealth countries was more than £3.5 billion. We are investing in the future of the Commonwealth. We support the Commonwealth Youth Programme and the Commonwealth of Learning, and provide funding of £23 million to the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission, which allows young people from Commonwealth developing countries to study and work at UK universities. Furthermore, we have recently agreed to fund a new three-year programme worth more than £33 million for the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, the Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth of Learning. This is in addition to our assessed annual subscription of £5.4 million. The UK remains the principal contributor to the Commonwealth Secretariat. This means that the UK plays a significant part in supporting the three Commonwealth intergovernmental organisations.
We are also literally looking to the future of the Commonwealth by supporting the work of the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust to reduce avoidable blindness. Through its programmes, almost 50,000 people in Africa have had surgery to save their sight from trachoma, and more than 12 million doses of antibiotics have been distributed to people at risk. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, asked about the trust, and I welcome his recognition of it. As I say, the trust is doing important work to eliminate blindness and I am pleased to say that we are providing £50 million of match funding to deliver such impressive results.
The Commonwealth is also important because of its potential to boost trade. The Prime Minister has been clear that leaving the EU presents an opportunity for Britain to revitalise its role as a great trading nation. Trade is a force for good, one of the most dynamic and transformational in the world. It creates jobs, raises incomes and lifts millions of people out of poverty. We believe that trade and development go hand in hand. Trade is a crucial driver of development because enterprise transforms lives, not just those of individuals but whole families, in particular when it creates jobs for women. That is why development is at the heart of the UK’s approach to international trade. Helping developing countries to grow more quickly, trade more freely and break their dependence on aid, it also helps to build up our partners for the future. It shares wealth and prosperity across the Commonwealth and beyond.
That is why we want to encourage more trade between Commonwealth members. It is one of the reasons why we welcomed the decision to hold for the first time a Commonwealth Trade Ministers meeting and why we took the opportunity to co-host it here in London. This is a crucial moment to renew our partnerships with Commonwealth countries and to further strengthen those close relationships we already enjoy. We should all be making more of the comparative advantage of trading within the Commonwealth. I am delighted that there was consensus at the meeting on the need to boost trade.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I say that leaving the EU means that we will want to make our own decisions about how to deliver policy objectives previously targeted by EU funding. We will be consulting closely with stakeholders to ensure that any ongoing funding commitments best help the world’s poorest and deliver value for money. I agree with the noble Earl that the CDC Group, which was formerly the Commonwealth Development Corporation, is an important way of delivering tangible support to developing countries. Since 2012 the CDC Group has invested only in Asia and Africa, but its portfolio of more than £3 billion covers 1,200 companies in 70 countries, and in 2015 these companies created more than 1 million jobs.
Baroness Flather
My Lords, the CDC Group has paid a great deal of money to Narayana Health, a corporate health provider in India, but everything I have found out about it indicates that it is a very rich organisation. If it is creating jobs in India, that is not the way to do it. If it can help people who cannot afford healthcare, it is not doing it.
Baroness Mobarik
I think the noble Baroness has raised this question in a previous debate. Perhaps I should write to her to clarify our position on that issue.
My noble friends Lord Popat and Lord Sheikh rightly recognised the important role played by our trade envoys in delivering our vision for a truly global Britain, particularly in enhancing our relationships with Commonwealth partners. I commend my noble friend Lord Popat for his personal work as trade envoy to Uganda and Rwanda since January 2016. I know that he has built strong links with both countries. The Department for International Trade has recently undertaken a review of the trade envoy programme and recommendations on its future direction are now with the Prime Minister.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord Goodlad raised the issue of pensions. Uprating state pensions overseas is a long-standing policy of successive Governments. This has been the case for almost 70 years and there are no plans to change the policy.
To my noble friend Lord Sheikh I say that we are proud of our long and productive relationship with Commonwealth partners and are committed to delivering a future border system which welcomes investment and promotes prosperity. The precise arrangements for controlling immigration after the UK leaves the EU have yet to be determined. Openness to international talent will remain one of the UK’s distinctive assets.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, mentioned the importance of embedding women’s rights in all future trade deals. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government, through their delivery of a successful Commonwealth summit and their wider trade policy, are committed to building genuinely inclusive prosperity that benefits and provides opportunities for all. We welcome the opportunity for dialogue on human rights and good governance brought about by our close trading partnerships with countries around the world.
Lord Goodlad
My noble friend bracketed my raising the Zimbabwe pensioners with the uprating of the overseas pensions referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. They are completely separate issues. Can she say something in response to what I said?
Baroness Mobarik
I apologise to the noble Lord if I have confused the two issues. I will certainly look at what he said on that issue and get back to him in due course.
Another way in which we are strengthening our ties with the Commonwealth is through our support for reform. We want to see the organisation delivering effectively for its members as well as demonstrating its value and relevance on the world stage. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, was mandated by Heads of Government to reform the Commonwealth Secretariat. We support her plans to modernise and revitalise the secretariat and to focus the Commonwealth on where it adds distinctive value. That means strengthening its relevance to members across different regions and its contribution to tackling global challenges.
The Commonwealth’s potential contribution to tackling these challenges could be immense. This is what we mean when we talk about the Commonwealth as a force for good. The global reach and extraordinary diversity of the Commonwealth mean that it has first-hand experience of most of the world’s greatest challenges, from poverty and violent extremism to conflict, corruption and climate change. All these issues matter to Commonwealth members, and they matter to the world. We want the Commonwealth to do more to use its influence, building consensus on important issues as it did on climate change prior to COP21.
In upholding the values of the Commonwealth charter, the Commonwealth plays an important role in strengthening governance, supporting development and building small states’ resilience to economic and environmental shocks. It also promotes co-operation on issues such as human rights and combating extremism. These are all areas in which the Commonwealth has valuable experience and expertise to share with the wider world.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke of the importance of the work of the Kaleidoscope Trust in developing proposals to promote and protect LGBT rights at the Commonwealth summit. The Government greatly value the work of LGBT civil society organisations and our partnership with them to tackle discrimination and violence against LGBT people. We are aware that members of the Commonwealth Equality Network have drawn up a strategy setting out recommended tools and methods to engage LGBT civil society organisations ahead of the summit. We will consider how we can best support these endeavours. A number of noble Lords raised this issue and requested that we show leadership in this area. I absolutely agree with all noble Lords on that.
Lord Scriven
Very quickly, because I do not want to detain the House, if that is the case would the noble Baroness commit to meeting the Kaleidoscope Trust to see how they can take forward jointly the action plan it has come up with?
Baroness Mobarik
I have it on good authority that we are meeting a large number of civil society groups and we believe that the Kaleidoscope Trust is one of them. We believe the Commonwealth’s experience would be particularly relevant in promoting the golden thread of good governance, transparency and the rule of law, as set out in UN sustainable development goal 16.
My noble friend Lady Berridge asked about the involvement of the Commonwealth diaspora and parliamentarians in the forthcoming summit. In planning for the Commonwealth summit, we will engage with a full range of stakeholders, including the diaspora and parliamentarians. We value the work of CPA UK and CPA International. My noble friend Lady Anelay was pleased to recently meet both CPA UK chief executive Andrew Tuggey and CPA Secretary-General Akbar Khan. British high commissioners around our diplomatic network have regular discussions with parliamentarians and civil society across the Commonwealth, including in Kenya, Fiji and India.
My noble friend Lady Berridge rightly raised the role of religious leaders and the importance of advocating for human rights in the Commonwealth. The Government agree entirely and believe that good governance and respect for human rights are the foundation of the inclusive and sustainable development we all wish to see around the Commonwealth. Stronger trading relationships open up channels for engagement with partners. We will continue to use these opportunities to make this argument.
My noble friend also asked about support for the Commonwealth not appearing to be a UK-only project. Partnership and collaboration between all member states need to be at the heart of a successful Commonwealth. Every member has a different experience to offer and an equal voice in the Commonwealth family. As host of the next Commonwealth summit, it will of course be for us to work with the Commonwealth Secretariat to set the agenda and format but we will actively encourage all the other 51 member states to put forward their views and priorities as part of this. As part of this engagement, Tim Hitchens is meeting all high commissioners next week in smaller regional groupings to discuss the summit.
My noble friend Lord Goodlad asked about Zimbabwe pensions—we might have the right topic here. We frequently raise this issue with the Government of Zimbabwe. Last October, our ambassador in Harare secured written agreement from the Government of Zimbabwe that payments would resume when the economic situation allows. This issue will remain a key strand of the Government’s dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe.
My noble friend Lord Popat asked about a Commonwealth bank. Commonwealth countries are already well served by the current set of multilateral development banks. We are currently developing policy options that will deliver for the collective interests of member states and achieve real impact across the Commonwealth. I reassure my noble friend that the Government are considering options for building inclusive prosperity across our family of nations.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, I say that the Government welcome the good offices of the Secretary-General in mediating on protracted conflicts. As my noble friend Lady Anelay said at the start of the debate, this year’s theme of a peacebuilding Commonwealth is an opportunity to look at what the Commonwealth can bring to bear in this area, through the sharing of experience and expertise.
My noble friend Lady Hooper spoke about the overseas territories. The UK is committed to strengthening the links between the overseas territories and the Commonwealth. Although the overseas territories are not able to attend CHOGMs and annual ministerial meetings in their own right, ahead of the 2018 Commonwealth Summit we will consult them on the agenda and will ensure that their views and interests are taken into account in our policy planning.
Lord Hussain
I asked two questions on human rights and I did not get an answer to either one of them.
Baroness Mobarik
It is the Commonwealth Secretary-General who leads on these issues and I am unable to give the noble Lord an answer today. I know that he is very committed to that cause and feels passionately and deeply about it but I am afraid that that is the only answer I can offer him today.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, we are continuing our transparency and anti-corruption work both with Commonwealth countries and with those that are not members. An update on the anti-corruption summit is a matter for another day and a broader debate.
In conclusion, this Government strongly support efforts to strengthen the ties between the UK and the Commonwealth ahead of the Commonwealth Summit in 2018. We are working hard to support development and boost prosperity across the Commonwealth, through well-targeted aid and encouraging more trade. We are also supporting the reform of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Successful reform will ensure that the organisation not only delivers for its people but exerts greater influence on the world stage, drawing on its wide experience to help address the world’s greatest challenges.
We are delighted to be hosting the next Commonwealth Summit. Together, we will celebrate the achievements of this extraordinary family of nations, and make plans to take it forward into the 21st century as a truly relevant international organisation and a global force for good. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which have been extensive, both in their scope and depth, and visionary for the Commonwealth as a vehicle for peace and prosperity.
Lord Cashman
I reiterate that many noble Lords raised the issue of LGBT human rights. Will the Minister look in detail at the contributions and perhaps respond in writing to us? I thank her for her comments so far.
Baroness Benjamin
Just for clarification, the Minister said that there was no change in the Government’s policy on uprating. Will that apply also to EU-resident British pensioners? If it is going to be changed for one group, it is not fair to the other.
Baroness Mobarik
I can say only that this is outwith the scope of this debate. I am afraid that I am not able to give the noble Baroness any more than I have already. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, of course we will look very carefully at all the speeches and contributions made by noble Lords on the particular issue of LGBT human rights. We will remain in touch and I am sure that this will be an ongoing dialogue.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions—
Baroness Berridge
I raised a specific point about Commonwealth apprenticeships. It is really important that we have this as government policy. If my noble friend could agree to investigate this and write to me, that would be very helpful.
Baroness Mobarik
Once again, I have it on good authority that we will look at all the points raised here today, in what was an opportunity for noble Lords to express their views. The whole debate was very wide-ranging and useful, and it will be ongoing ahead of the summit next year in 2018. But today’s debate was on the whole very positive in its content. It was constructive and I am very delighted that we have had it. We will look again at all noble Lords’ contributions, which have been extensive in their scope and depth and vision for the Commonwealth as a vehicle for peace and prosperity.